Abbonarsi

Development and multicenter international validation of a diagnostic tool to differentiate between pemphigoid gestationis and polymorphic eruption of pregnancy - 20/06/23

Doi : 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.01.027 
Fangyi Xie, MB BChir a, b, Dawn Marie R. Davis, MD a, c, Farah Baban, MB ChB d, Emma F. Johnson, MD a, d, Regan N. Theiler, MD, PhD e, Austin Todd, MS f, Sara Pruneddu, MD g, Jenny E. Murase, MD h, Julia-Tatjana Maul, MD i, j, Christina M. Ambros-Rudolph, MD k, Julia S. Lehman, MD a, d,
a Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 
b Department of Dermatology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK 
c Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 
d Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 
e Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 
f Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 
g Department of Dermatology, King’s College Hospital, London, UK 
h Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, California 
i Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 
j Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 
k Hautarzt Practice, Graz, Austria 

Correspondence and reprint request to: Julia S. Lehman, MD, Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905.Department of DermatologyMayo Clinic200 1st St SWRochesterMN55905

Abstract

Background

Pemphigoid gestationis (PG) and polymorphic eruption of pregnancy (PEP) may be similar morphologically but confer different maternal and fetal risks. Direct immunofluorescence is the gold standard test used to differentiate between the 2 diagnoses but is not always available.

Objective

To develop and validate a clinical scoring system to differentiate PG from PEP.

Methods

After developing a scoring system based on differentiating clinical factors reported in existing literature, we tested its diagnostic accuracy in a retrospective international multicenter validation study in collaboration with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology’s Skin Diseases in Pregnancy Taskforce.

Results

Nineteen pregnancies (16 patients) affected by PG and 39 pregnancies (39 patients) affected by PEP met inclusion criteria. PG had a mean score of 4.6 (SD, 2.5) and PEP had a mean score of −0.3 (SD, 2.0). The area under the curve was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.86-1.00). Univariate analysis revealed that almost all criteria used in the scoring system were significantly different between the groups (P < .05), except for skip pregnancy and multiple gestations, which were then removed from the final scoring system.

Limitations

Small retrospective study.

Conclusion

The Pregnancy Dermatoses Clinical Scoring System may be useful to differentiate PG from PEP in resource-limited settings.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Key words : autoimmune blistering dermatoses, diagnosis, general dermatology, pemphigoid gestationis, polymorphic eruption of pregnancy, pregnancy dermatology, pregnancy, women’s health

Abbreviations used : AUC, DIF, EADV, ELISA, EMR, FDA, PEP, PG, PDCSS, SD, STARD


Mappa


 Funding sources: Dr Xie received the British Association of Dermatologists Geoffrey Dowling Fellowship and the Appignani Lichen Planus Benefactor Gift for her visiting research fellowship. The funders had no input in the study.
 IRB approval status: Reviewed and approved by Mayo Clinic IRB; approval #21-001039.


© 2023  American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 89 - N° 1

P. 106-113 - luglio 2023 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Real-time, in vivo skin cancer triage by laser-induced plasma spectroscopy combined with a deep learning–based diagnostic algorithm
  • Sung Hyun Pyun, Wanki Min, Boncheol Goo, Samuel Seit, Anthony Azzi, David Yu-Shun Wong, Girish S. Munavalli, Chang-Hun Huh, Chong-Hyun Won, Minsam Ko
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Pain of local anesthetic injection of lidocaine during subsequent stages of Mohs micrographic surgery: A multicenter prospective cohort study
  • McKenzie A. Dirr, Rachel E. Christensen, Noor Anvery, Umer Nadir, Matthew Schaeffer, Emir Veledar, Kira Minkis, Michael Nodzenski, Adam Whittington, Joaquin C. Brieva, Rebecca Tung, Emily Poon, Murad Alam

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.