Abstract | PURPOSE: DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: RESULTS: We reviewed 363 charts. Of these, 329 patients (91%) were excluded. Of the remaining 34 cases that did report a so-called sulfa allergy, 13 (38%) received acetazolamide alone, 7 (21%) received furosemide alone, and 14 (41%) received both acetazolamide and furosemide. Of the 27 patients who received acetazolamide, 10 (37%) had no documented allergic cross-reaction to sulfa, and 2 (7%) cases had urticaria. The remaining 15 (56%) of acetazolamide-treated patients experienced predictable adverse reactions for this drug (for example, paresthesias). No patient experienced a severe allergic cross-reaction to sulfa. Of 21 patients who received furosemide, no unpredictable adverse reactions or allergic cross-reactions to sulfa were noted. CONCLUSIONS: We find little clinical or pharmacological evidence to suggest that a self-reported sulfa allergy is likely to produce a life-threatening cross-reaction with acetazolamide or furosemide. These medications should be considered for intracranial hypertension if the risk-to-benefit ratio warrants their use.
|
Authors | Andrew G Lee, Randy Anderson, Randy H Kardon, Michael Wall |
Journal | American journal of ophthalmology
(Am J Ophthalmol)
Vol. 138
Issue 1
Pg. 114-8
(Jul 2004)
ISSN: 0002-9394 [Print] United States |
PMID | 15234289
(Publication Type: Journal Article)
|
Chemical References |
- Diuretics
- Furosemide
- Acetazolamide
|
Topics |
- Acetazolamide
(adverse effects, chemistry)
- Cross Reactions
- Diuretics
(adverse effects, chemistry)
- Drug Hypersensitivity
(etiology)
- Furosemide
(adverse effects, chemistry)
- Humans
- Intracranial Hypertension
(drug therapy)
- Retrospective Studies
- Self Disclosure
|