Résumé
BACKGROUND: The survival and growth of melanocytes are controlled by the binding of stem cell factor to its cell surface receptor c-kit+ (CD117). We have observed that c-kit+ melanocytes existed in some lesions of vitiligo, while Melan A+ cells were absent. OBJECTIVE: To verify possible relation between c-kit+ expression and treatment response in non-segmental vitiligo lesions. METHODS: Skin biopsies were done from the center of the 47 lesions from the 47 patients with non-segmental vitiligo. Expression of c-kit+ and Melan A, and amounts of melanin in the epidermis were assessed in each lesion, and treatment responses to excimer laser were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-five of the 47 lesions (74.5%) had c-kit+ phenotypes. There was significant difference of c-kit staining value between good responders in 3 months of excimer laser treatment (average of 24 sessions) and the others. CONCLUSION: c-Kit expression in vitiliginous epidermis may be related to better treatment responses to excimer laser.
Sujets)
Humains , Biopsie , Épiderme , Lasers à excimères , Antigène MART-1 , Mélanines , Mélanocytes , Phénotype , Protéines proto-oncogènes c-kit , Peau , Facteur de croissance des cellules souches , VitiligoRésumé
PURPOSE: Topical calcineurin inhibitor is recently developed topical immunomodulator, and preliminary studies showed its effectiveness in the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). However, some side effects including transient irritation can influence the patient compliance. So, there are some needs to improve the patient compliance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety and patient compliance with using topical tacrolimus 0.1% to treat AD when the correct information about topical tacrolimus are properly given to patients. METHODS: We examined the medical recordings, clinical severity scoring of total 194 AD patients at 9 general hospitals in Seoul, Korea from September 2010 to August 2011. We offered an infosheet of topical tacrolimus 0.1% and the patients applied it twice a day for 2 weeks. And we measured the efficacy of the topical tacrolimus 0.1% with SCORing atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) index, patient's global assessment (PGA), and investigator's global assessment (IGA). RESULTS: Topical tacrolimus 0.1% effectively controlled AD with a reduction of the SCORAD index from baseline 31.9 to 20.2 at 2 weeks of application. In IGA results showed 98% got improvement and in PGA, results showed 96% got improvement after treatment. Although 42.3% of the patients complained of adverse effects, these were all transient. The effect of information on topical tacrolimus 0.1% showed 34% patients could predict the side effect, 35% patients could feel safety to use, and 18% patients experienced side effect but could maintain topical calcineurin inhibitor. CONCLUSION: Topical tacrolimus 0.1% may be an effective treatment modality for AD when patients show good compliance for applying the ointment. And properly given, the correct information may increase the patient compliance.
Sujets)
Humains , Calcineurine , Compliance , Eczéma atopique , Hôpitaux généraux , Immunoglobuline A , Corée , Dossiers médicaux , Observance par le patient , Prostaglandines A , TacrolimusRésumé
Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is an ultrashort-acting sedative agent with sedative and amnestic effects that is used not only for anesthesia but also for sedation during minor outpatient procedures and endoscopic examinations. Rare cases of anaphylaxis following propofol administration have been reported in the medical literature. Documentation of anaphylaxis is often lacking because the cause and effect relationship is often hard to prove. Only a minority of patients get referred for allergy testing to confirm the offending drug. Here we report a 74-year-old woman who had an anaphylactic reaction with severe oropharyngeal edema and bronchospasm for a few minutes after receiving propofol during endoscopic examination. An allergy skin test was positive for both propofol and soybean. Soybean in the intralipid is one component of propofol, and we concluded that this anaphylaxis was caused by soybean.