Recent findings about antimalarials in cutaneous lupus erythematosus: What dermatologists should know.

Antimalarials (AMs), particularly hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ), are the cornerstone of the treatment for both systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). HCQ and CQ are recommended as first-line oral agents in all CLE guidelines. Initially thought to have potential therapeutic effects against COVID-19, HCQ has drawn significant attention in recent years, highlighting concerns over its potential toxicity among patients and physicians. This review aims to consolidate current evidence on the efficacy of AMs in CLE. Our focus will be on optimizing therapeutic strategies, such as switching from HCQ to CQ, adding quinacrine to either HCQ or CQ, or adjusting HCQ dose based on blood concentration. Additionally, we will explore the potential for HCQ dose reduction or discontinuation in cases of CLE or SLE remission. Our review will focus on the existing evidence regarding adverse events linked to AM usage, with a specific emphasis on severe events and those of particular interest to dermatologists. Last, we will discuss the optimal HCQ dose and the balance between preventing CLE or SLE flares and minimizing toxicity.

Comparison of patients with isolated cutaneous lupus erythematosus versus systemic lupus erythematosus with cutaneous lupus erythematosus as the sole clinical feature: A monocentric study of 149 patients.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) may present as an isolated entity or be classified as Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by the presence of laboratory abnormalities, including cytopenia, low complement levels, and/or autoantibodies (CLE with laboratory SLE). OBJECTIVE: To compare isolated CLE and CLE with laboratory SLE and to validate an existing 3-item score with age < 25 years (1 point), phototypes V to VI (1 point), antinuclear antibodies ≥ 1:320 (5 points) to predict the risk of progression from CLE to severe SLE (sSLE). METHODS: Monocentric cohort study including consecutive patients with CLE. CLE with laboratory SLE was defined by 2019 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for SLE score of ≥10 points at baseline with CLE as the sole clinical feature. RESULTS: Of the 149 patients with CLE, 20 had CLE with laboratory SLE. The median follow-up duration was 11.3 years (IQR: 5.1-20.5). Ten patients (7%) had sSLE developed. In survival analysis, the risk of progression to sSLE was higher among CLE with laboratory SLE (hazard ratio = 6.69; 95% CI: 1.93-23.14, P < .001) compared to isolated CLE. In both groups, none of the patients with a risk score ≤ 2 had sSLE developed. LIMITATIONS: Monocentric study with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: CLE with laboratory patients with SLE have a higher risk of progression to sSLE than isolated CLE.

Sexually Transmitted Trichophyton mentagrophytes Genotype VII Infection among Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Transmission of dermatophytes, especially Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII, during sexual intercourse has been recently reported. We report 13 such cases in France. All patients were male; 12 were men who have sex with men. Our findings suggest sexual transmission of this pathogen within a specific population, men who have sex with men.

Management of acute dyspnoea: use and feasibility of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) assay in the prehospital setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of acute left ventricular failure (LVF) is often difficult in the prehospital setting. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a marker of LVF. The object of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of BNP measurement during the prehospital management of patients with dyspnoea. DESIGN: Prospective feasibility study, in the Paris Emergency Medical Service (SAMU). PATIENTS: All patients, aged 50 years and over, presenting with acute dyspnoea were included in the study, unless the dyspnoea was of circumstantial origin. Bedside BNP assays were conducted in parallel with the usual clinical management. For each patient, three diagnoses (cardiac, respiratory or uncertain) were established: firstly, according to the usual clinical criteria (diagnosis 1); secondly (diagnosis 2) according to the result of BNP measurement. When the diagnoses 1 and 2 were not in agreement, patients were entered into a category labeled "diagnostic correction". RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included in the study. Twenty-one patients had clinically obvious LVF (diagnosis 1' = cardiac). For seven other patients, the clinical variables suggested a respiratory cause (diagnosis 1 = respiratory). For 24 patients dyspnoea was due to a non-identified cause (diagnosis 1 = uncertain). BNP levels were measured in 51 out of 52 patients (one failure). Only nine patients had a BNP level lower than the threshold value of 100 pg ml(-1). In 71% the diagnosis 1 was corrected after BNP estimation. Only two of 27 patients with marked bronchospasm had a BNP level lower than 100 pg ml(-1). CONCLUSION: Estimation of BNP is both feasible and easy in prehospital care, and can confirm the cardiac origins of atypical acute dyspnoea. In elderly patients LVF appears to be clinically underestimated. BNP assay may produce improvements in prehospital management of patients with dyspnoea.