4.6 Letter

Biologic-induced urticaria due to polysorbate 80: usefulness of prick test

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 164, 期 5, 页码 1119-1120

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10220.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background The first manifestations of psoriasis begin in childhood in more than one-third of patients. However, epidemiological data of juvenile psoriasis are lacking. Objectives To compare Dutch (NL group) and Singaporean (SG group) children with psoriasis with the aim of studying the characteristics of juvenile psoriasis and to highlight similarities and differences between these different ethnic groups. Methods Data were collected from 207 patients younger than 18 years diagnosed with psoriasis from Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands and the National Skin Centre, Singapore. Results A striking difference in familial distribution was found, with more Dutch children having an affected family member (73 center dot 3% vs. 13 center dot 6%). Presence of itch and triggering factors were more common among Dutch children (80% vs. 14 center dot 2% and 33 center dot 3% vs. 7 center dot 4%, respectively). However, both groups shared similar triggering factors like stress and infections. Other similarities included mean age at presentation (NL group 11 center dot 3 years; SG group 14 center dot 1 years) and gender ratio (NL group, M/F 1 : 1 center dot 1; SG group, M/F 1 : 1 center dot 4). Plaque psoriasis was the most common type in both cohorts while guttate and pustular psoriasis were rare. In both groups, the head, followed by the limbs, was the most common site involved. Similar proportions of children in both countries had nail involvement and psoriatic arthritis was rare. Conclusions The disparity in familial distribution may point to genetic differences between the two groups. Further studies to evaluate this difference in familial distribution may contribute to the understanding of the pathogenesis of psoriasis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据