Introduction:The diagnosis of adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) can be very difficult. There are no specific tests and reliance is usually placed on a symptom complex and the well described typical rash seen in most...Introduction:The diagnosis of adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) can be very difficult. There are no specific tests and reliance is usually placed on a symptom complex and the well described typical rash seen in most patients. In recent years, however, other cutaneous manifestations of AOSD have been reported but these are not so well known. Observations:We report a patient with urticaria and fixed plaques and review the other ‘atypical’cutaneous findings associated with AOSD. Conclusions:The diagnosis of AOSD can be made in the absence of the typical Still’s rash but in the presence of other atypical cutaneous features.展开更多
Atypical cases of pityriasis rosea (PR) are fairly common and less readily recognized than typical eruptions. We present four patients for whom we believe atypical PR is the most likely diagnosis. A 33-year-old man ha...Atypical cases of pityriasis rosea (PR) are fairly common and less readily recognized than typical eruptions. We present four patients for whom we believe atypical PR is the most likely diagnosis. A 33-year-old man had purpuric lesions bilaterally on the legs with classical rash on the trunk. A 28-year-old woman had intensely pruritic and urticarial lesions. A 10-yearold girl had hundreds of small papular lesions 1-3 mm in size. A pregnant woman aged 26 had oral haemorrhagic ulcers with classical PR eruption on her trunk. The oral ulcers erupted and remitted at the same time as the generalized eruption. We reviewed the literature and proposed a classification based on rashmorphology,rashsize,rashdistribution,numberoflesions, site of lesions, severity of symptoms and course of the eruption. We believe that it is difficult to make a clear division to define typical and atypical PR, and that it is important not to ascribe any unusual or atypical skin eruption with PR unless other dermatoses have been excluded.展开更多
Background. The exact incidence of textile dermatitis is unknown because of the lack of controlled epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing has been demonstrate...Background. The exact incidence of textile dermatitis is unknown because of the lack of controlled epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing has been demonstrated, thus indicating the importance of further investigations in this field. Objective. To analyse the results from a 4-year prospective study of the clinical and aetiological features of contact dermatitis to textiles in Israel. We also aimed to assess the frequency and relevance of sensitization to textile dyes and resins in these patients. Methods. Six hundred and forty-four patients (441 female and 203 male), referred for the investigation of contact dermatitis, and suspected of having textile allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), were studied. All patients were patch tested with the standard series (TRUE Tests), textile colour and finish series (TCFS)-clothing extracts and pieces of garment in some cases. Readings were performed on days 2, 3 and in many patients also on day 7. Results. Eighty-three patients (12.9%) had an allergic reactions to a dye and/or resin allergen. Of them, 43 (51.8%) had positive patch tests to the textile dye allergens, 28 (33.7%) to the formaldehyde and textile finish resins and 12 (14.4%) to allergens from both groups. The highest incidence of sensitization from the dye group allergens was due to Disperse Blue (DB) 124 (30.6%), DB 106 (27.0%) and DB 85 (8.1%) and from the resin group to melamine formaldehyde and ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde (20.7%each) and urea formaldehyde (18.3%). Present relevance of the patch tests was found in 81.4%of the cases. Concomitant sensitization with allergens from the standard series included nickel sulphate, potassium dichromate, formaldehyde, rubber additives and others. Although chronic dermatitis was the typical clinical presentation, less frequent forms such as purpuric, hyperpigmented and papulopustular lesions and atypical forms such as erythema multiforme-like, nummular-like lesions, lichenification and erythrodermia were observed in 24.4%of the cases. The atypical manifestations were provoked by sensitization to dye allergens and never to resins. Along with the typical distribution in areas of friction on the trunk and extremities, less frequent areas including the hands, face, genital area and the soles were affected too. Conclusions. In view of the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing, the clinical assessment should include awareness of the classical as well as the unusual and atypical clinical forms and locations of ACD to textiles, for they are not infrequent. Although dyes and among them DB 106 and DB 124 are the most frequent allergens inducing textile dermatitis, concomitant testing with allergens from the textile dyes and resin groups is recommended when investigating patients with textile dermatitis.展开更多
文摘Introduction:The diagnosis of adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) can be very difficult. There are no specific tests and reliance is usually placed on a symptom complex and the well described typical rash seen in most patients. In recent years, however, other cutaneous manifestations of AOSD have been reported but these are not so well known. Observations:We report a patient with urticaria and fixed plaques and review the other ‘atypical’cutaneous findings associated with AOSD. Conclusions:The diagnosis of AOSD can be made in the absence of the typical Still’s rash but in the presence of other atypical cutaneous features.
文摘Atypical cases of pityriasis rosea (PR) are fairly common and less readily recognized than typical eruptions. We present four patients for whom we believe atypical PR is the most likely diagnosis. A 33-year-old man had purpuric lesions bilaterally on the legs with classical rash on the trunk. A 28-year-old woman had intensely pruritic and urticarial lesions. A 10-yearold girl had hundreds of small papular lesions 1-3 mm in size. A pregnant woman aged 26 had oral haemorrhagic ulcers with classical PR eruption on her trunk. The oral ulcers erupted and remitted at the same time as the generalized eruption. We reviewed the literature and proposed a classification based on rashmorphology,rashsize,rashdistribution,numberoflesions, site of lesions, severity of symptoms and course of the eruption. We believe that it is difficult to make a clear division to define typical and atypical PR, and that it is important not to ascribe any unusual or atypical skin eruption with PR unless other dermatoses have been excluded.
文摘Background. The exact incidence of textile dermatitis is unknown because of the lack of controlled epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing has been demonstrated, thus indicating the importance of further investigations in this field. Objective. To analyse the results from a 4-year prospective study of the clinical and aetiological features of contact dermatitis to textiles in Israel. We also aimed to assess the frequency and relevance of sensitization to textile dyes and resins in these patients. Methods. Six hundred and forty-four patients (441 female and 203 male), referred for the investigation of contact dermatitis, and suspected of having textile allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), were studied. All patients were patch tested with the standard series (TRUE Tests), textile colour and finish series (TCFS)-clothing extracts and pieces of garment in some cases. Readings were performed on days 2, 3 and in many patients also on day 7. Results. Eighty-three patients (12.9%) had an allergic reactions to a dye and/or resin allergen. Of them, 43 (51.8%) had positive patch tests to the textile dye allergens, 28 (33.7%) to the formaldehyde and textile finish resins and 12 (14.4%) to allergens from both groups. The highest incidence of sensitization from the dye group allergens was due to Disperse Blue (DB) 124 (30.6%), DB 106 (27.0%) and DB 85 (8.1%) and from the resin group to melamine formaldehyde and ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde (20.7%each) and urea formaldehyde (18.3%). Present relevance of the patch tests was found in 81.4%of the cases. Concomitant sensitization with allergens from the standard series included nickel sulphate, potassium dichromate, formaldehyde, rubber additives and others. Although chronic dermatitis was the typical clinical presentation, less frequent forms such as purpuric, hyperpigmented and papulopustular lesions and atypical forms such as erythema multiforme-like, nummular-like lesions, lichenification and erythrodermia were observed in 24.4%of the cases. The atypical manifestations were provoked by sensitization to dye allergens and never to resins. Along with the typical distribution in areas of friction on the trunk and extremities, less frequent areas including the hands, face, genital area and the soles were affected too. Conclusions. In view of the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing, the clinical assessment should include awareness of the classical as well as the unusual and atypical clinical forms and locations of ACD to textiles, for they are not infrequent. Although dyes and among them DB 106 and DB 124 are the most frequent allergens inducing textile dermatitis, concomitant testing with allergens from the textile dyes and resin groups is recommended when investigating patients with textile dermatitis.
