Clinical Spectrum of Capillary Malformation–Arteriovenous Malformation Syndrome Presenting to a Pediatric Dermatology Practice: A Retrospective Study

Capillary malformation–arteriovenous malformation syndrome (CM‐AVM) is an autosomal dominant disorder caused by RASA1 mutations. The prevalence and phenotypic spectrum are unknown. Evaluation of patients with multiple CMs is challenging because associated AVMs can be life threatening. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of children presenting with features of CM‐AVM to an academic pediatric dermatology practice. After institutional review board approval was received, a retrospective chart review was performed of patients presenting between 2009 and 2012 with features of CM‐AVM. We report nine cases. Presenting symptoms ranged from extensive vascular stains and cardiac failure to CMs noted incidentally during routine skin examination. All demonstrated multiple CMs, two had Parkes Weber syndrome, and two had multiple infantile hemangiomas. Seven patients had family histories of multiple CMs; three had family histories of large, atypical CMs. Six had personal or family histories of AVMs. Genetic evaluation was recommended for all and was pursued by six families; four RASA1 mutations were identified, including one de novo. Consultations with neurology, cardiology, and orthopedics were recommended. Most patients (89%) have not required treatment to date. CM‐AVM is an underrecognized condition with a wide clinical spectrum that often presents in childhood. Further evaluation may be indicated in patients with multiple CMs. This study is limited by its small and retrospective nature.     

Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.     

Application of the adverse outcome pathway framework to genotoxic modes of action

In May 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee hosted a workshop to discuss whether mode of action (MOA) investigation is enhanced through the application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. As AOPs are a relatively new approach in genetic toxicology, this report describes how AOPs could be harnessed to advance MOA analysis of genotoxicity pathways using five example case studies. Each of these genetic toxicology AOPs proposed for further development includes the relevant molecular initiating events, key events, and adverse outcomes (AOs), identification and/or further development of the appropriate assays to link an agent to these events, and discussion regarding the biological plausibility of the proposed AOP. A key difference between these proposed genetic toxicology AOPs versus traditional AOPs is that the AO is a genetic toxicology endpoint of potential significance in risk characterization, in contrast to an adverse state of an organism or a population. The first two detailed case studies describe provisional AOPs for aurora kinase inhibition and tubulin binding, leading to the common AO of aneuploidy. The remaining three case studies highlight provisional AOPs that lead to chromosome breakage or mutation via indirect DNA interaction (inhibition of topoisomerase II, production of cellular reactive oxygen species, and inhibition of DNA synthesis). These case studies serve as starting points for genotoxicity AOPs that could ultimately be published and utilized by the broader toxicology community and illustrate the practical considerations and evidence required to formalize such AOPs so that they may be applied to genetic toxicity evaluation schemes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:114–134, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.