Long-term cefuroxime axetil in subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus. A report of three cases

BACKGROUND: Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a subset of lupus erythematosus characterized mainly by prominent photoaggravated cutaneous manifestations. Standard therapies for SCLE include topical or systemic steroids and antimalarial drugs. Both methods show limited efficacy in clearing cutaneous lesions and occasionally produce serious side effects. AIM: To assess the efficacy of cefuroxime axetil, an oral cephalosporin with antibacterial and immunosuppressive activity, in patients with SCLE. METHODS: Three patients with SCLE were treated with cefuroxime axetil at a daily dose of 500 mg for 30-60 days. RESULTS: In all patients complete clearing of skin lesions was achieved and no side effects were observed. CONCLUSION: We suggest that long-term cefuroxime axetil administration might be an alternative treatment for patients with SCLE skin lesions.     

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus

A large part of James N. Gilliam's abbreviated investigative career was devoted to testing a hypothesis that strong relationships do exist between the cutaneous and systemic manifestations of lupus erythematosus (LE). As a result of clinical observations made during his early studies designed to test this hypothesis, he introduced the term “subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus” (SCLE) to designate a clinically distinctive nonscarring type of histologically confirmed cutaneous LE that he felt might represent a cutaneous marker for a discrete subset of LE patients.¹ A series of studies carried out in our and other laboratories have since confirmed that patients who develop SCLE skin lesions do indeed share other clinical, pathologic, serologic, and immunogenetic features. Dr. Gilliam died on June 6, 1984, before the full impact of his initial clinical observations had been fully recognized. I would, therefore, like to dedicate the following discussion of the clinical and laboratory features of patients with SCLE skin lesions to his memory.     

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus with bullae associated with porphyria cutanea tarda

A 58‐year‐old patient presented with both annular and polycyclic as well as vesicular lesions. Histology revealed an interface dermatitis with focal hyperkeratosis and subepidermal blistering. Antinuclear antibodies were elevated (1 : 1280) and autoantibodies against Ro‐SS‐A were found. Based on these findings we made a diagnosis of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) with blister formation. Additionally, we diagnosed porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) triggered by alcohol abuse. Treatment with systemic corti‐costeroids and low‐dose hydroxy‐chloroquine led to rapid resolution of the skin changes. SCLE with blister formation is a rare cause of bullous skin eruptions and has to be distinguished from bullous autoimmune diseases as well as from bullous SLE. Recognition of concomitant PCT, which may be associated with all forms of LE, is especially important because of the therapeutic implications, since a reduced dosage of antimalarials is required.     

两型亚急性皮肤型红斑狼疮病情演变的分离现象

目的：探讨两型亚急性皮肤型红斑狼疮（SCLE）患者病情演变的差异。方法：对40例SCLE患者进行3－14年的随访分析,比较两型SCLE患者临床表现和实验室检查异常变化、治疗反应及预后。结果：在随访中,环形红斑型患者的疹型变化较少,病情较轻,部分患者出现干燥症状;而丘疹鳞屑型患者中大部分逐渐演变成SLE。环形红斑型患者仅21.7％发生轻度肾脏受累,皮质类固醇用量较少,无死亡病例;丘疹鳞屑型患者中64.7％发生肾脏受累,皮质类固醇用量较大或合并使用免疫抑制剂,1例死亡,3例发展为尿毒症。结论：环形红斑型是SCLE中较为良性的一型,预后较好,而丘疹鳞屑型则易发展为SLE,预后较差。     

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as poikiloderma

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a recognised variant of lupus erythematosus (LE), which accounts for 10–15% of all cases of cutaneous LE, occurring most commonly in young to middle‐aged white women. Diagnosis is based on the detection of anti‐Ro/SS‐A antibodies in the skin and serum, characteristic clinical and histological cutaneous involvement, and relatively mild systemic involvement. Several unusual variants of SCLE have been reported including erythrodermic SCLE, SCLE with vitiligo‐like lesions, acral SCLE and bullous SCLE. Poikoilodermatous SCLE is a recognised but rare variant of SCLE. There are currently only two case reports, comprising five individual cases, in the literature. We present a case of SCLE in which the main clinical findings were an extensive photodistributed poikilodermatous rash and alopecia.     

Clinical course and prognosis of cutaneous lupus erythematosus

Classical variants of specific cutaneous LE lesions are chronic discoid LE (CDLE) and subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE). CDLE and SCLE may appear at any age; however, the most common age of onset is between 20 and 40 years, with a female predominance of 3:1 in CDLE and 3-6:1 in SCLE. Nonspecific LE skin lesions such as generalized or acrolocalized vasculitis (4-30%), livedo reticularis (22-35%), and alopecia (38-78%) are frequently seen in patients with cutaneous LE. Other typical cutaneous LE subsets such as LE profundus/panniculitis, LE tumidus, urticaria vasculitis, hypertrophic LE, and bullous LE are rather rare variants. Butterfly rash and/or macular exanthema are characteristic skin lesions of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) rarely found in patients with cutaneous LE.     

Matrix metalloproteinases as mediators of tissue injury in different forms of cutaneous lupus erythematosus

Background Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) contribute to tissue destruction, regeneration, inflammation and apoptosis and several of them are upregulated by ultraviolet (UV) radiation in skin. Although some MMPs associate with organ manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), their role in cutaneous lupus erythematosus (LE) is elusive. Objectives Our aim was to evaluate the expression of MMPs in SLE, subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE) and discoid LE (DLE) skin lesions and their relation to apoptosis and epidermal changes. Methods Lesional skin biopsies from 20 patients with SLE, 20 with DLE and 17 with SCLE, and from UVA/UVB‐photoprovoked skin of healthy volunteers were immunostained using antibodies to multiple MMPs and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs). The TUNEL (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase‐mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labelling) method was used for detection of apoptosis. Results MMP‐3, ‐10, ‐19 and ‐26 were abundantly expressed by keratinocytes in SLE, DLE and SCLE skin samples. MMP‐7 was detected in keratinocytes in regions of oedema and vacuolization especially in SLE and SCLE, while MMP‐14 was only occasionally observed in keratinocytes. Photoprovocation did not induce MMP‐10 or ‐26 expression in skin of healthy volunteers. Epithelial TIMP‐1 expression was low while occasional positive fibroblasts were seen in the dermis. TIMP‐3 was abundantly expressed in the epidermis, endothelial cells and macrophages. Conclusions Different subtypes of cutaneous LE are fairly similar in their MMP expression profile. MMP‐3 and ‐10 mediate both epidermal changes and dermal tissue remodelling but are not present in lymphocytes. Low expression of TIMP‐1 suggests that lupus skin is characterized by proteolytic events, and targeted action using selective MMP inhibitors may reduce lupus‐induced damage in inflamed tissues.     

UVB-induced leucocyte trafficking in the epidermis of photosensitive lupus erythematosus patients: normal depletion of Langerhans cells

BACKGROUND: The pathogenic mechanisms of UV-induced skin lesions of lupus erythematosus (LE) are unknown. In a recent study of pathogenic mechanisms of polymorphic light eruption (PLE), significantly more Langerhans cells (LCs) persisted in the epidermis after UVB overexposure than in healthy individuals. Interestingly, the same phenomenon was observed in one subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) patient. It could therefore be hypothesized that both photodermatoses share a common pathogenic mechanism of photosensitivity. In the present study, we tested this hypothesis by investigating leucocyte trafficking in the initial phase of cutaneous LE after intense UVB exposure. METHODS: In 22 photosensitive LE patients (12 chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, seven systemic lupus erythematosus and three SCLE) and nine age/sex-matched controls, uninvolved buttock skin was exposed to six minimal erythemal dose (MED) UVB radiation. Subsequently, biopsies were taken after 24, 48 and 72 h, and one control biopsy was taken from unirradiated skin. Skin sections were stained for the presence of LCs, neutrophils and macrophages. Areal percentages of positively stained cells within the epidermis were quantified and compared between the patients and controls. RESULTS: A gradual decrease of epidermal LCs and a gradual increase of epidermal neutrophils and macrophages at several timepoints after six MED irradiation was observed equally in both LE patients and controls. CONCLUSION: Immunohistopathology of irradiated uninvolved skin of photosensitive LE patients did not reveal the same pathologic trafficking of LCs and neutrophils as described for PLE patients. We conclude that different mechanisms are operative in the pathogenesis of PLE and photosensitive LE.     

Optimal Use of Antimalarials in Treating Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus

Antimalarials have been used to treat cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus (LE) for decades. Although controlled studies comparing the efficacy of antimalarials versus placebo and other treatments are generally lacking, many case reports and series support the therapeutic efficacy of these agents in treating both LE-specific and -nonspecific skin lesions. Currently, the two most frequently used antimalarial agents are chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. There may be a delay of weeks to months in the onset of therapeutic effects of antimalarials when treating LE. Smoking appears to inhibit the therapeutic efficacy of antimalarials when treating cutaneous LE. Antimalarials have been associated with a number of potentially serious adverse effects, including irreversible loss of vision. The aim of this review is to discuss the many facets of antimalarials that will help clinicians optimally utilize these agents when treating cutaneous LE.     

Expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and OKM5 in UVA- and UVB-induced lesions in patients with lupus erythematosus and polymorphous light eruption

Pathological skin reactions were induced with both UVA and UVB in 12 patients with lupus erythematosus (LE) and with UVA in 7 with polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) but in none of the controls. Biopsy specimens taken from UV-induced lesions showed that in dermal infiltrates of LE cases CD4-positive cells predominated, whereas in the majority of PMLE cases CD8-positive cells predominated. Keratinocytes expressed intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) in 7 of the 12 UVA- and in eight of the ten UVB-induced LE lesions, and in three of the UVA-induced lesions of PMLE patients. Three different staining patterns were found. In subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE) cases staining throughout the epidermis resembled that seen in genuine SCLE lesions. In discoid LE (DLE) lesions, the staining was most prominent in and near the basal cell layer. In the one systemic LE case and in the PMLE cases, ICAM-1 expression was seen only in association with epidermal spongiosis and T-cell infiltration. Keratinocytes did not express ICAM-1 in the controls or in the non-irradiated skin of the LE patients. In five on the UVA-induced lesions, in eight of the UVB-induced LE lesions and in one of the PMLE cases, keratinocytes expressed CD36. In four of the six LE lesions with fewer CD1a-positive cells, dendritic CD36-positive cells were seen in the epidermis. In conclusion, the pattern of activated keratinocytes and immunocompetent cells in the dermis was similar to that seen in genuine LE and PMLE lesions, but dissimilar to each other and to the controls. Keratinocytes in both UVA- and UVB-induced lesions in LE patients and in UVA-induced lesions of PMLE expressed ICAM-1 with a staining pattern resembling that seen in genuine lesions. This may help to explain the pathomechanism of these skin lesions.     

Clinical Manifestations of Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease with a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations and a variable course. In numerous investigations, it has been shown that exogenous factors, such as UV‐light and drugs, can induce this disease. However, not all clinical aspects can be explained and therefore, the pathogenesis of CLE is currently under extensive research. The various cutaneous manifestations of LE are divided into LE‐nonspecific and LE‐specific skin disease based on histologic criteria. LE‐nonspecific manifestations are mostly associated with systemic LE but can also occur in other diseases and include particularly vascular skin lesions such as pe‐riungual telangiectases. LE‐specific skin disease includes the subtypes of CLE such as acute cutaneous LE (ACLE), subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE), chronic cutaneous LE (CCLE), and intermittent CLE (ICLE). The subdivision of these subtypes with different prognosis and course is supported by genetic, clinical, histologic, and immunoserologic findings. The subtypes of CLE require a specific morphological and clinical analysis, which is described in the first part of this review. In the second part of this review, further diagnostic procedures and therapeutic strategies in patients with CLE are discussed.     

Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus

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.     

CUTANEOUS MANIFESTATIONS OF SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS IN A TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTER

Background:

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease with multiorgan involvement. The skin is the second most commonly affected organ. SLE with skin lesions can produce considerable morbidity resulting from painful skin lesions, alopecia, disfigurement, etc. Skin lesions in patients with lupus may be specific (LE specific) or may be non specific (LE non specific). Acute cutaneous LE (Lupus specific) has a strong association with systemic disease and non-specific skin lesions always indicate disease activity for which patients present to rheumatologists and internists. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the cutaneous manifestations of SLE is essential for most efficient management.

Aims:

The aims of this study were to evaluate the patterns and prevalence of skin lesions in patients with SLE and to assess the relationship between skin lesions and other systemic involvement.

Materials and Methods:

At the Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, IPGME&R in Kolkata, 150 patients with SLE fulfilling the clinical and laboratory criteria of the American Rheumatology Association (updated 1982) were examined and followed-up for cutaneous manifestations between January 2002 and January 2007.

Results:

Skin lesions were important clinical features. About 45 patients (30%) presented with skin lesions although all patients had skin lesions during the follow-up period. Skin changes noted were as follows: Lupus specific lesions: malar rash in 120 patients (80%), photosensitive dermatitis in 75 patients (50%), generalized maculopapular rash in 40 patients (26.67%), discoid rash in 30 patients (20%), subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) in 5 patients (3.34%), lupus profundus in 5 patients (3.34%). The lupus non-specific lesions were non-scarring alopecia in 130 patients (86.67%), oral ulcers in 85 patients (56.67%), vasculitic lesions in 50 patients (33.34%), bullous lesions in 15 patients (10%), Raynaud''s phenomenon in 10 patients (6.67%), pyoderma gangrenosum in 2 patients (1.34%), erythema multiforme in 10 patients (6.67%), and nail fold infarcts in 2 patients (1.34%); however, mucosal discoid lupus, lichenoid discoid lupus, livedo reticularis, sclerodactyly, etc. were not detected. Patients having lupus-specific skin lesions e.g., malar rash were associated with systemic involvement, whereas those having lupus non-specific skin lesions were associated with disease flare.

Conclusions:

Skin lesions in patients with SLE are important disease manifestations and proper understanding is essential for diagnosis and efficient management.     

Unilateral nail dystrophy after C4 complete spinal cord injury

Summary Fifty-five patients with biopsy-proven cutaneous lupus erythematosus (LE) were identified in whom a prospective and retrospective review of the clinical and laboratory data allowed subclassification into systemic (SLE). subacute (SCLE). or discold (DLE) variants. In addition to conventional direct immunofluorescence. an indirect immunolluorescent technique. using a monoclonal antibody, was employed to assess deposition of the membranolytic attack complex (C_5b?9) in skin lesions. Deposition of C_5b?9 within the epidermis correlated with a diagnosis of SCLE with or without antibodies to Ro and was seen in SLE patients with antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens Ro. La, Sm. and RNP. and in DLE patients with positive antinuclear antibodies and/or extracutaneous manifestations. In the SLE group, vascular C_5b?9 deposition was present in six patients. Of these, tour had circulating lupus anticoagulant, one had lymphocytic vasculitis, and two had antibodies to Ro. In two patients with SLE there was keratinocyte decoration for immunoglobulin G but not for C_5b?9, in the absence of seropositivity for antibodies to Ro. La. Sm. and ribonucleoprotein (RNP). The immunohistological examination of skin lesions using a monoclonal antibody to C_5b?9 is a valuable adjunct in the subclassification of LE. The presence of C_5b?9 within skin lesions of patients with LE implies a pathogenic role for complement-mediated pore formation.     

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and management

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) includes a variety of lupus erythematosus (LE)-specific skin lesions that are subdivided into three categories - chronic CLE (CCLE), subacute CLE (SCLE) and acute CLE (ACLE) - based on clinical morphology, average duration of skin lesions and routine histopathologic examination. This paper describes our personal experience in the management of CLE over the last 30 years, with details on preferential therapeutic options related to clinical, histologic and immunopathologic aspects of each clinical subset of the disease. Effective sunscreening and sun protection are considered the first rule in the management of CLE because of the high degree of photosensitivity of the disease. Antimalarial agents are crucial in the treatment of CLE and are the first-line systemic agents, particularly in discoid LE (DLE) and SCLE. Dapsone is the drug of choice for bullous systemic LE (BSLE) as well as for LE in small dermal vessels (e.g. leukocytoclastic vasculitis). Retinoids, known as second-line drugs for systemic therapy, are sometimes used to treat chronic forms of CLE and are particularly successful in treating hypertrophic LE. Systemic immunosuppressive agents are required to manage the underlying systemic LE disease activity in patients with ACLE. These drugs, especially azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide and cyclosporine, together with corticosteroids, constitute third-line systemic therapy of CLE. In our experience, oral prednisone or parenteral 'pulsed' methylprednisolone are useful in exacerbations of disease activity. Thalidomide provides one of the most useful therapeutic alternatives for chronic refractory DLE, although its distribution is limited to a few countries because of the risk of teratogenicity and polyneuropathy. However, medical treatment with local corticosteroids remains the mainstay of CLE treatment, especially for DLE. Patient education regarding the disease is also important in the management of CLE, because it helps relieve undue anxiety and to recruit the patient as an active participant in the treatment regimen.     

Drug-induced subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a paradigm for bedside-to-bench patient-oriented translational clinical investigation

At least 71 patients have been reported in which their otherwise typical subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) skin lesions were felt to have been temporally associated with the systemic administration of a drug. The mean age of this cohort of drug-induced SCLE (DI-SCLE) patients was 59 years of age which is somewhat older than the mean age of previously reported idiopathic SCLE patient cohorts. Patients had been taking the suspected triggering drug for weeks to years before the onset of SCLE skin lesions. In addition, it was not unusual for 2–3 months to be required for resolution of the SCLE skin lesions following discontinuation of the triggering drug. A relatively large number of drugs representing different pharmacological classes have been implicated in the induction of SCLE. The drug classes that were more frequently encountered were those used for the treatment of cardiovascular disease, especially hypertension. Calcium channel blockers were especially common in this regard. Elderly individuals being treated for hypertension are often taking multiple classes of drugs that have been implicated in triggering SCLE (thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers). An approach to the management of DI-SCLE is presented. Ro/SS-A autoantibodies tended to remain present in the blood after resolution of drug-induced SCLE skin lesions. A common link between the disparate group of drug structures implicated in triggering SCLE is their tendencies to produce photosensitivity and lichenoid drug reactions. This leads to the speculation that DI-SCLE could represent a photo-induced isomorphic/Köebner response in an immunogenetically predisposed host.     

Failure of physiologic doses of pure UVA or UVB to induce lesions in photosensitive cutaneous lupus erythematosus: implications for phototesting

BACKGROUND: Phototesting studies in cutaneous lupus erythematosus have yielded variable results, with most trials reporting photo-induction of lesions by both UVA and UVB in substantial numbers of patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the minimal erythema dose in patients with subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and controls. PATIENTS/METHODS: We phototested nine patients with SCLE and 14 skin type-matched controls, using repetitive dosing of UVA1 and UVB, but with filters that removed most of the shorter UVC and longer infrared and visible light. In addition, DNA was isolated from anticoagulated blood to genotype the TNF-alpha 308 region in each patient and control. RESULTS: We were unable to demonstrate a difference in minimal erythema dose (MED) between patients and controls, or any correlation of MED with either TNF genotype or systemic drug therapy for SCLE. In addition, no SCLE skin lesions were induced in the nine patients with either UVA or UVB, and one patient cleared a skin lesion after low-dose UVA1 irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The potential role of wavelengths outside the UVA and UVB range in the photo-induction of cutaneous lupus skin lesions needs to be investigated, and there is a need to standardize phototesting equipment and procedures for patients with cutaneous lupus erythematous.     

Ethnic differences in immunogenetic features and photosensitivity of cutaneous lupus erythematosus

Genetic differences are involved in the development of lupus erythematosus (LE). Skin lesions are influenced by environmental triggers such as ultraviolet light, temperature, and chemical stresses, and the patterns of skin lesion are variable in cutaneous LE such as systemic LE (SLE), chronic discoid LE (CDLE), subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE), and LE tumidus (LET). Although there are a few conflicting reports, many Japanese dermatologists feel there are photosensitivity differences in lupus erythematosus between Asian and Caucasian subjects with SCLE and LET. HLA studies in Japanese subjects revealed that HLA-DRB1*1501 association was with both CDLE and SLE. The association between HLA-Cw6 and CDLE was first reported in Japanese population, and a HLA-A33-B44-DRB1*1302 haplotype showed a positive association in CDLE. However, these results are not compatible with those from Caucasian subjects. There are no significant associations among HLA studies, photosensitivity, and anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies in Japanese CLE patients. Photosensitivity will be a key factor to dissolve multi-factorial complexes of LE etiopathogenesis. Our present understanding is that an axis of photosensitivity, anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies and apoptosis via TNF are the best (markers) to verify the contribution of genetics in SCLE, LET, and other CLEs. The incidence and photosensitivity of SCLE and LET are much lower in Japanese than in Caucasian subjects. However, this discrepancy may open the window for investigating CLE pathogenesis through global collaborations. For this purpose and goal, a new and more conventional method should be developed for the examination of so-called photosensitivity.     

Photosensitivity in patients with lupus erythematosus: a clinical and photobiological study of 100 patients using a prolonged phototest protocol

BACKGROUND: There is a clear relationship between ultraviolet (UV) radiation (UVR) and the clinical manifestations of patients with lupus erythematosus (LE). Cutaneous lesions are induced or exacerbated by exposure to UVR. Of patients with LE, 24-83% are reported to be photosensitive to UVR. LE tumidus appears to be the most photosensitive subtype of LE, followed by subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE). In general, the history of patients with LE correlates poorly with the presence or absence of photosensitivity, due to a delayed time interval between UV exposure and exacerbation of skin lesions. Phototesting using artificial UVR and visible light is a reliable way of diagnosing photosensitivity. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the photoreactivity of patients with various subtypes of LE using an individualized phototest protocol. The results of phototests were correlated with the history of photosensitivity, the subtype of LE, the presence of autoantibodies and the use of anti-inflammatory medication by these patients. METHODS: Phototesting with UVA, UVB and visible light was performed in 100 patients with LE. The diagnosis of LE was established both on clinical examination and skin histology. Serological studies were also performed in all patients. The phototests were performed on large skin areas of the forearm or trunk; the first dose was twice the minimal erythema dose and the dosage was increased according to the individual reactions of the patients at the test sites. Follow-up of skin reactions at the test sites was performed for up to 2 months. Histological examination of the photoprovoked skin lesions was carried out in 57 patients. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients included (81 women and 19 men; mean age 41 years, range 17-79), 46 had chronic discoid LE, 30 SCLE and 24 systemic LE. An abnormal reaction to UVR and visible light was found in 93% of our patients with LE. No clinical or histological evidence at the phototest sites of polymorphic light eruption was found. There was no correlation between photosensitivity and LE subtype, presence of autoantibodies or medical history. Concomitant use of anti-inflammatory medication seemed to exert only minimal influence on the results of phototesting. CONCLUSIONS: When using an extended phototesting protocol, almost all patients with LE in this study showed clinical and histological evidence of aberrant photosensitivity. Therefore, patients with LE should receive thorough advice and instruction on photoprotective measures, regardless of their history, LE subtype or presence of autoantibodies.     

Terbinafin

Based on the technical information that oral terbinafine must be used with caution in patients with pre-existing psoriasis or lupus erythematosus, the literature was summarized. Terbinafine belongs to the drugs able to induce subcutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE)—with a relatively high risk. The clinical picture of terbinafine-induced SCLE may be highly variable and can also include erythema exsudativum multiforme-like or bullous lesions. Thus, differentiation of terbinafine-induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis may be difficult. Therefore, terbinafine should be prescribed with caution in patients who show light sensitivity, arthralgias, positive antinuclear antibodies or have a history of SLE or SCLE. Case reports include wide-spread, but mostly nonlife-threatening courses, which did not require systemic therapy with steroids or antimalarials in every case. Terbinafine is also able to induce or to aggravate psoriasis. The latency period seems to be rather short (<4 weeks). Terbinafine therefore is not first choice if a systemic therapy with antimycotics is indicated in a patient with psoriasis or psoriatic diathesis. Azole derivatives according to the guidelines may be used as an alternative.