Faculty Bibliography

Episodes of recurrent urticaria and angioedema may be a clinical manifestation of cutaneous necrotizing venulitis. Known as urticarial vasculitis, this edematous form of necrotizing venulitis occurs in patients with serum sickness, connective tissue disorders, hematologic malignant conditions, an IgM?M component, infections, or physical urticarias after the administration of therapeutic agents, and as an idiopathic disorder. The skin lesions appear as erythematous, occasionally indurated wheals which may contain foci of purpura. Although the individual urticarial lesions may last for less than 24 hours, they often persist up to 3-5 days. The episodes of urticaria are chronic; approximately 70% of the afflicted individuals are women. General features include fever, malaise, and myalgia. Specific organ involvement includes enlargement of the lymph nodes, liver, and spleen and involvement of the synovia, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract, eyes, and central nervous system. In the treatment of urticarial vasculitis there are no double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Reports exist of the treatment of patients with H1 antihistamines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, colchicine, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, prednisone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and intramuscular gold therapy

BACKGROUND: The panel of patch test allergens used for the evaluation of patients with suspected photoallergy typically does not include plant and pesticide allergens. The prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergic contact dermatitis to plant and pesticide allergens was determined for this subgroup of patients. OBSERVATION: Positive reactions were detected in 12 of 26 patients who were tested with our photoallergen series: 5 with allergic contact dermatitis, 5 with photoallergic contact dermatitis, and 2 with both. Four of the 12 patients had positive patch and photo-patch test reactions to plant allergens, pesticide allergens, or both. The positive patch test reactions were to the plants Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) and Tanacetum vulgare (tansy) and to the pesticides folpet and captafol. Positive photo-patch test reactions were to the pesticides folpet and captan. The histories of the patients suggested that 2 or 3 of the 4 patients had clinically relevant reactions. In the other 8 patients, positive reactions to the patch and photo-patch tests included fragrances, sunscreens, and antibacterial agents. CONCLUSION: Plant and pesticide allergens should be included in the patch and photo-patch test series used for the evaluation of patients with suspected photoallergy

The skin represents a unique immunologic organ poised to protect the host from invading organisms and environmental antigens. The skin is also an important target for a variety of allergic and autoimmune responses. Mast cells are key to the pathogenesis of urticaria, angioedema, and mastocytosis. Atopic dermatitis is the consequence of an immunoregulatory abnormality resulting in a skin-directed T helper type 2 response. Allergic contact dermatitis is an example of classic delayed type hypersensitivity. Circulating autoantibodies against the epidermis are a key mechanism by which bullous skin diseases occur

Chronic actinic dermatitis is a photodistributed, eczematous dermatitis that preferentially affects elderly men and persists for months to years. Its occurrence in individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been described in five patients. We report four additional cases of this uncommon, chronic photodermatosis associated with HIV infection. In two of the patients, photosensitivity was a presenting disorder leading to the diagnosis of HIV infection. All patients were men of skin type VI with a mean age of 50 years, all had decreased minimal erythema doses to ultraviolet B, three of the four patients had decreased minimal erythema doses to ultraviolet A and all had CD4 cell counts of < 200 x 10(6)/L

BACKGROUND: Pruritus in patients positive for HIV may be debilitating. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the efficacy of UVB therapy in the treatment of pruritus in patients positive for HIV. METHODS: Twenty-one male HIV-positive patients with intractable pruritus (14 with eosinophilic folliculitis and 7 with primary pruritus) were treated three times weekly with UVB phototherapy. Pruritus was quantified with use of a subjective score of 0 (none) to 10 (severe). RESULTS: Mean CD4 counts at the initiation of therapy were 91.0 +/- 31.9 cells/microliter. Pruritus scores before and after treatment were 8.6 +/- 0.4 and 2.2 +/- 0.5, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean number of treatments to achieve maximal improvement was 20.7 +/- 2.3, with a cumulative UVB dose of 3399.1 +/- 597.4 mJ/cm2. No significant difference was found between the group with eosinophilic folliculitis and the group with primary pruritus. CONCLUSION: UVB phototherapy can produce significant relief of pruritus and improvement in the quality of life in patients positive for HIV

Photosensitivity disorders have been reported in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients, often as the initial manifestation of the disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the HIV-infected population demonstrates increased sensitivity to ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation. Minimal erythema dose values to UVB (MED-B) of 57 consecutive HIV-infected patients were compared to those of a control group of 57 consecutive patients with skin diseases, who were otherwise healthy and had no risk factors for HIV infection. MED-B determinations were performed in all individuals prior to the initiation of phototherapy for treatment of skin disease. None of the patients had a history of photosensitivity. Furthermore, the mean levels of the highest UVB doses received by each group during the treatment courses were compared. The mean age of the HIV-infected cohort was 43 years (range 26-61 years). The mean MED-B for this group was 82.8 +/- 3.8 (SEM) mJ/cm2. The mean age of the control group was 45 years (range 24-77 years), and their mean MED-B was 81.0 +/- 3.8 (SEM) mJ/cm2. After 12 weeks of treatment, one HIV-infected patient developed photosensitivity associated with a decreased MED-B value. The mean level of the highest UVB doses received by the HIV-infected group [427.5 +/- 67.2 (SEM) mJ/cm2] was lower than that received by the control group [640.8 +/- 65.9 (SEM) mJ/cm2], since HIV-infected patients received fewer treatments (mean: 34.7 treatments per patient) than the patients in the control group (mean: 65.6 treatments per patient). These data indicate that the HIV-infected patient population, without history of photosensitivity, does not show increased sensitivity to UVB light as determined by MED-B values

BACKGROUND: Although photosensitivity disorders have been well described, their incidence in a referral institution had not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of photosensitivity disorders, including photocontact dermatitis, in an academic medical center. METHODS: The results of the assessment of 203 consecutive patients, all of whom had phototests, referred for the evaluation of photosensitivity disorders during a 7.3-year period were reviewed. RESULTS: The mean age was 50 years, and 63% of the patients were women. The most frequent diagnoses were polymorphous light eruption (26% of the total patient population), chronic actinic dermatitis (17%), photoallergic contact dermatitis (8%), systemic phototoxicity to therapeutic agents (7%), and solar urticaria (4%). Positive photopatch reactions, patch test reactions, or both were observed in 40 (29%) of the 138 tested patients. The frequencies of the positive photopatch test reactions were sunscreens (57%), fragrances (18%), and antimicrobial agents (13%). Of the positive patch test responses, fragrances elicited 47% of the total positive reactions, followed by sunscreens (39%) and antimicrobial agents (7%). CONCLUSION: Polymorphous light eruption, chronic actinic dermatitis, and photoallergic contact dermatitis were the most frequently made diagnoses. Sunscreens, fragrances, and antimicrobial agents were the most common clinically relevant photoallergens and allergens