分析抗逆转录病毒药物所致HIV/AIDS患者药疹的临床资料，为药疹防治提供参考。

采用回顾性分析方法，收集2008年11月至2016年12月首都医科大学附属北京地坛医院收治的行抗逆转录病毒药物治疗（ART）而引起药疹的HIV/AIDS患者临床资料，将患者分为依非韦伦（EFV）组（63例）和奈韦拉平（NVP）组（34例），对发生药疹患者的年龄、性别、合并用药、过敏史、药疹分级、潜伏期、CD4⁺ T淋巴细胞计数、嗜酸性粒细胞百分比（EO%）以及治疗措施等进行分析。

97例药疹患者中男性87例，女性10例，年龄18～68岁，合并用药6～20种。有过敏史者23例，69例（74.19%）患者伴EO%升高。NVP组患者重症药疹发生率（47.06%）显著高于EFV组患者（14.29%），差异有统计学意义（χ²= 12.398、P < 0.001）。70.10%（68/97）患者药疹发生在ART治疗2周内，其中EFV组患者中51例（81.95%），NVP组患者中17例（50.00%），差异无统计学意义。治疗2～4周内，NVP组患者药疹发生率显著高于EFV组（χ²= 4.750、P = 0.029）。CD4⁺T细胞≤200个/μl患者易发生药疹（54/97，55.67%），EFV组患者药疹发生率高于NVP组，差异有统计学意义（χ²= 4.705，P= 0.030）；CD4⁺ T细胞为201～499个/μl患者中NVP组药疹发生率显著高于EFV组（χ²= 7.109、P= 0.008）；CD4⁺ T细胞≥500个/μl患者中两组药疹发生率差异无统计学意义。97例药疹患者经治疗均好转出院。NVP组停药者显著多于EFV组（79.41% vs. 22.22%，χ²= 7.109，P= 0.008）；NVP组接受甘草酸制剂和糖皮质激素治疗的药疹患者比例显著高于EFV组，差异具有统计学意义（44.44%vs. 70.59%，χ²= 6.069、P= 0.014）。

尽管EFV和NVP引起皮疹特点各异，但通常均发生在抗病毒治疗4周内，NVP更易引起重症皮疹；CD4⁺T≤200个/μl患者更易发生药疹，合并用药种类多为危险因素，药疹发生时患者EO%可升高，EO%可作为监测皮疹发生的指标。

To investigate the clinical data of drug eruption induced by antiretroviral drugs in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), and to provide reference for the prevention and control.

The clinical data of 97 HIV/AIDS patients with drug eruption induced by antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University from November 2008 to December 2016 were analyzed, retrospectively, and patients were devided into efavirenz (EFV) group (63 cases) and nevirapine (NVP) group (34 cases). The age, sex, drug combination, allergies, rashes, incubation period, CD4⁺ T lymphocyte count, eosinophil percentage (EO%) and treatments were analyzed.

The 97 cases aged from 18 to 68 years, including 87 male and 10 female. There were 23 patients with a history of allergies and 69 (74.19%) patients with elevated EO%. The difference of the incidence of serious rash had significant difference (χ²= 12.398,P< 0.001) between the two group (47.06%vs. 14.29%). There were 70.10% patients (68/97) had a rash within two weeks of ART treatment, with 51 cases (81.95%) in EFV group and 17 cases (50.00%) in NVP group, with no significant difference (P> 0.05). The incidence of rash in NVP group was higher than that of EFV group after 2 to 4 weeks of ART treatment (χ²= 4.750,P= 0.029). And 55.67% (54/97) patients with CD4⁺T≤200 cells/μl broke out rashes, and EFV group was higher than that of NVP group (χ²= 4.705,P= 0.030). Among patients with CD4⁺T 201-499 cells/μl, the incidence of rash in NVP group was higher than that in EFV group, with significant difference (χ²= 7.109,P= 0.008). Among patients with CD4⁺T > 500 cells/μl in both group, there was no significant difference (P> 0.05). All patients improved and were discharged after treatment. The percentage of patients who withdrawed drug in NVP group was significantly higher than that of EFV group (79.41%vs. 22.22%;χ²= 7.109,P= 0.008). The proportion of patients receiving glycyrrhizin and glucocorticoid therapy in NVP group was significantly higher than that in EFV group, with significant difference (70.59%vs. 44.44%;χ²= 6.069,P= 0.014).

Although rashes of EFV and NVP had different characteristics, but both commonly occurred within 4 weeks of ART treatment. Rashes induced by NVP were more serious than that of EFV. It is likely to occur in patients with CD4⁺T≤200 cells/μl and the combination of drug types may be a risk factor. EO% of patients increased when drug rash occurs, and EO% could be taken as an indicator to monitor rash occurrence.