Levomepromazine-induced lupus?

Diagnosis and classification of drug-induced autoimmunity (DIA)

Since sulfadiazine associated lupus-like symptoms were first described in 1945, certain drugs have been reported to interfere with the immune system and induce a series of autoimmune diseases (named drug-induced autoimmunity, DIA), exemplified by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Among the drugs, procainamide and hydralazine are considered to be associated with the highest risk for developing lupus, while quinidine has a moderate risk, and all other drugs have low or very low risk. More recently, drug-induced lupus has been associated with the use of newer biological modulators, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors and cytokines. In addition to lupus, other major autoimmune diseases, including vasculitis and arthritis, have also been associated with drugs. Because resolution of symptoms generally occurs after cessation of the offending drugs, early diagnosis is crucial for treatment strategy and improvement of prognosis. Unfortunately, it is difficult to establish standardized criteria for DIA diagnosis. Diagnosis of DIA requires identification of a temporal relationship between drug administration and the onset of symptoms, but the relative risk with respect to dose and duration for each drug has rarely been determined. DIA is affected by multiple genetic and environmental factors, leading to difficulties in establishing a list of global clinical features that are characteristic of most or all DIA patients. Moreover, the distinction between authentic DIA and unmasking of a latent autoimmune disease also poses challenges. In this review, we summarize the highly variable clinical features and laboratory findings of DIA, with an emphasis on the diagnostic criteria.

Evidence for the use of Levomepromazine for symptom control in the palliative care setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug that is used clinically for a variety of distressing symptoms in palliative and end-of-life care. We undertook a systematic review based on the question "What is the published evidence for the use of levomepromazine in palliative symptom control?".

METHODS

To determine the level of evidence for the use of levomepromazine in palliative symptom control, and to discover gaps in evidence, relevant studies were identified using a detailed, multi-step search strategy. Emerging data was then scrutinized using appropriate assessment tools, and the strength of evidence systematically graded in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's 'levels of evidence' tool. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo and Ovid Nursing, together with hand-searching and cross-referencing provided the full research platform on which the review is based.

RESULTS

33 articles including 9 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria: 15 on palliative sedation, 8 regarding nausea and three on delirium and restlessness, one on pain and six with other foci. The studies varied greatly in both design and sample size. Levels of evidence ranged from level 2b to level 5, with the majority being level 3 (non-randomized, non-consecutive or cohort studies n = 22), with the quality of reporting for the included studies being only low to medium.

CONCLUSION

Levomepromazine is widely used in palliative care as antipsychotic, anxiolytic, antiemetic and sedative drug. However, the supporting evidence is limited to open series and case reports. Thus prospective randomized trials are needed to support evidence-based guidelines.