Coexistence of pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid in the upper aerodigestive tract

2006 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keiji Tabuchi ◽  
Masatake Nomura ◽  
Hidekazu Murashita ◽  
Yasuhiro Fujisawa ◽  
Shigeki Tsuji ◽  
...  
ORL ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Mohammed Hassan Hussain ◽  
Faiz Tanweer ◽  
Georgios Sakagiannis ◽  
Manish Mair ◽  
Sara Mahmood ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Autoimmune bullous diseases are rare conditions characterized by blistering of the skin and mucous membranes. The 2 commonest forms are pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid. The oral cavity or oropharynx may be the initial site of presentation or often the only site involved. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> These conditions are often misdiagnosed or overlooked leading to poorer patient outcomes. Due to the chronic nature of these conditions and the systemic effects of treatment, there is a significant associated morbidity and mortality. As such, an understanding of the fundamentals of autoimmune bullous diseases is vital to those working in otolaryngology. The mainstay of management in both conditions is topical and systemic corticosteroids. There is also a role for immunomodulating and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as adjunct or alternative therapies. Surgical intervention may be required to protect the airway. Often multimodality treatment is required involving multidisciplinary input from otolaryngologists, oral surgeons, dermatologists, and rheumatologists. This review article will highlight the aetiology, pathology, clinical features, investigations, and management of both pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid including recent advances in management.


1979 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Ossoff ◽  
Alan P. Wolff

Vesiculobullous lesions of the upper aerodigestive tract are among the most frequently occurring disease processes of the oral soft tissues. Pemphigus vulgaris, mucous membrane pemphigoid, erythema multiforme, and erosive lichen planus are compared and contrasted with each other and with vesiculobullous eruptions of viral origin. Clinical photographs and photomicrographs of these disease processes are presented. Treatment modalities are briefly discussed.


1980 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Vaughan ◽  
Freddy Homburger ◽  
Stanley M. Shapshay ◽  
Enrique Soto ◽  
Peter Bernfeld

1993 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 1092-1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsurou TANAKA ◽  
Kiyohisa MOTOKI ◽  
Takahisa NISHI ◽  
Yutaka NARISAWA ◽  
Hiromu KOHDA

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyu He ◽  
Juan Su ◽  
Guangyu Wang ◽  
Kang Zhang ◽  
Navarini Alexander ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and bullous pemphigoid (BP) are two rare but severe inflammatory dermatoses. Due to the regional lack of trained dermatologists, many patients with these two diseases are misdiagnosed and therefore incorrectly treated. An artificial intelligence diagnosis framework would be highly adaptable for the early diagnosis of these two diseases. OBJECTIVE Design and evaluate an artificial intelligence diagnosis framework for PV and BP. METHODS The work was conducted on a dermatological dataset consisting of 17,735 clinical images and 346 patient metadata of bullous dermatoses. A two-stage diagnosis framework was designed, where the first stage trained a clinical image classification model to classify bullous dermatoses from five common skin diseases and normal skin and the second stage developed a multimodal classification model of clinical images and patient metadata to further differentiate PV and BP. RESULTS The clinical image classification model and the multimodal classification model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.998 and 0.942, respectively. On the independent test set of 20 PV and 20 BP cases, our multimodal classification model (sensitivity: 0.85, specificity: 0.95) performed better than the average of 27 junior dermatologists (sensitivity: 0.68, specificity: 0.78) and comparable to the average of 69 senior dermatologists (sensitivity: 0.80, specificity: 0.87). CONCLUSIONS Our diagnosis framework based on clinical images and patient metadata achieved expert-level identification of PV and BP, and is potential to be an effective tool for dermatologists in remote areas in the early diagnosis of these two diseases.


Author(s):  
Edward Odell ◽  
Nina Gale ◽  
Selvam Thavaraj ◽  
Alfons Nadal ◽  
Nina Zidar ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2439
Author(s):  
Jerome R. Lechien ◽  
Stéphane Hans ◽  
Francois Bobin ◽  
Christian Calvo-Henriquez ◽  
Sven Saussez ◽  
...  

Background: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common disease in otolaryngology characterized by an inflammatory reaction of the mucosa of the upper aerodigestive tract caused by digestive refluxate enzymes. LPR has been identified as the etiological or favoring factor of laryngeal, oral, sinonasal, or otological diseases. In this case series, we reported the atypical clinical presentation of LPR in patients presenting in our clinic with reflux. Methods: A retrospective medical chart review of 351 patients with LPR treated in the European Reflux Clinic in Brussels, Poitiers and Paris was performed. In order to be included, patients had to report an atypical clinical presentation of LPR, consisting of symptoms or findings that are not described in the reflux symptom score and reflux sign assessment. The LPR diagnosis was confirmed with a 24 h hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance pH study, and patients were treated with a combination of diet, proton pump inhibitors, and alginates. The atypical symptoms or findings had to be resolved from pre- to posttreatment. Results: From 2017 to 2021, 21 patients with atypical LPR were treated in our center. The clinical presentation consisted of recurrent aphthosis or burning mouth (N = 9), recurrent burps and abdominal disorders (N = 2), posterior nasal obstruction (N = 2), recurrent acute suppurative otitis media (N = 2), severe vocal fold dysplasia (N = 2), and recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis (N = 1), tearing (N = 1), aspirations (N = 1), or tracheobronchitis (N = 1). Abnormal upper aerodigestive tract reflux events were identified in all of these patients. Atypical clinical findings resolved and did not recur after an adequate antireflux treatment. Conclusion: LPR may present with various clinical presentations, including mouth, eye, tracheobronchial, nasal, or laryngeal findings, which may all regress with adequate treatment. Future studies are needed to better specify the relationship between LPR and these atypical findings through analyses identifying gastroduodenal enzymes in the inflamed tissue.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document