Maxwell A Fung1. 1. Department of Dermatology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, USA. maxwell.fung@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: "Dermal hypersensitivity reaction" (DHR) is diagnosed by dermatopathologists but is not an accepted clinical disease entity. There are no clear guidelines for its diagnosis, differential diagnosis, or management. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define the histologic criteria for cases histologically diagnosed as DHR and identify corresponding clinical disorders. METHODS: Skin biopsy specimens from 130 patients diagnosed as "consistent with DHR" were reviewed. Additional information was obtained from patients, their dermatologists, and medical records. RESULTS: Follow-up in 74 of 110 patients (median, 26.6 mo) revealed, most commonly, diagnoses of urticaria, drug reactions, and spongiotic (eczematous) dermatitis. Among the remaining cases, 37 of 59 reported persistence of disease, some exhibiting a uniform phenotype characterized by excoriated, edematous papules on the trunk. Histopathologic features present in more than 90% of 143 biopsy specimens included superficial and mid-perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates with eosinophils. CONCLUSION: DHR is a perivascular lymphocytic dermatitis with eosinophils involving the papillary and upper reticular dermis and minimal, if any, primary epidermal alteration. The term DHR does not represent any known clinical disorder; rather, it corresponds to many clinical disorders. The use of the phrase "dermal hypersensitivity reaction pattern" may be helpful in conveying the idea that a particular histologic pattern may be seen in a number of clinical disorders.
BACKGROUND: "Dermal hypersensitivity reaction" (DHR) is diagnosed by dermatopathologists but is not an accepted clinical disease entity. There are no clear guidelines for its diagnosis, differential diagnosis, or management. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define the histologic criteria for cases histologically diagnosed as DHR and identify corresponding clinical disorders. METHODS: Skin biopsy specimens from 130 patients diagnosed as "consistent with DHR" were reviewed. Additional information was obtained from patients, their dermatologists, and medical records. RESULTS: Follow-up in 74 of 110 patients (median, 26.6 mo) revealed, most commonly, diagnoses of urticaria, drug reactions, and spongiotic (eczematous) dermatitis. Among the remaining cases, 37 of 59 reported persistence of disease, some exhibiting a uniform phenotype characterized by excoriated, edematous papules on the trunk. Histopathologic features present in more than 90% of 143 biopsy specimens included superficial and mid-perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates with eosinophils. CONCLUSION:DHR is a perivascular lymphocytic dermatitis with eosinophils involving the papillary and upper reticular dermis and minimal, if any, primary epidermal alteration. The term DHR does not represent any known clinical disorder; rather, it corresponds to many clinical disorders. The use of the phrase "dermal hypersensitivity reaction pattern" may be helpful in conveying the idea that a particular histologic pattern may be seen in a number of clinical disorders.
Authors: Norman-Philipp Hoff; Noemi F Freise; Albrecht G Schmidt; Parnian Firouzi-Memarpuri; Julia Reifenberger; Tom Luedde; Edwin Bölke; Stephan Meller; Bernhard Homey; Torsten Feldt; Björn Erik Ole Jensen; Verena Keitel; Livia Schmidt; Kitti Maas; Jan Haussmann; Balint Tamaskovics; Wilfried Budach; Johannes C Fischer; Bettina Alexandra Buhren; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel; Marion Schneider; Peter Arne Gerber; Alessia Pedoto; Dieter Häussinger; Olaf Grebe; Martijn van Griensven; Stephan A Braun; Stefan Salzmann; Amir Rezazadeh; Christiane Matuschek Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 2.175