Pemphigus Foliaceus, Pemphigus Vulgaris, Paraneoplastic Pemphigus, Bullous Pemphigoid, Herpes Gestationis, and Cicatricial Pemphigoid

2007 ◽  
pp. 959-969
Author(s):  
Ning Li ◽  
David S. Rubenstein ◽  
Zhi Liu ◽  
Luis A. Diaz
Author(s):  
Gavin P Spickett

Overview Bullous pemphigoid Herpes gestationis and cicatricial pemphigoid Pemphigus vulgaris Pemphigus foliaceus Paraneoplastic pemphigus Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita Dermatitis herpetiformis (DH) and linear IgA disease Erythema multiforme (EM) Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS); toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) Sweet’s syndrome (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) Lichen planus (LP) Alopecia areata...


2007 ◽  
Vol 156 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.F. Mentink ◽  
M.C.J.M. de Jong ◽  
G.J. Kloosterhuis ◽  
J. Zuiderveen ◽  
M.F. Jonkman ◽  
...  

1982 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 656-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Laskaris ◽  
Alexandra Sklavounou ◽  
John Stratigos

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Yang ◽  
R. Xuan ◽  
W. Melbourne ◽  
K. Tran ◽  
D.F. Murrell

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-15
Author(s):  
Alexey V. Samtsov ◽  
Evgeny V. Sokolovskiy ◽  
Natalia P. Teplyuk ◽  
Irena E. Belousova ◽  
Muza M. Kokhan ◽  
...  

Analysis of various classifications of pemphigus shows that there are no fundamental differences between them. The main distinctions consist in use of diverse terms in naming of some forms of pemphigus and in inclusion or exclusion of certain subtypes from the classifications. Authors propose to use the following classification in the dermatological clinical practice, for educational and scientific purposes and for clinical guidelines: 1) pemphigus vulgaris (1.1. Pemphigu s vegetans); 2) pemphigus foliaceus (2.1. Pemphigus endemic (Fogo selvagem), 2.2. Pemphigus erythematosus (Senear Usher)); 3) herpetiform pemphigus; 4) paraneoplastic pemphigus; 5) IgA pemphigus (5.1. Subcorneal pustular dermatosis, 5.2. Intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis).


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (10) ◽  
pp. 1623-1633
Author(s):  
Otto Van de gaer ◽  
Petra de Haes ◽  
Xavier Bossuyt

AbstractBackgroundBoth enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) are available for the diagnosis of autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBD). Many studies have reported on the performance of ELISAs and concluded that ELISAs could replace IIF. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of ELISA and IIF for the detection of autoantibodies to desmoglein 1 (DSG1), desmoglein 3 (DSG3), bullous pemphigoid antigen 2 (BP180) and bullous pemphigoid antigen 1 (BP230) to support the diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris (PV), pemphigus foliaceus (PF) and bullous pemphigoid (BP).MethodsA literature search was performed in the PubMed database. The meta-analysis was performed using summary values and a bivariate random effect model.ResultsThe five included studies on PV did not demonstrate significant differences between IIF and DSG3-ELISA (sensitivity 82.3% vs. 81.6%, p = 0.9284; specificity 95.6% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.5318; diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] 101.60 vs. 67.760, p = 0.6206). The three included studies on PF did not demonstrate significant differences between IIF and DSG1-ELISA (sensitivity 80.6% vs. 83.1%, p = 0.8501; specificity 97.5% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.3614; DOR 160.72 vs. 75.615, p = 0.5381). The eight included studies on BP showed that BP230-ELISA differed significantly from both IIF on monkey esophagus (MO) and BP180-ELISA with regard to DOR (11.384 vs. 68.349, p = 0.0008; 11.384 vs. 41.699, p = 0.0125, respectively)ConclusionsOur meta-analysis shows that ELISA performs as well as IIF for diagnosing PV, PF and BP.


1998 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra S. Cohen ◽  
Andrew Blauvelt ◽  
Mark D. Weinstein ◽  
Brian G. Herndier ◽  
Grant J. Anhalt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document