Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Classifying discoid lupus erythematosus: background, gaps, and difficulties ☆☆

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To inform our ongoing efforts to develop defining features to be incorporated into a novel set of classification criteria for discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), we conducted a literature review using the Ovid MEDLINE database. A search was performed to identify studies reporting criteria used to distinguish DLE from other cutaneous lupus erythematosus subtypes. We examined which clinical, histopathologic, and serologic features have data to support their use as effective features in distinguishing DLE from other potential disease mimickers and cutaneous lupus subsets. Through our search, we were also able to identify gaps that exist in the literature which can inform future directions for research endeavors. We found that localization of lesions, characteristic features of damage, and the absence of high titer Ro/SSA antibody seem most effective in differentiating DLE from other cutaneous lupus erythematosus subtypes. Histopathologic features and class of immunoreactant deposition appear to be less helpful.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: issues in diagnosis and treatment.

          Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (LE) may present in a variety of clinical forms. Three recognized subtypes of cutaneous LE are acute cutaneous LE (ACLE), subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE), and chronic cutaneous LE (CCLE). ACLE may be localized (most often as a malar or 'butterfly' rash) or generalized. Multisystem involvement as a component of systemic LE (SLE) is common, with prominent musculoskeletal symptoms. SCLE is highly photosensitive, with predominant distribution on the upper back, shoulders, neck, and anterior chest. SCLE is frequently associated with positive anti-Ro antibodies and may be induced by a variety of medications. Classic discoid LE is the most common form of CCLE, with indurated scaly plaques on the scalp, face, and ears, with characteristic scarring and pigmentary change. Less common forms of CCLE include hyperkeratotic LE, lupus tumidus, lupus profundus, and chilblain lupus. Common cutaneous disease associated with, but not specific for, LE includes vasculitis, livedo reticularis, alopecia, digital manifestations such as periungual telangiectasia and Raynaud phenomenon, photosensitivity, and bullous lesions. The clinical presentation of each of these forms, their diagnosis, and the inter-relationships between cutaneous LE and SLE are discussed. Common systemic findings in SLE are reviewed, as are diagnostic strategies, including histopathology, immunopathology, serology, and other laboratory findings. Treatments for cutaneous LE initially include preventive (e.g. photoprotective) strategies and topical therapies (corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors). For skin disease not controlled with these interventions, oral antimalarial agents (most commonly hydroxychloroquine) are often beneficial. Additional systemic therapies may be subdivided into conventional treatments (including corticosteroids, methotrexate, thalidomide, retinoids, dapsone, and azathioprine) and newer immunomodulatory therapies (including efalizumab, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab). We review evidence for the use of these medications in the treatment of cutaneous LE.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The cutaneous lupus erythematosus disease area and severity index: a responsive instrument to measure activity and damage in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus.

            To assess the clinical responsiveness of the CLASI (Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus [CLE] Disease Area and Severity Index). Validation cohort. Tertiary referral center. Patients Eight patients with CLE. Intervention Assessment of patients with CLE from baseline until day 56 after starting a new standard of care therapy. Correlation of the baseline to day-56 change in 2 CLASI scales (disease activity and damage), with baseline to day-56 change in the physicians' and patients' assessments of patient's global skin health scores, and the patients' assessments of pain and itch. The change in CLASI activity score highly correlated with the changes in 3 clinical validation measures: physicians' assessment of skin health (r = 0.97; P = .003; n = 7), patients' global skin health score (r = 0.85; P = .007; n = 8), and pain (r = 0.98; P = .004; n = 5). Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, paired baseline to day-56 changes in CLASI activity and damage scores were analyzed for the 2 subgroups (meaningful change vs nonmeaningful change) composing each validation variable. Change in CLASI activity was significantly different for patients who had a meaningful change in their global skin self-ratings (Z = 1.07; P = .03) and approached statistical significance for patients who had a meaningful change in their level of itching (Z = 1.83; P = .06) and their physicians' global skin rating (Z = 1.84; P = .06). The CLASI activity score decreases after successful therapeutic intervention, whereas the damage score may increase in scarring forms of CLE. Conclusion The activity score of the CLASI correlates with the improvement of global skin health, pain, and itch and is thus a useful tool to measure clinical response.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The autoantibody response to Ro/SSA in cutaneous lupus erythematosus.

              Seventeen patients with subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) were compared with 15 patients with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) to evaluate the relationship of 60- and 52-kd Ro/SSA autoantibodies to the clinical diagnosis and to evaluate assays for anti-Ro/SSA. All serum samples from patients with SCLE had precipitating anti-Ro/SSA antibodies in immunodiffusion, and all had high titer anti-60-kd Ro/SSA in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Immunoblotting was inadequately sensitive for detecting anti-60-kd Ro/SSA. Fifteen patients with SCLE had anti-52-kd Ro/SSA (11 high titer, four low titer). Only one of the 15 patients with DLE had precipitating, high-titer anti-Ro/SSA. Nine other patients with DLE had low-titer anti-60-kd Ro/SSA, and four had low-titer anti-52-kd Ro-SSA. Low-titer anti-Ro/SSA did not confer an increased risk for photosensitivity in the DLE group. High-titer, precipitating antibodies to Ro/SSA are typical of SCLE and unusual in DLE. Low-titer, nonprecipitating antibodies to Ro/SSA are common in DLE and could be an indication of pathogenic factors shared with SCLE. However, low titers of anti-Ro/SSA do not confer a significant risk for SCLE skin lesions. For the purpose of clinical evaluation of skin disease, immunodiffusion assays for anti-Ro/SSA are cost-effective and informative.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Womens Dermatol
                Int J Womens Dermatol
                International Journal of Women's Dermatology
                Elsevier
                2352-6475
                16 February 2017
                March 2017
                16 February 2017
                : 3
                : 1 Suppl
                : S62-S66
                Affiliations
                [a ]Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA
                [b ]Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
                [c ]Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. werth@ 123456mail.med.upenn.edu
                Article
                S2352-6475(17)30024-2
                10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.02.013
                5419058
                b9f3821f-cdf9-421b-ac9f-98f66cb7d3f4

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 25 October 2015
                : 4 January 2016
                : 5 January 2016
                Categories
                Article

                classification,criteria,cutaneous lupus erythematosus,definition,diagnosis,discoid lupus erythematosus

                Comments

                Comment on this article