Epidemiology of pemphigus in Turkey: One-year prospective study of 220 cases

Pemphigus is a group of rare and life-threatening autoimmune blistering diseases of the skin and mucous membranes. Although they occur worldwide, their incidence shows wide geographical variation, and prospective data on the epidemiology of pemphigus are very limited. Objective of this work is to evaluate the incidence and epidemiological and clinical features of patients with pemphigus in Turkey. All patients newly diagnosed with pemphigus between June 2013 and June 2014 were prospectively enrolled in 33 dermatology departments in 20 different provinces from all seven regions of Turkey. Disease parameters including demography and clinical findings were recorded. A total of 220 patients were diagnosed with pemphigus during the 1-year period, with an annual incidence of 4.7 per million people in Turkey. Patients were predominantly women, with a male to female ratio of 1:1.41. The mean age at onset was 48.9 years. Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) was the commonest clinical subtype (n=192; 87.3%), followed by pemphigus foliaceus (n=21; 9.6%). The most common clinical subtype of PV was the mucocutaneous type (n=83; 43.2%). The mean Pemphigus Disease Area Index was 28.14±22.21 (mean ± Standard Deviation).  The incidence rate of pemphigus in Turkey is similar to the countries of South-East Europe, higher than those reported for the Central and Northern European countries and lower than the countries around the Mediterranean Sea and Iran. Pemphigus is more frequent in middle-aged people and is more common in women. The most frequent subtype was PV, with a 9-fold higher incidence than pemphigus foliaceus.   </p

Therapeutic potential of enoxaparin in lichen planus: Exploring reasons for inconsistent reports

Lichen planus (LP) is an uncommon mucocutaneous inflammatory condition, that is immunologically mediated, typically pruritic and often recurs. The currently advocated therapies are either not highly effective or associated with severe side effects. Enoxaparin, a widely used anticoagulant, is composed of both anticoagulant and non-anticoagulant fragments. Enoxaparin is reported to have anti-inflammatory properties and it was found to be effective in LP. However, the results from clinical studies have varied substantially and, therefore, the clinical role of enoxaparin in LP remains uncertain. This review focuses on potential reasons for the reported inconsistent outcomes, as well as proposing solutions; these include identifying batch-to-batch inconsistency in the composition of enoxaparin. The potential therapeutic value of enoxaparin in LP must be explored using well-designed clinical trials, combined with experimental studies that focus on identifying the anti-inflammatory fragments of enoxaparin and elucidating the mechanism of action of these non-anticoagulant fragments

Candidiasis, Bacterial Vaginosis, Trichomoniasis and Other Vaginal Conditions Affecting the Vulva

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance

Baboon syndrome and segmental vitiligo coexistence

The baboon syndrome is a form of systemic contact dermatitis with skin eruptions in the area of the buttocks and major flexures. Inhalation of mercury vapor causes this rare but distinctive eruption. Broken thermometers are the usual sources of exposure. We hereby present a 14-year-old boy diagnosed with baboon syndrome coexistence with vitiligo, due to broken thermometers. In our case, it was interesting that erythematous eruptions were more evident on the vitiliginous side of the trunk. To our knowledge, there have been no reports in the literature of baboon syndrome and vitiligo coexistence

Patients with vulval pruritus: patch test results

Background: Persistent vulval pruritus is a frequent problem and patients may not show signs of a primary vulval dermatosis. Allergic contact sensitivity is an important factor in such patients but may also occur as a secondary event in women with vulval dermatoses

Pseudo-Kaposi's Sarcoma (Acroangiodermatitis of Mali): Two Cases Report

Pseudo-Kapos is sarcoma is a self-limiting angioproliferative disease that is similar to Kaposi?s sarcoma in its clinical and histopathological features. Acroangiodermatitis of Mali is characterized by purple-black macules, papules and plaques on the lower extremities, mainly on the dorsal aspect of the feet and ankles that arise as a result of chronic venous insufficiency. Herein, we report two cases of acroangiodermatitis of Mali, and review the literatur