scholarly journals BI25: Lessons learnt: our experience of a specialist surveillance dermatology clinic for immunosuppressed patients at a UK tertiary centre

2021 ◽  
Vol 185 (S1) ◽  
pp. 153-154
Rheumatology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (suppl_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Deepak ◽  
R Phillips ◽  
K Warrier ◽  
J Ravenscroft ◽  
S Rangaraj

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S508-S509
Author(s):  
N Levy ◽  
H Matz ◽  
N Maharshak ◽  
A Waizbard

Abstract Background Dermatologic manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are common and cause a significant burden on patients’ quality of life. More than 10% of IBD patients present cutaneous manifestation at the time of diagnosis; however, less than one in 10 IBD patients seeks dermatologic care. In up to 30% of cases, intense skin reactions mandate treatment discontinuation. There is growing evidence that the treatment of IBD patients improves when given by a multidisciplinary team yet data on combined IBD dermatology clinics is scarce. The aim was to describe our experience in this approach. Methods A retrospective descriptive study of a 2-year multidisciplinary IBD-dermatology clinic in a tertiary hospital in Israel, performed by an IBD expert and a senior dermatologist. Results Eighty-six visits (52 patients, of whom 50% males) were documented. Patients included Crohn’s disease (n = 41) and ulcerative colitis (n = 11) at an average age of 43.1 ±16.1 years. Rash was the most common referral aetiology, accounting for 60.4% (52/86) of clinic visits. A preexisting skin disorder occurred in 65.3% (34/52) of patients. Psoriasis, the most common diagnosis, was diagnosed in 19 patients. Additional extra-intestinal manifestations occurred in 38.4% of patients (20/52). Majority of patients, 92.3% (48/52), were under medical treatment: 77% (40/52) of the cohort received biologic therapy, mostly (61.5%) anti-TNFα agents Visits included preventive measures (mole assessment), diagnostic tests (skin biopsy) and therapeutic procedures (needle cauterisation, phototherapy). In 65.1% (56/86) of visits– topical treatment was advised. Among 21 re-visits, skin improvement was observed in 57.1%. Treatment-related skin symptoms were suspected in 34.6% of patients (18/52): in 38.8% (7/18), biological treatment was changed and in 13 patients, topical therapy was added, resulting in dermatologic improvement in 12 patients. Conclusion The IBD-dermatology clinic appears to improve IBD patient care. This clinic sets a new standard of treatment for IBD patients with dermatological issues


HPB ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S69
Author(s):  
S. Srivatsan Gurumurthy ◽  
M. Srinivasan ◽  
N. Anand Vijai ◽  
P. Senthilnathan ◽  
C. Palanivelu

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (S1) ◽  
pp. 272-272
Author(s):  
C. Silveira ◽  
M. Yu ◽  
S.J. Melov ◽  
R. Nayyar

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-184
Author(s):  
Suzanne Alkul ◽  
Rachel Graubard ◽  
Carina Wasko

Eccrine poromas are benign tumors that arise from the eccrine sweat ducts, commonly presenting as solitary lesions. Eccrine poromatosis, the sudden eruption of multiple eccrine poromas, is a rare phenomenon that generally occurs in immunosuppressed patients at any time after receiving treatment for malignancy.  We report a case of eccrine poromatosis in a 79-year-old male patient with a previous history of recurrent T-cell lymphoma. Over the course of his disease, he was treated with polychemotherapy, radiation, and a definitive bone marrow transplant. The patient presented to the dermatology clinic 18 years after his initial diagnosis with a new onset of pruritic papules on the neck and chest. Histologic evaluation revealed all lesions to be eccrine poromas. This is the longest reported time interval between initial diagnosis of a primary malignancy and development of eccrine poromatosis. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that appearance of such lesions is indicative of cancer recurrence; therefore, there is no indication for further oncologic evaluation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (01) ◽  
pp. E2-E89
Author(s):  
D Westhölter ◽  
J Hartl ◽  
J Hiller ◽  
U Denzer ◽  
S Peine ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 52-62
Author(s):  
Sara Omran ◽  
Abdulghani Alsamarai ◽  
Firas Razzzaq

Background: Fungal infections are one of the common skin diseases with difficulty in their treatment approach. The present efficient drugs for fungal infection are limited. Aim: To determine the therapeutic efficacy of plant extracts as alternative antifungal agents. Materials and methods: 100 clinical samples [68 from female and 32 from male] were collected during the period from March to July 2017 from subjects attending Dermatology Clinic in Salah Uldean General Hospital. Fungal infection was diagnosed with using KOH wet preparation. Fungal species identified by using conventional approach. The active ingredients existing in the plant extracts were detected and analyzed through qualitative and quantitative detection technique of chemical compounds using a high performance liquid chromatographic device (HPLC). Agar diffusion method was used to determine antifungal activity of plant extracts. Results: Direct microscopic examination showed that there were (75%) positive samples, while culture shows (67%) positive samples. The isolated dermatophytes belong to Epidermophyoton, Microsporum, and Trichophyton genus. The predominant dermatophytes were T. rubrum (25%) species. The highest frequency of infection was in the age group of 11-20 years. The sensitivity of the tested fungi to the aqueous and alcoholic plant extracts varies. Alcoholic extract of the hot pepper plant was more effective as antifungal than the aqueous extract of the same plant. However, aqueous hot pepper extracts was more effective against T. mentagrophyte than that of alcoholic extract. Additionally, alcoholic Sumac extract shows higher efficacy that aqueous extract. Conclusion: Hot pepper and Sumac extracts show antifungal activity against Microsporum canis, Trichophyton rubrum and T. mentagrophyte.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document