ABSTRACT
The term prurigo is still used to designate primary dermatoses and secondary reaction patterns. A clear definition of the term is not available nor a clear clinical classification of diseases categorized under the term. Furthermore, there is no certainty about the entity it was primarily used to refer to, and whether it should always be considered in relation to pruritus. The concept appears already in very early medical treatises. From the very beginning, it was used in dermatology in a non-uniform way, and was alternately accorded and denied the status of an independent disease entity. Moreover, prurigo was subdivided into many different forms, but their descriptions are partly very similar, so that, for instance, it is quite difficult today to draw any conclusions about the clinical entities the frequently used terms prurigo mitis and prurigo formicans referred to. In contrast, the term prurigo nodularis is still commonly used. This article traces exemplarily the use of the term prurigo in the standard medical textbooks up to the definition of prurigo nodularis.
Subject(s)
Dermatology/history , Prurigo/classification , Prurigo/history , Terminology as Topic , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , HumansABSTRACT
It has been a subject of controversy whether keratosis lichenoides chronica (KLC) is a distinctive inflammatory disease of the skin or whether it represents a manifestation of another well-known disease, such as lichen planus, lupus erythematosus, or lichen simplex chronicus. In search of clear criteria for diagnosis of KLC the entire literature pertinent to the subject was studied and findings clinical and histopathologic as they were telegraphed in them were compared with a patient of my own experience. Review of the literature reveals more than 60 patients in whom the diagnosis of KLC was made. Three categories emerge based on whether the findings presented in a particular article (1) do not permit any diagnosis to be rendered; (2) do allow a diagnosis specific to be made, such as of lichen simplex, lichen planus, or lupus erythematosus; or (3) do not correspond to any disease well defined, such as lichen simplex, lichen planus, lupus erythematosus, but seem to show attributes morphologic, clinically and histopathologically, that are repeatable. Patients diagnosed as having KLC obviously represent a potpourri of different diseases, the most common of them being lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and lupus erythematosus. Fewer than 25 patients reported on, however, presented themselves with lesions very similar to one another clinically, namely, an eruption that involved the face in a manner reminiscent of seborrheic dermatitis and with tiny papules on the trunk and extremities, which assumed linear and reticulate shapes by way of confluence of lesions. Individual papules were infundibulocentric and acrosyringocentric. Findings histopathologic were those of a lichenoid interface dermatitis affiliated with numerous necrotic keratocytes and covered by parakeratosis housing neutrophils in staggered fashion. These patients seem to have an authentic and distinctive condition that is exceedingly rare. In conclusion, the diagnosis of KLC should be made only for patients who present themselves with features clinical and findings histopathologic that resemble closely those of what is summarized in this article under category 3.
