ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Mastocytosis is characterized by an accumulation of clonal mast cells (MCs) in tissues such as the skin. Skin lesions in mastocytosis may be clinically subtle or heterogeneous, and giving the correct diagnosis can be difficult. METHODS: This study compiles personal experiences together with relevant literature, discussing possible obstacles encountered in diagnosing skin involvement in mastocytosis and cutaneous mastocytosis (CM). RESULTS: The nomenclature of the term "CM" is ambiguous. The WHO classification defines CM as mastocytosis solely present in the skin. However, the term is also used as a morphological description, e.g., in maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis (MPCM). This is often seen in systemic, as well as cutaneous, mastocytosis. Typical CM manifestations (MPCM), including mastocytoma or diffuse cutaneous mastocytosis (DCM), all share a positive Darier's sign, and can thus be clinically recognized. Nevertheless, distinguishing monomorphic versus polymorphic MPCM may be challenging, even for experienced dermatologists. Less typical clinical presentations, such as MPCM with telangiectatic erythemas (formerly called telangiectasia macularis eruptiva perstans), confluent, nodular or xanthelasmoid variants may require a skin biopsy for histopathological confirmation. Because MC numbers in CM have a large overlap to those in healthy and inflamed skin, detailed histopathological criteria to diagnose mastocytosis in MPCM are needed and have been proposed. D816V KIT mutational analysis in tissue is helpful for confirming the diagnosis. Biomarkers allow the prediction of the course of CM into regression or evolution of the disease. Further diagnostic measures should screen for concomitant diseases, such as malignant melanoma, and for systemic involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas in typical cases the diagnosis of CM may be uncomplicated, less typical manifestations may require specific investigations for making the diagnosis and predicting its course.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Histamine intolerance (HIT) is frequently diagnosed in patients with polysymptomatic otherwise unexplained symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To exclude HIT by a single-blind placebo-controlled histamine challenge (SBPCHC), to study clinical features of patients with positive challenge, and to examine the predictability of HIT by biomarkers. METHODS: SBPCHC was performed in 59 patients with suspected HIT. History and clinical data, including serum diamine oxidase (DAO) and histamine skin test wheal size of patients with positive versus negative SBPCHC, were compared. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly middle-aged women (84.7%). Three-quarters reported improvement but never resolution of symptoms during a histamine-low diet. Histamine provocation was safe; only 1 patient was treated with antihistamines. Thirty-seven patients (62.7%) displayed symptoms to placebo. HIT was excluded in 50 patients (84.7%). Objective symptoms occurred in 4 of 59 cases (6.8%) after histamine but not after placebo challenge. These were diagnosed with "plausible HIT" because reactions occurring by chance could not be excluded. Another 5 patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with "possible HIT" after case-dependent detailed analysis. Patients with plausible/possible HIT had reported more gastrointestinal symptoms (P = .01), but comparable diet response and equal histamine skin prick test wheal sizes to those without HIT. Serum DAO activity tended to be lower in patients with HIT (P = .08), but was highly variable in those without, limiting its value as a biomarker. CONCLUSIONS: SBPCHC disproves HIT in the majority of patients. Placebo-controlled challenges are needed as placebo reactions were frequent. Gastrointestinal symptoms after food intake and reduced DAO levels are markers for HIT; however, specificity is not sufficient enough for making the diagnosis.
