Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2867_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
15 Мб
Скачать
☆
2 Angioedema Bowel Blockade: The Misdiagnosis of Hereditary Angioedema as…
Orphanet J Rare Dis 2020;15(1):221 Published 2020 Aug 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13023- 020- 01506- 5.
6. Zanichelli A, Longhurst HJ, Maurer M, etal. Misdiagnosis trends in patients with heredi­tary angioedema from the real-world clinical setting. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;117(4):394–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2016.08.014.
7. Longhurst H, Cicardi M.Hereditary angio-oedema. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):474–81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(11)60935- 5F.
8. Hirose T, Kimbara F, Shinozaki M, etal. Screening for hereditary angioedema (HAE) at 13 emergency centers in Osaka, Japan: a prospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(6):e6109. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006109.
9. Figueroa-Diaz LC, Rodriguez-Ruiz FG, Betancourt-Torres M, Ojeda-Boscana IL, Lara JA. Non-surgical Management of Colo-Colonic Intussusception in patients with heredi­tary angioedema. Am J Case Rep. 2018;19:1208–11. Published 2018 Oct 10. https://doi.
org/10.12659/AJCR.91022.
10. Eck SL, Morse JH, Janssen DA, Emerson SG, Markovitz DM.Angioedema presenting as chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88(3):436–9.
11. Rubinstein E, Stolz LE, Sheffer AL, Stevens C, Bousvaros A. Abdominal attacks and treat­ment in hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deciency. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014;14:71. Published 2014 Apr 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471- 230X- 14- 71.
12. Campos RA, Valle SOR, Toledo EC.Hereditary angioedema: a disease seldom diagnosed by pediatricians. J Pediatr. 2021;97(Suppl 1):S10–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.10.011.
13. Memon RJ, Tiwari V.Angioedema. [Updated 2022 May 1]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
books/NBK538489/?report=classic
14. Bork K, Bindewald H, Böckers M, Eckardt V.Aszites und vermeintliches akutes abdomen bei hereditärem Angioödem durch C1-inhibitor-Mangel [ascites and suspected acute abdo­men in hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deciency]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1997;122(44):1347–50. https://doi.org/10.1055/s- 2008- 1047770.
15. Zanichelli A, Azin GM, Cristina F, Vacchini R, Caballero T. Safety, effectiveness, and impact on quality of life of self-administration with plasma-derived nanoltered C1 inhibitor (Berinert®) in patients with hereditary angioedema: the SABHA study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13(1):51. Published 2018 Apr 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023- 018- 0797- 3.
16. Kothari ST, Shah AM, Botu D, Spira R, Greenblatt R, Depasquale JIsolated angioedema of the bowel due to C1 esterase inhibitor deciency: a case report and review of literature. JMed Case Rep. 2011;5:467. J Med Case Rep. 2011;5:62. Published 2011 Feb 14. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1752-1947-5-62.
17. Iwanami K, Okano T, Ohara O, Morio T.Recurrent acute abdomen as the Main manifestation of hereditary angioedema. Intern Med. 2019;58(2):213–6. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalme
dicine.1559- 18.
18. Killedar MM, Malani AS.Hereditary angioedema-presenting as recurrent abdominal pain. Indian J Surg. 2011;73(6):444–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262- 011- 0255- 0.
19. Marenah CB, Quiney JR.C1 esterase inhibitor deciency as a cause of abdominal pain. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983;286(6367):786–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6367.786.
20. Warin RP, Higgs ER. Acute and recurrent abdominal pain due to hereditary angio-oedema. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;284(6333):1912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.284.6333.1912.
21. Soni P, Kumar V, Alliu S, Shetty V. Hereditary angioedema (HAE): a cause for recurrent abdominal pain. BMJ Case Rep. 2016;2016:bcr2016217196. Published 2016 Nov 14. https://
doi.org/10.1136/bcr- 2016- 217196.
22. Chen X, Yang YX, Liu YL, Gan HT, Wen ZH.Hereditary angioedema: a rare cause of recurrent abdominal pain. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30(5):1147–9. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5524.
23. Jáuregui Presa I, Varona Peinador M, Pérez Bea M, et al. Acute abdomen in a patient with homozygous type I hereditary angioedema: rapid improvement in computed tomography scans after C1 inhibitor replacement. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2013;23(7):504–6.
17
Chapter 3
Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption DuetoFluconazole Imitating Herpes Simplex
FatimaAnwer
Learning Objectives
By the end of this presentation, the clinician will be able to:
1. Discuss what xed drug eruptions are.
2. Enumerate the drugs that are most likely to cause xed drug eruptions and understand their pathogenesis.
3. Describe how to diagnose and treat xed drug eruptions.
4. Differentiate the mucosal xed drug eruptions from recurrent herpes simplex.
5. Elaborate on the importance of taking a thorough drug history to prevent misdiagnosis.

Introduction

Fixed drug eruptions (FDEs) are recurring erythematous plaques that occur at the exact anatomical location due to drug allergy. They happen every time after the drug is administered [1]. It is supposed to be caused by the activation of epidermal CD8(+) T cells that produce plenty of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) [2]. Antibiotics and analgesics are the leading cause of FDE [3]. Oral uconazole is most frequently associated with FDE around the mouth, which resembles the recur­rent herpes simplex lesion and has been misdiagnosed [4]. We discuss a misdiag­nosed case of FDE after uconazole.
F. Anwer (*) PGY-1, Internal Medicine, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Tohid et al. (eds.), The Misdiagnosis Casebook in Clinical Medicine,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28296-6_3
19
20
F. A nwe r

Clinical Case Presentation

A 25year-old-female reported a history of recurrent vesicles in the perioral area. They appeared on the third day of every cycle with burning and tingling in the affected area. There was no fever or systemic symptoms. She was diagnosed with recurrent herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection by a few dermatologists she has visited previously. She started taking oral acyclovir followed by oral valacyclovir as prophylaxis for recurrent HSV.The problem persisted despite taking the medica­tion, and she kept visiting doctors. The patient had redness, burning sensation and pain in the affected area. They suspected the HSV was resistant to medication.
Physical examination revealed a bunch of vesicles, 2–3mm in size, in the peri­oral area. Labs including complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), urine analysis, serum IgM, IgG, and IgA came back normal. Syphilis and HIV screening came back negative, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for herpes and cultures from vesicles came back negative.
The patient later revealed that she had been taking uconazole monthly for recur­rent vaginal candidiasis. This led to the nal diagnosis, which was a xed drug eruption due to uconazole, as the blisters always appeared a few hours after taking the drug. Fluconazole was discontinued, and she didn’t report any recurrence on her 3-month follow-up.

Differential Diagnosis

1. Erythema Multiforme – Erythema multiforme presents as tiny, evenly distrib-
uted lesions that mainly involve acral areas. On the other hand, FDE is distrib­uted primarily to the trunk. There is no hyperpigmentation after the lesions resolve, and FDE recurs at the same spot. Both can involve mucosa [5]. When compared to FDE, histopathology is incredibly different. There could be lique­factive basal epidermal cell degeneration, necrotic keratinocytes, and lympho­cyte exocytosis. Necrosis is prominent in the dusky center of the targetoid lesion [6].
2. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS)– Stevens-Johnson lesions begin as a morbil-
liform rash and are less well-dened than FDE lesions. In addition, systemic ndings are always present in SJS patients, and the disease spreads rapidly [5]. SJS occurs 6–21 days after inciting the drug. It has mucosal involvement in >90% of the cases. Histology consists of pauci-inammatory inltrate with many eosinophils and total thickness epidermal necrosis [7].
3. Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis—Toxic epidermal necrolysis is a therapeutic emer-
gency. It is caused by drugs or infections and damages the keratinocytes. It leads to various hydroelectric disorders and systemic infections. Greater than 30% of the body area has mucocutaneous detachment. Histology shows necrotic kerati­nocytes [8].
3 Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption DuetoFluconazole Imitating Herpes Simplex
4. Herpes Simplex Virus—FDE is frequently misdiagnosed as a herpes simplex
virus infection. In the case of FDE, a hyperpigmented patch appears after the lesion has healed, and drug history is invariably present. Furthermore, if antiviral treatment fails, a biopsy of the lesion should be performed, and PCR for herpes simplex should be ordered to look for the virus [9].
21
What WasMisdiagnosed inThis Case andWhy?
FDE was misdiagnosed as the patient forgot to mention the uconazole she used once a month for vaginal candidiasis. Moreover, the lesions were recurrent and occurred at the same spots, which resembles Herpes Simplex lesions.

Discussion

Fixed drug eruptions are a cutaneous adverse effect of a drug dened by lesions that reappear in the same spot after the patient takes the offending medication [10]. FDE is responsible for 10% of cutaneous drug reactions, and it can occur at any site but mainly on hands, lips, and genitalia [11].
Pathogenesis andPresentation ofFixed Drug Eruptions
FDE is a delayed-type cellular hypersensitivity response [12]. FDE presents as a single or a small number of itchy, red macules with distinct margins that later evolve into edematous plaques. Once the triggering medicine is discontinued, the lesion disappears, leaving hyperpigmentation. The lesion ares up within 30mins to 8h after drug intake [13]. The lesions last for around 1–3weeks after discontinuing the drug [11]. The pathogenesis is caused by intraepidermal CD8+ T cells. These cells are not cytolytic in general, but once triggered by CD3-T-cell receptor complex, they start killing natural killer sensitive or NK-resistant tumor cells and keratino­cytes. CD8+ T cells cause direct cytolysis by perforins. Additionally, they release lots of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ). IFN-γ recruits unchecked CD4+, CD8+ T cells and neutrophils and enhances tissue damage. These intradermal CD8+T cells are abundant in the FDE lesions [13].
The most characteristic nding of FDE is recurrence at the same site. Although most lesions have persistent hyperpigmentation in the aficted region, some uncommon variants leave no residual hyperpigmentation. Several distinctive forms have been reported, including erythema multiforme-like FDE, toxic epidermal necrolysis- like FDE, linear FDE, etc. [14]. Mahboob A and Haroon TS studied 450 cases of FDE. 72% of the patients had no symptoms, while 24% reported itching,
22
burning, or combination. Rest 3.8% reported local pain. 84% had lesions on mul­tiple sites of the body. Lips were the most involved site. 31% reported back to the hospital within 1year due to missed diagnosis on their rst visit and lack of aware­ness led to multiple episodes. The lesions were hyperpigmented primarily. Some distinctive forms, including urticaria, dermatitis, periorbital, and generalized hyper melanosis, were also reported. Clotrimazole was the most common cause of FDE [15].
F. A nwe r

Diagnostic Approach Toward Fixed Drug Eruptions

The patch test is the most common method to diagnose FDE, and it is less damag­ing, but it is less realistic. Positive outcomes rely on the causative medication, and it was more accurate when contrast medium or antiepileptics were the culprits [16]. A biopsy is recommended in undiagnosed cases or those with systemic symptoms or atypical appearance [17]. Clotrimazole was the most common cause of FDE.Localized lesions are caused by trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and NSAIDs. Oral mucosa is involved with naproxen and TMP-SMX.Antibiotics cause generalized bullous variants [15, 17].
Treatment ofFixed Drug Eruptions
Treatment involves removing the harmful medication and providing supportive care. Oral antihistamines and medium to high dosage of topical corticosteroids could be administered for pruritus. Oral steroids are of no benet. Cyclosporine has also shown a favorable response in some patients [13]. We have discussed a case of FDE after uconazole. The FDE mainly involves mucosa and recurs every time the drug is readministered, and it was mistaken for recurrent herpes. Mucosal FDE can masquerade as herpes. Many cases of FDE are mistaken for herpes simplex lesions, and it is critical to establish a correct diagnosis by knowing the difference between lesions. Most patients respond to itraconazole, so it can be used to treat the fungal infection instead [9, 18, 19].

Conclusion

Fixed drug eruptions are the type 4 hypersensitivity reaction to drugs. It develops as an allergic response to medication and can manifest as various lesions, ranging from mucosal vesicles that mirror herpes simplex to bullous lesions that imitate dif­ferent bullous disorders. It’s vital to get the correct diagnosis to avoid recurrent reactions.
3 Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption DuetoFluconazole Imitating Herpes Simplex
23

References

1. Sánchez-Borges M, González-Aveledo LA.Fixed drug eruptions induced by cross-reactive imidazoles. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2011;39(4):246–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aller.2010.07.003.
2. Shiohara T, Mizukawa Y.Fixed drug eruption: a disease mediated by self-inicted responses of intraepidermal T cells. Eur J Dermatol. 2007;17(3):201–8. https://doi.org/10.1684/
ejd.2007.0149.
3. Breathnach SM, Burns DA, Cox NH, Grifths CE, editors. Rook’s textbook of dermatology. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
4. Calogiuri G, Garvey LH, Nettis E, etal. Skin allergy to azole antifungal agents for systemic use: a review of the literature. Recent Patents Inamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2019;13(2):144–57.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1872213X13666190919162414.
5. Cheraghlou S, Levy LL.Fixed drug eruptions, bullous drug eruptions, and lichenoid drug erup­tions. Clin Dermatol. 2020;38(6):679–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.06.010.
6. Sokumbi O, Wetter DA.Clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of erythema multiforme: a review for the practicing dermatologist. Int J Dermatol. 2012;51(8):889–902. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365- 4632.2011.05348.x.
7. Gavin, Meredith etal. “Contrast-induced generalized bullous xed drug eruption resembling Stevens-Johnson syndrome.” Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) vol. 32,4 601–602. 2019, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2019.1644147.
8. Castelain F, Humbert P.Toxic epidermal necrolysis. Curr Drug Saf. 2012;7(5):332–8. https://
doi.org/10.2174/157488612805076516.
9. Jensen ZN, et al. Fluconazole-induced xed drug eruption imitating herpes labialis with erythema multiforme. Eur J Dermatol EJD. 2012;22(5):693–4. https://doi.org/10.1684/
ejd.2012.1806.
10. Anderson HJ, Lee JB.A review of xed drug eruption with a special focus on generalized bul­lous xed drug eruption. Medicina. 2021;57(9):925.
11. Genest G, Thomson DMP. Fixed drug eruption to quinine: a case report and review of the literature. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2014;2(4):469–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaip.2014.02.013.
12. A case of entecavir-associated bullous xed drug eruption and a review of literature. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2019;30(3):299–302. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg. https://doi.org/10.5152/
tjg.2019. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg.2018.17887.
13. Shiohara T. Fixed drug eruption: pathogenesis and diagnostic tests. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;9(4):316–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832cda4c.
14. Fixed Drug Eruptions. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2000;1(5):277–85. https://doi.
org/10.2165/00128071-200001050-00003.
15. Mahboob A, Haroon TS.Drugs causing xed eruptions: a study of 450 cases. Int J Dermatol. 1998;37(11):833–38. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00451.x.
16. Ohtoshi S, Kitami Y, Sueki H, Nakada T.Utility of patch testing for patients with drug erup­tion. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2014;39(3):279–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ced.12239.
17. Patel S, John AM, Handler MZ, Schwartz RA. Fixed drug eruptions: an update emphasiz­ing the potentially lethal generalized bullous xed drug eruption. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(3):393–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-020-00505-3.
18. Fixed drug eruption masquerading as herpes simplex labialis. BMJ. 1984;289(6448):802.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.289.6448.802.
19. Schneller-Pavelescu L, Ochando-Ibernón G, Vergara-de Caso E, Silvestre-Salvador JF.Herpes simplex–like xed drug eruption induced by uconazole without cross-reactivity to itracon­azole. Dermatitis. 2019;30(2):174–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000451.
Chapter 4
Deciency ofAdenosine Deaminase Type 2 (DADA2) Masquerading asGATA-Binding Factor 2 (GATA2) Deciency
FatimaAnwer
Learning Objectives
By the end of this presentation, the clinician will be able to:
1. Discuss the phenotypic overlap between certain primary immunodeciency disorders.
2. Identify the various hematologic, autoimmune and vasculitis manifestations of DADA2.
3. Correctly diagnose DADA2 and know the role of whole-exome sequencing in diagnosing DADA2.
4. Classify the various treatment modalities available to treat the disease effectively.
5. Articulate the value of early detection and therapy in reducing mortality and improving prognosis.

Introduction

Adenosine is produced within or on the surface of cells by breaking adenine, a purine nucleotide. It is important for anti-inammatory effects, boosting the oxygen supply/demand ratio, preconditioning, and angiogenesis promotion. It acts through G-coupled receptors, and it’s more active when there’s tissue injury or stress [1, 2]. Deciency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) is an autosomal recessive condition caused by a loss of function mutation in the adenosine deaminase 2 gene, originally known as cat eye syndrome critical region protein 1 (CECR1 gene). Neutrophils play an important role in DADA2 pathogenesis by forming neutrophil extracellular traps (NET) [3]. NET, in turn, leads to vasculopathy and direct endothelial injury
F. Anwer (*) PGY-1, Internal Medicine, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Tohid et al. (eds.), The Misdiagnosis Casebook in Clinical Medicine,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28296-6_4
25
26
F. A nwe r
leading to vascular plaque formation and thrombosis [4]. DADA2 commonly affects children. However, sometimes it can also appear in adults and is expressed as a multiorgan disease. The disease can manifest as immunodeciency, medium vessel vasculitis, hematologic disease, or even stroke [5].

Clinical Case Presentation

A 20-year-old Hispanic female presented for the evaluation of febrile neutropenia, anemia, and invasive Fusarium proliferatum sinusitis. She was diagnosed with com­mon variable immune deciency (CVID) at seven and had low Immunoglobulin G (IgG). She has also been admitted at the age of 19 due to febrile neutropenia, right maxillary sinusitis due to Fusarium proliferatum, sepsis, and respiratory failure sec­ondary to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli. She required ICU care, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and corticosteroids at that time. For the patient’s laboratory results, see Table4.1.
Her bone marrow was mildly hypocellular and showed no neutrophils or neutro­phil precursors (promyelocytes, myelocytes, and/or metamyelocytes). It showed erythroid predominance, myeloid hypoplasia, very low CD20+ B cells, and increased T cells with lymphohistiocytic aggregates. There was no evidence of dysplasia.
Flow cytometric analysis (FCA) of bone marrow aspirate revealed 4% myelo­blasts, absent maturing neutrophil precursors, monocytopenia, severe B-cell lym­phopenia, and increased T cells with a CD4:CD8 ratio of 0.48 (normal >1). She also developed monocytopenia and Mycobacterium avium infection (MonoMAC) syn­drome. The patient’s history and bone marrow ndings were consistent with MonoMAC syndrome due to GATA2 deciency. But when tested, they found no mutation of GATA2. Additionally, in GATA2 deciency, the dendritic cells and B-cell precursors are absent in the bone marrow. However, cytogenetic analysis of the patient’s bone marrow was normal with both dendritic cells and B-cell precur­sors. Whole-exome sequencing depicted a unique, homozygous change leading to a
Table 4.1 Patient’s laboratory results
Cell type Results Reference range
White blood cells 0.7 ↓ cells/μl 4.2–9.0×103 cells/μl Absolute neutrophil count 0 ↓ cells/μl 1.7–5.3×103 cells/μl Absolute monocytes count 0 ↓ cells/μl 0.3–0.8×103 cells/μl CD20+ B cells 0 ↓ cells/μl 1121 100–600 cells/μl Hemoglobin Hb 10.2 ↓ g/dl 11.2–15.7g/dL Platelets 125 ↓ cells/μl 173–369×103 cells/μl ABS CD19+ 0 ↓ cells/μl 61–321 cells/μl ABS NK(CD56+) 32 ↓ cells/μl 126–729 cells/μl ABS CD3+ 645 ↓ cells/μl 714–2266 cells/μl
4 Deciency of Adenosine Deaminase Type 2 (DADA2) Masquerading…
premature stop codon, c.794C>G, p. Gln265Stop, in CECR1-encoding adenosine deaminase 2 (ADA2). Sanger sequencing of parents and siblings was done, and it showed all to be heterozygous for the mutation. Although they originate from a remote town, the family claimed no consanguinity, and a homozygous area of 650kb surrounding CECR1 suggests a shared ancestral allele. No one else in the family had any signs or symptoms of the condition. However, the neutrophil counts of both the father and two twin sisters were somewhat low.
Plasma ADA 2 levels were undetectable in the patient while intermediate in par­ents and siblings. The patient underwent a haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant HSCT from her 17-year-old sister, who had normal blood counts and no history of immunodeciency. On post-op day 8, she caught methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia and bacteremia and was put on mechanical ventilation. She had neutrophil engraftment on post-op day 19 and was extubated on post-op day 20. The invasive Fusarium infection was resolved. After 1month, her CD3+ and myeloid chimerism were precisely the same as the donor, and her monocyte count and NK cell count returned to normal. CD19+ B cells nor­malized after 1 year. Immunosuppression was gradually stopped after about 6 months. A 2-year follow-up showed a completely normal blood count and no clinical abnormalities. The plasma ADA2 levels also normalized after the trans­plant [6].
27

Differential Diagnosis

1. Immunodeciency mimics CVID.
2. GATA2 deciency.
3. MonoMAC syndrome.
4. Polyarteritis nodosa.
5. Sneddon syndrome.
6. Diamond-Blackfan anemia.
7. Stroke.
What WasMisdiagnosed inThis Case andWhy?
In this case, the DADA2 was misconstrued as CVID rst, and GATA2 deciency later as the peripheral blood count and bone marrow ndings pointed toward GATA2 deciency. Additionally, the patient had immunodeciency and multiple infections, including MonoMAC syndrome, further supporting the GATA2 deciency. However, the GATA2 levels were normal, ruling out the possibility. The whole­exome sequencing led to the nal diagnosis of DADA2 due to premature stop codon in the CECR1 gene.
28
F. A nwe r

Discussion

DADA2 is a monogenic disorder that affects multiple organs [7]. The syndrome is mainly characterized by medium vessel vasculitis, resembling polyarteritis nodosa, early stroke, recurrent fever, and slight immunodeciency. The phenotypic appear­ance varies considerably. The illness generally shows up in childhood. However, some people go unidentied until adulthood [8]. DADA2 should be suspected in the patient presenting with recurrent fever, rash, and strokes even in the absence of fam­ily history. The patients exhibit hematological problems, including pure red cell aplasia (PRCA), hypogammaglobulinemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia [9]. Patients presenting with hematologic manifestations like PRCA and bone marrow failure present with severe disease and complete loss of function of ADA2. In con­trast, those who suffer from vasculitis presented late in the course of the disease and had missense mutation with roughly 3% residual enzyme function. The hemato­logic symptoms do not respond to treatment with tumor necrotic factor (TNF) inhib­itors. On the other hand, vasculitis symptoms usually respond well to TNF inhibitors [10]. The clinical manifestations of the DADA2 are shown in Fig.4.1.
The skin and central nervous systems are most involved. Approximately 50% of patients have constitutional symptoms like fever and high erythrocyte sedimenta­tion rate or elevated C-reactive proteins. Musculoskeletal symptoms are reported less often [9].
DADA2 is sometimes misdiagnosed as common variable immunodeciency (CVID) or deciency of antibodies. Schepp J etal. in 2017 conducted a study on a cohort of 181 patients with decient antibodies and used next-generation
Fig. 4.1 Clinical manifestation of adenosine deaminase deciency type 2. (There can be an over­lap of vasculitis, hematologic, and autoimmune symptoms)