RESUMEN
Eczema, the commonest disorders afflicting the hands, is also the commonest occupational skin disease (OSD). In the dermatology outpatient departments, only the severe cases are diagnosed since patients rarely report with early hand dermatitis. Mild forms are picked up only during occupational screening. Hand eczema (HE) can evolve into a chronic condition with persistent disease even after avoiding contact with the incriminated allergen / irritant. The important risk factors for hand eczema are atopy (especially the presence of dermatitis), wet work, and contact allergy. The higher prevalence in women as compared to men in most studies is related to environmental factors and is mainly applicable to younger women in their twenties. Preventive measures play a very important role in therapy as they enable the affected individuals to retain their employment and livelihood. This article reviews established preventive and therapeutic options and newer drugs like alitretinoin in hand eczema with a mention on the etiology and morphology. Identifying the etiological factors is of paramount importance as avoiding or minimizing these factors play an important role in treatment.
RESUMEN
Photodermatoses are a group of disorders resulting from abnormal cutaneous reactions to solar radiation. They include idiopathic photosensitive disorders, drug or chemical induced photosensitivity reactions, DNA repair-deficiency photodermatoses and photoaggravated dermatoses. The pathophysiology differs in these disorders but photoprotection is the most integral part of their management. Photoprotection includes wearing photoprotective clothing, applying broad spectrum sunscreens and avoiding photosensitizing drugs and chemicals.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Lasers are a good therapeutic tool for congenital and acquired vascular lesions. Technological advances in lasers have reduced the adverse effects and increased the efficacy. Machines: Among the various lasers used for treating vascular lesions, pulsed dye laser (PDL) has the best efficacy and safety data. The other machines that are widely available are Nd:YAG laser and intense pulse light (IPL). Rationale and scope of guideline: Much variation exists in different machines and techniques, and therefore, establishing standard guidelines has limitations. The guidelines recommended here indicate minimum standards of care for lasers on vascular lesions based on current evidence. Physician Qualification: Laser may be administered by a dermatologist, who has received adequate background training in lasers during post-graduation or later at a center that provides education and training in lasers, or in focused workshops, which provide such trainings. He/she should have adequate knowledge of the lesions being treated, machines, parameters, cooling systems, and aftercare. Facility: The procedure may be performed in the physician's minor procedure room with adequate laser safety measures. Indications: PWS, hemangioma, facial telangiectasia, rosacea, spider angioma, pyogenic granuloma, venous lakes, leg veins. Contraindications: Absolute: Active local infection, photo-aggravated skin diseases, and medical conditions. Relative: Unstable vitiligo, psoriasis, keloid and keloidal tendencies, patient on isotretinoin, patient who is not cooperative or has unrealistic expectation. Patient Selection: Patient selection should be done after detailed counseling with respect to the course of lesions, different treatment options, possible results, cost, need for multiple treatments, and possible postoperative complications. Treatment Sessions: The number of treatments per lesion varies from 2 to 12 or more at 6-8 week intervals. All lesions may not clear completely even after multiple sessions in many cases. Hence, a realistic expectation and proper counseling is very important. Laser parameters: Laser parameters vary with area, type of lesion, skin color, depth of the lesion, and machine used. A test spot may be performed to determine individual specifications. Complications: Pain, edema, purpura, bleeding, scarring, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation/hypopigmentation, and atrophy changes.
RESUMEN
Background: Abuse of topical corticosteroids (TC), especially over the face, is prevalent worldwide, including in India. Data about the magnitude of this problem in our country is lacking. Aims: The aims of this study were to ascertain the demographics, magnitude and clinical features of TC misuse on the face in the dermatology outpatient department (OPD) attendees in order to raise awareness about this problem and to analyze its causes. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter questionnaire-based clinical study conducted at 12 dermatology centers nationwide. Patients with relevant facial dermatoses reporting to the investigator were asked about their current use of over-the-counter topical formulations and a structured questionnaire applied in case the same was confirmed to be TC. Results: A total of 2926 patients with facial dermatoses were screened, of which 433 (14.8%) were using TC. TC was used as a fairness/general purpose cream or aftershave in 126 (29%) and in 104 (24%) for acne. Steroid combinations were used by 258 (59.6%). Potent and super-potent TC were significantly (P = 0.05) more frequently used by the rural/suburban population. The younger age groups used more potent formulations. A non-physician recommendation for TC use was obtainable in 257 (59.3%) patients. Of these, 232 (90.3%) were for potent/super-potent steroids. Among 176 physician prescriptions, 78 (44.3%) were from non-dermatologists. All non-physician prescriptions and 146 (83%) physician prescriptions for TC were inappropriately refilled. Adverse effects were seen in 392 (90.5%) TC users. Acne/exacerbation of acne was the most common adverse effect. Conclusions: TC misuse in patients with facial dermatoses is quite common, and most of this use is unwarranted. Use as a fairness cream is the most common indication in this cohort. Limitations: This was an OPD-based study and, therefore, it may or may not accurately reflect the community data.
RESUMEN
Background: Detergents are used by almost every household in the developed and developing world. Soap and most detergents are anionic surfactants and attack the horny layer of the skin and increase its permeability with little or no inflammatory change and may result in hand eczema, which is very distressing and incapacitating. Aim: To evaluate the irritant potential of common household detergents (laundry and dish wash) used by the Indian population using a 24-hour patch test and to convincingly educate the patients on the detergents less likely to cause irritation in the particular individual. Methods: Seventeen commonly used detergents found in Indian market were included in the study, of which, 12 were laundry detergents (powders - seven, bar soap - five) and five were dish wash detergents (powder - one, liquid - one, bar soap - three). The irritant potential of the 17 detergents were evaluated in 30 volunteers. Thirty microliters of each of the detergent bar solutions, distilled water (negative control), and 20% SDS (positive control) were applied to Finn chambers with a micropipette and occluded for 24 hours. Erythema, scaling, and edema were graded in comparison to the reaction at the negative control site (distilled water) for each volunteer separately. The scoring of erythema / dryness and wrinkling on a 0 - 4 point scale and edema on another 0 - 4 point scale was based on the Draize scale. The pH of each of the detergent solutions was determined using litmus papers (Indikrom papers from Qualigens fine chemicals). Results: The difference between detergents (F value) was significant for erythema / dryness and wrinkling (F = 3.374; p = 0.000), but not significant for edema (F = 1.297; p = 0.194). [Table 2] lists the means for erythema / dryness and wrinkling, and edema. The F value of the totals of the means for erythema / dryness and wrinkling and edema was significant (F = 2.495; p = 0.001). The pH of all the detergents was found to be alkaline except Pril utensil cleaner which tested acidic (pH 6). The positive control, 20% SDS also tested acidic (pH 6). Conclusion : Similar to patch testing in allergic contact dermatitis, 24-hour patch testing with detergent solutions (8% w/v), will educate the patient on what detergent to avoid. This may bring down the total medication requirement and frequent hospital consultations for these patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Histamine is responsible for the wheal and flare reaction in various allergic conditions. Classical antihistamines are the drugs which block the H 1 receptors and are widely used in various allergic conditions, whereas H 2 blockers are mainly used for acid peptic disease. Although H 1 receptor-mediated actions of histamine are primarily responsible for vasodilatation, vasopermeability, and itching, it has been observed that combined blocking of both H1 and H2 receptors may provide better relief. AIM: To compare the efficacy of levocetirizine (H1 blocker) versus levocetirizine and ranitidine (H2 blocker) in suppressing histamine-induced wheal. METHODS: Fifteen volunteers were given a single dose of levocetirizine 5 mg on day 1 and a single dose of levocetirizine 5 mg with ranitidine 150 mg twice a day on day 7. A pretest was performed by intradermal histamine prick test. After administration of the drugs, the prick test was repeated at 1 hour, 2, 3, 6, and 24 hours, and the size of the wheal measured and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: At 1 hour, there was no statistically significant difference in the wheal size between levocetirizine alone and the combination of levocetirizine and ranitidine. Levocetirizine with ranitidine resulted in statistically significant reduction of wheal size at 2, 3, 6, and 24 hours when compared with levocetirizine alone. CONCLUSION: H2 blocker potentiates the effects of an H1 blocker in suppressing histamine-induced wheal.