Journal of medical primatology · 2008
A case of suspected contact dermatitis in a juvenile cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis).
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morris Joanne, Etheridge Marcia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A 2-year-old male cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) presented with vesicular dermatitis exhibiting freshly ruptured blisters, crusts, and papules on the extremities and face.
METHODS: Complete blood count, serum chemistry, skin biopsy, skin scrape, and culture of a fresh blister were initially submitted for diagnostics.
RESULTS: Skin biopsy of the affected area revealed a non-suppurative eosinophilic dermatitis with mild thickening of the epidermis. Serum chemistry showed a marked eosinophilia (1.74 x 10(3)/microl, 17.4%). All other results were within normal limits. Initial differentials included contact dermatitis, immune-mediated disease such as pemphigus or psoriasis. Repeated blood work and skin biopsies were collected as well as serum for allergen-specific IgE latex and food allergy testing. Herpes B virus was added to the differential list after an oral lesion was noted upon repeated physical examination and samples were collected for testing. Repeat blood work maintained a marked eosinophilia and food allergy testing was within normal limits. Serum IgE for latex was equivocal and a follow-up latex sensitivity test was performed and was within normal limits. Repeated skin biopsies were consistent with acute eosinophilic spongiotic dermatitis with vesicles most likely due to contact dermatitis. No therapy was initiated during the diagnostic period and no etiology was confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS: Over time the dermatitis and eosinophilia resolved spontaneously. The animal is currently free of any lesions and maintains an eosinophil count within normal limits.
METHODS: Complete blood count, serum chemistry, skin biopsy, skin scrape, and culture of a fresh blister were initially submitted for diagnostics.
RESULTS: Skin biopsy of the affected area revealed a non-suppurative eosinophilic dermatitis with mild thickening of the epidermis. Serum chemistry showed a marked eosinophilia (1.74 x 10(3)/microl, 17.4%). All other results were within normal limits. Initial differentials included contact dermatitis, immune-mediated disease such as pemphigus or psoriasis. Repeated blood work and skin biopsies were collected as well as serum for allergen-specific IgE latex and food allergy testing. Herpes B virus was added to the differential list after an oral lesion was noted upon repeated physical examination and samples were collected for testing. Repeat blood work maintained a marked eosinophilia and food allergy testing was within normal limits. Serum IgE for latex was equivocal and a follow-up latex sensitivity test was performed and was within normal limits. Repeated skin biopsies were consistent with acute eosinophilic spongiotic dermatitis with vesicles most likely due to contact dermatitis. No therapy was initiated during the diagnostic period and no etiology was confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS: Over time the dermatitis and eosinophilia resolved spontaneously. The animal is currently free of any lesions and maintains an eosinophil count within normal limits.