The British journal of dermatology · 2008
New concepts on erythema annulare centrifugum: a clinical reaction pattern that does not represent a specific clinicopathological entity.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ziemer M, Eisendle K, Zelger B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Erythema annulare centrifugum (EAC) is considered an inflammatory skin disease with unknown aetiology. In most textbooks it is assigned to the incoherent conglomeration of figurate or gyrate erythemas.
OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate a large cohort of patients with EAC and to assess the evidence for infection with Borrelia.
METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 90 cases with the diagnosis of EAC. Haematoxylin and eosin sections were re-examined and diagnoses were specified; these were then confirmed by clinicopathological correlation. Infection with Borrelia was assessed by focus-floating microscopy and by a Borrelia-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
RESULTS: Besides a miscellaneous group of annular disorders at times confused with EAC such as urticaria, leucocytoclastic vasculitis and psoriasis (20 of 90; 22%), EAC appeared to serve as a collective term for three main clinicopathological reaction patterns: (i) (tumid) lupus erythematosus (29 of 90; 32%), (ii) spongiotic dermatitides (25 of 90; 28%) and (iii) pseudolymphoma (16 of 90; 18%). In 13 of 16 (81%) cases with a pseudolymphomatous reaction pattern spirochaetes stained positive but were negative in other reaction patterns of EAC as well as in negative controls. These findings were confirmed by a Borrelia-specific PCR which was positive in two of three (67%) of these pseudolymphomatous EAC cases but was negative in all other variants of EAC (none of five) as well as 20 controls.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 'EAC' is a clinical reaction pattern that does not represent a specific clinicopathological entity and should lead to consideration of mainly lupus erythematosus, dermatitis and, in some cases, cutaneous Lyme disease.
OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate a large cohort of patients with EAC and to assess the evidence for infection with Borrelia.
METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 90 cases with the diagnosis of EAC. Haematoxylin and eosin sections were re-examined and diagnoses were specified; these were then confirmed by clinicopathological correlation. Infection with Borrelia was assessed by focus-floating microscopy and by a Borrelia-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
RESULTS: Besides a miscellaneous group of annular disorders at times confused with EAC such as urticaria, leucocytoclastic vasculitis and psoriasis (20 of 90; 22%), EAC appeared to serve as a collective term for three main clinicopathological reaction patterns: (i) (tumid) lupus erythematosus (29 of 90; 32%), (ii) spongiotic dermatitides (25 of 90; 28%) and (iii) pseudolymphoma (16 of 90; 18%). In 13 of 16 (81%) cases with a pseudolymphomatous reaction pattern spirochaetes stained positive but were negative in other reaction patterns of EAC as well as in negative controls. These findings were confirmed by a Borrelia-specific PCR which was positive in two of three (67%) of these pseudolymphomatous EAC cases but was negative in all other variants of EAC (none of five) as well as 20 controls.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 'EAC' is a clinical reaction pattern that does not represent a specific clinicopathological entity and should lead to consideration of mainly lupus erythematosus, dermatitis and, in some cases, cutaneous Lyme disease.