Nataly Flores-García, Carlos Correa-Serrano, Juan Carlos Cardenas-Favela, Diana Cadenas-García, Rosalaura Villarreal-González
{"title":"[Diosmin-hesperidin-induced DRESS syndrome: immune reactivation by herpesvirus].","authors":"Nataly Flores-García, Carlos Correa-Serrano, Juan Carlos Cardenas-Favela, Diana Cadenas-García, Rosalaura Villarreal-González","doi":"10.29262/ram.v72i3.1502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction. The incidence is 1-1,000,000 with a mortality rate of 3.8-10%, and it is a disease associated with reactivation of the herpes simplex virus.</p><p><strong>Case report: </strong>A 34-year-old woman with atopy and venous insufficiency presented with pruritic hives on her face and arms, which progressed to a morbilliform rash, facial edema, fever, lymphadenopathy, and scaling. A complete blood count showed no abnormalities: AST: 837 U/L, ALT: 11352 U/L. Due to the suspicion of DRESS syndrome, treatment with corticosteroids was initiated and a biopsy was obtained. Upon questioning, the patient reported having taken diosmin-hesperidin and undergone systemic sunscreen (Heliocare360°®) 21 days prior to the onset of the rash. Histopathological examination revealed atrophic epidermis, vacuolar degeneration, and inflammatory infiltrate. Systemic corticosteroids were administered for three weeks, with a satisfactory response. Two months later, the patient experienced reactivation of the dermatosis and hypertransaminasemia; the autoantibody panel and serology were positive for IgM for herpes simplex virus.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This case underscores the need to consider severe hypersensitivity reactions, even with commonly used and apparently low-risk drugs. The importance of a comprehensive approach, including identification of the suspected medication, exclusion of differential diagnoses, prolonged clinical follow-up, and surveillance for possible viral reactivation, is emphasized.</p>","PeriodicalId":101421,"journal":{"name":"Revista alergia Mexico (Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico : 1993)","volume":"72 3","pages":"57-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista alergia Mexico (Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico : 1993)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v72i3.1502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction. The incidence is 1-1,000,000 with a mortality rate of 3.8-10%, and it is a disease associated with reactivation of the herpes simplex virus.
Case report: A 34-year-old woman with atopy and venous insufficiency presented with pruritic hives on her face and arms, which progressed to a morbilliform rash, facial edema, fever, lymphadenopathy, and scaling. A complete blood count showed no abnormalities: AST: 837 U/L, ALT: 11352 U/L. Due to the suspicion of DRESS syndrome, treatment with corticosteroids was initiated and a biopsy was obtained. Upon questioning, the patient reported having taken diosmin-hesperidin and undergone systemic sunscreen (Heliocare360°®) 21 days prior to the onset of the rash. Histopathological examination revealed atrophic epidermis, vacuolar degeneration, and inflammatory infiltrate. Systemic corticosteroids were administered for three weeks, with a satisfactory response. Two months later, the patient experienced reactivation of the dermatosis and hypertransaminasemia; the autoantibody panel and serology were positive for IgM for herpes simplex virus.
Conclusion: This case underscores the need to consider severe hypersensitivity reactions, even with commonly used and apparently low-risk drugs. The importance of a comprehensive approach, including identification of the suspected medication, exclusion of differential diagnoses, prolonged clinical follow-up, and surveillance for possible viral reactivation, is emphasized.