Title: Presumed “sulfa allergy” in patients with intracranial hypertension treated with acetazolamide or furosemide: cross-reactivity, myth or reality? - ScienceDirect
Headings: Presumed “sulfa allergy” in patients with intracranial hypertension treated with acetazolamide or furosemide: cross-reactivity, myth or reality?
☆

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Original article
Presumed “sulfa allergy” in patients with intracranial hypertension treated with acetazolamide or furosemide: cross-reactivity, myth or reality? ☆
Abstract
Purpose
Design
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Methods
Results
Discussion
Biosketch
References

Content: Presumed “sulfa allergy” in patients with intracranial hypertension treated with acetazolamide or furosemide: cross-reactivity, myth or reality? - ScienceDirect
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 138, Issue 1, July 2004, Pages 114-118
Original article
Presumed “sulfa allergy” in patients with intracranial hypertension treated with acetazolamide or furosemide: cross-reactivity, myth or reality? ☆
Author links open overlay panel
Andrew G.LeeMDabc RandyAndersonBSd Randy H.Kardon MD, PhDae MichaelWallMDabe
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2004.02.019 Get rights and content
Abstract
Purpose
To determine whether acetazolamide or furosemide produce allergic cross-reactions in patients with self-reported “sulfa allergy.” Design
Retrospective case series. Methods
A retrospective review included patients with intracranial hypertension and a self-reported sulfa allergy treated with either acetazolamide or furosemide seen at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics from 1972 to 2003. All presumed medication-related side effects were collected, including both predictable adverse effects (for example, paresthesias, fatigue) and unpredictable adverse reactions (for example, cutaneous fixed eruptions, urticaria, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, angioedema, anaphylaxis). Results
We reviewed 363 charts. Of these, 329 patients (91%) were excluded.