Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “DERMATITIS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Defining urticarial dermatitis: a subset of dermal hypersensitivity reaction pattern.

BACKGROUND: Urticarial dermatitis may represent a useful term for a subset of a reaction pattern designated most commonly as dermal hypersensitivity by pathologists. The term is not commonly used, and requires definition to determine whether it is clinically relevant. OBJECTIVES: To define urticarial dermatitis and distinguish it from other urticarial reaction patterns and to review the frequency with which dermatologists can recognize clinical settings that match the biopsy findings of urticarial dermatitis. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of clinical and/or histological diagnosis of urticarial dermatitis, applying strict histological criteria in a center using urticarial dermatitis as a diagnostic term in 190 archived reports. SETTING: Tertiary referral dermatopathology service reporting for dermatological practices in Sydney, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The correlation between clinical and histological diagnoses of urticarial dermatitis and alternate diagnoses was analyzed. The frequency of positive immunofluorescence findings for bullous pemphigoid was determined in a subset of patients with urticarial dermatitis in whom this test was ordered to exclude prodromal bullous pemphigoid. RESULTS: Urticarial dermatitis was the histological diagnosis in at least 1 biopsy result in 148 patients, and matched the provisional clinical diagnosis in 49 (33.1%) patients. Urticarial dermatitis was the only diagnosis provided in 21 patients. The main alternate clinical diagnoses provided were early bullous pemphigoid or dermatitis herpetiformis (47 patients [31.8%]), dermatitis (39 patients [26.4%]), drug reaction (35 patients [23.6%]), urticarial vasculitis (24 patients [16.2%]), and urticaria (12 patients [8.1%]). In 91 patients with a clinical diagnosis of urticarial dermatitis, the histological diagnosis in at least 1 biopsy result was matched in 49 patients (53.8%); other histological diagnoses included dermatitis (21 patients [23.1%]), papular urticaria (12 patients [13.2%]), drug reaction (6 patients [6.6%]), and urticaria (3 patients [3.3%]). Review of 38 direct immunofluorescent results for prodromal bullous pemphigoid and a biopsy finding of urticarial dermatitis revealed only 3 positive results (7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Urticarial dermatitis seems to be a useful histological and clinical term for a subset of the dermal hypersensitivity reaction pattern. Although the clinical presentation is not restricted to a specific entity, eczema and drug reactions seem to be the most frequent clinical associations; and in a subset of patients, urticarial dermatitis remains as a recognizable reaction pattern. Urticarial dermatitis without eosinophilic spongiosis is not a reliable indicator for bullous pemphigoid, because the findings of immunofluorescence are often negative.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Etiology of hand dermatitis among patients referred for patch testing.

BACKGROUND: Hand dermatitis affects many people and has numerous causes. Few reports have looked at the etiology of hand dermatitis across broad demographics. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this investigation were to (1) determine the causes of hand dermatitis in the population patch-tested at a dermatologic referral clinic, (2) report occupations frequently associated with hand dermatitis, and (3) indicate which substances were the more common allergens among individuals evaluated by patch testing for hand dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patch-test data on 1,034 patients who were evaluated during an 8-year period was performed. RESULTS: Hand dermatitis affected 32% of all patients who underwent patch testing. Allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed most often (54.4%), followed by irritant contact dermatitis (27.4%). Among women, irritant contact dermatitis of the hands peaked in the third decade and then diminished whereas allergic contact dermatitis of the hands remained fairly constant among patients between 21 and 60 years of age. In contrast, irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis in men peaked in the fifth decade of life. In both genders, hand dermatitis was rare among those 20 years of age or younger and among those 61 years of age or older. Fifty-six percent of hand dermatitis was related to occupation. Health care workers were most often affected by occupational hand dermatitis. The most common allergens for both occupational and non-occupational hand dermatitis were quaternium-15, formaldehyde, thiuram mix, and carba mix. CONCLUSIONS: Since more than half of hand dermatitis cases may be related to occupation, a thorough history should be taken by a knowledgeable clinician. Potentially relevant allergens in the workplace must be identified and tested. These allergens may not be contained in standard trays.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Secondary infections in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Clinicians have long since been aware that bacteria and other microorganisms play a role in the etiology of atopic dermatitis. Indeed, the immunological profile of atopy favors colonization by Staphylococcus aureus, and the bacteria are present in most patients with atopic dermatitis, even in the absence of skin lesions. Clinical signs of impetiginization, such as weeping and crusting, periauricular fissuration, or small superficial pustules are a sensitive indicator that the numbers of S. aureus may have increased and a clinical indication of secondary infected dermatitis. However, recent research that has focussed on the role of S. aureus in atopic dermatitis, offers a reversed perspective, by presenting evidence that the underlying pathology of atopic dermatitis, i.e. an alteration of the skin barrier and inflammation of the upper dermis, depends itself on the presence of an infectious process. In other words, secondary infection with S. aureus emerges as a cause of atopic dermatitis. Secondary infections due to fungi have, comparatively, received less attention, but there is evidence for a role for Malassezia spp. as a factor in dermatitis with a head and neck distribution pattern. Viral infections, such as herpes simplex virus, and mixed infections of intertriginous spaces, may complicate an underlying atopic dermatitis, but are not perceived as etiologic factors. Recent research has greatly contributed to our understanding of the pathophysiological potential of S.aureus superantigens in atopic dermatitis, suggesting that antibiotic therapy might be an important element in the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis. At present, however, the clinical evidence is scarce with regards to demonstrating a clear advantage of combined anti-inflammatory and antibiotic treatment, compared with anti-inflammatory treatment alone. If there is a consensus that the presence of clinically infected lesions in atopic dermatitis warrants a course of specific antibiotic topical therapy, the clinical benefit of antibiotic agents in apparently uninfected atopic dermatitis, as present in the majority of patients, remains an open question.Moreover, the impact of adjuvant skin care on the cutaneous microflora needs to be quantified in order to properly assess the role of specific antibiotic therapy in clinically uninfected atopic dermatitis. In the meantime, secondary infections in atopic dermatitis remain a secondary problem in clinical atopic dermatitis management, and specific anti-infective therapy remains a method of fine-tuning for optimizing individual atopic dermatitis treatment.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗
PubMed1996

Descriptive epidemiology of contact dermatitis in a university student population.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis has been compared in relatively few studies. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the frequency of visits by university students to campus prepaid health plan dermatologists for irritant and allergic contact dermatitis compared with visits for other types of dermatitis and other skin problems. METHODS: Prospective recording of specific dermatologic diagnoses was performed for all visits of students to student health service dermatologists. Diagnoses were then tabulated, rank ordered, and compared. RESULTS: Irritant dermatitis represented 2.3% of all first visits and 1.6% of all total visits. Allergic contact dermatitis accounted for 3.1% of all first and 2.4% of all total visits. Other types of dermatitis were found in 12.5% of all first and 11.1% of all total visits. Contact dermatitis ranked first among types of dermatitis, being seen in 30.0% of first visits for dermatitis and in 27.0% of total visits for dermatitis. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, contact dermatitis represented a relatively large proportion of visits for dermatitis. Slightly more allergic than irritant contact dermatitis was found. This is at variance with findings in industrial settings that irritant dermatitis generally is more common than allergic contact dermatitis.

Adult↗