Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation amongst Patients with Facial Dermatoses (Acne, Rosacea, Perioral Dermatitis, and Folliculitis) in Lithuania.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Skin diseases, especially those with visible manifestation, are considered to cause a major influence on global mental health. Therefore, we determined the prevalence and severity of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation in a large sample of patients with facial dermatoses, namely acne, rosacea, folliculitis, and perioral dermatitis. METHODS: The mental health of patients with facial dermatoses and respective controls was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and questions concerning suicidal ideation. RESULTS: The study included 543 patients with facial dermatoses and 497 healthy individuals. Anxiety was present in 37.6% of the patients (14.9% of controls), depression in 21.7% (6.8%), and suicidal thoughts in 9.8% (3.2%) (p < 0.001). Acne patients demonstrated the highest anxiety and depression subscale scores (mean ± standard deviation: 7.1 ± 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.58-7.56; controls: 5 ± 0.23, 95% CI: 4.57-5.49). In rosacea 30% of the patients had depression symptoms (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 7.216, 95% CI: 4.122-12.632, p < 0.001), while in folliculitis patients 15.4% (OR: 3.138, 95% CI: 1.241-7.936, p = 0.016) had suicidal thoughts. Patients with anxiety symptoms and suicidal thoughts were on average younger than those without (28.3 ± 0.76 vs. 31.2 ± 0.66 years, p = 0.001 and 25.3 ± 0.98 vs. 30.5 ± 0.55 years, p = 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSION: Acne and rosacea are associated with anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation in Lithuanian patients. Younger patients are more prone to report such symptoms than older ones.

Rosacea and perioral dermatitis: a single-center retrospective analysis of the clinical presentation of 1032 patients.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common chronic inflammatory cutaneous disorder affecting nearly 5.5 % of the adult population. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and epidemiology of rosacea and perioral dermatitis (POD) in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed medical data of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of rosacea or perioral dermatitis (POD) presenting at our university hospital outpatient clinic during a 3-year period. RESULTS: Out of 1032 patients, 81.5 % were diagnosed with rosacea and 18.5 % with POD. Overall prevalence was 1.4 % for rosacea and 0.3 % for POD. 69.3 % of the analyzed patients were female. Overall mean age was 49.3 ± 7.7 (1-92) years; the women's average age was less than the men's. Patients with POD were younger and predominantly female, whereas patients with phymatous rosacea were older and predominantly male. The most common phenotypes were papulopustular rosacea (68.4 %), erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (22.5 %), and phymatous rosacea (8.0 %). Special forms of rosacea were diagnosed in 15.8 % of the patients; the most frequent were ocular rosacea (6.9 %) and steroid-induced rosacea (5.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: The large patient cohort analyzed in our study provides a good estimate of the frequency of the rosacea subtypes, special forms and of perioral dermatitis in a hospital-based outpatient care setting.

[Diagnostic criteria, epidemiology and substantiation of clinicopathogenetic types of perioral dermatitis].

The perioral dermatitis is a multifactorial disease of a face skin meeting in population with frequency of 5% also represents inflammatory process with the various morphological characteristic of an eruption. A total of 511 patients are surveyed by a perioral dermatitis. For the first time clinico-pathogenetic types of development and a disease current (it is hormonal--immunologic, allergic, gastroenterology, metabolic) with characteristic distinctive changes of the hormonal status, a metabolism and immunity system are allocated. The complex of laboratory criteria of diagnostics of the specified types of the perioral dermatitis, giving representation about mechanisms of formation, clinical features of the dermatosis is developed, allowing differentiate to prove the approach to treatment.

Clinical findings and outcomes for dogs with uveodermatologic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate signalment, clinical signs, treatment, and factors affecting visual prognosis in dogs with uveodermatologic syndrome (UDS). DESIGN Retrospective case series and nested cohort study. ANIMALS 50 dogs (37 Akitas and 13 non-Akitas) with UDS evaluated at 4 ophthalmology practices. PROCEDURES Data were collected from the medical records regarding signalment, clinical signs, biopsy results, medications, adverse effects, vision and glaucoma status at initial and subsequent examinations, and duration of follow-up. Various factors were examined for associations with development of blindness or glaucoma following initial examination. RESULTS The most common ophthalmic signs included aqueous flare (n = 35 [70%]), iris abnormalities (29 [58%]), retinal detachment (23 [46%]), and choroidal depigmentation or chorioretinal infiltrates (10 [20%]). At initial examination, 36% (18/50) of dogs had glaucoma and 57% (26/46) were blind in both eyes. Twenty-five (50%) dogs had vision at their final visit, representing 78% of the 32 dogs that had vision at initial examination or regained vision during the follow-up period. In dogs that lost vision, median time to permanent blindness in both eyes was 13.5 months (range, 0.4 to 59 months) after initial examination. No significant associations with time to glaucoma or vision loss were identified for signalment variables, specific medications, or duration of clinical signs prior to initial examination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE UDS commonly resulted in glaucoma, vision loss, or both in affected dogs. No evaluated factor was associated with visual prognosis; however, a subset of patients maintained vision through to the final recheck examination.

Pediatric periorificial dermatitis.

Periorificial dermatitis (POD) has been documented in the pediatric population in patients as young as 3 months, with a slight predominance in girls compared to boys. Many patients have a personal or family history of atopic disorders. Periorificial dermatitis typically presents with erythematous to flesh-colored papules and rarely pustules near the eyes, nose, and mouth. Although the etiology is unknown, many patients have had recent exposure to a topical or less commonly an inhaled or systemic corticosteroid. Although steroids may initially control the skin lesions, disease often rebounds after discontinuing therapy. Diagnosis of POD is clinical. Laboratory tests are not helpful in making the diagnosis, and the histology of POD resembles rosacea. It is important to rule out other acneform diagnoses based on the age of the patient, clinical history, and presentation of the lesions. Topical metronidazole has been successful in the pediatric population. For pediatric patients with extrafacial skin lesions or more severe disease, oral antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, minocycline, azithromycin, and erythromycin can be used, depending on the age of the patient.

Epidemiological study of periocular dermatitis in a specialised hospital department.

Contact dermatitis is frequent skin pathology and eyelids are one of the more frequent locations of this pathology. The objective of the present work was to study the population distribution of periocular dermatitis, determine the allergens which most frequently indicate positive in patch tests and in provocative use tests, and analyse the clinical relevance of the positive tests.Patients with periocular dermatitis (N=93) underwent a thorough physical examination and a patch test with standard series. According to clinical suspicions, 76 patients underwent a patch test with specific series. Finally a provocative use test was done for 36 patients with suspected products that the patients brought. The tests were classified according their relevance.The most frequently observed allergen in the patch tests (with standard and specific series) was nickel followed by mercury, and anti-glaucoma drops in the provocative use tests with patients products.Patients' sex, age, occupation, clinical status, presence of associated periocular symptoms, and presence of atopic or seborrheic dermatitis and/or rosacea did not relate with relevance.We conclude that a clinical diagnosis may not always be made with patch tests with standard and specific series due to lack of relevance. It is important to do provocative use tests with the products suspected as allergens in those cases where patch tests with standard and specific series indicated positive for more than one allergen.

Positive patch test reactions to allergens of the dental series and the relation to the clinical presentations.

The clinical manifestations of contact allergic dermatitis to dental materials are not uniform. This study was performed to detect the frequent allergens in the dental series associated with contact dermatitis and to define the causal relationship between the different allergens and the relevant clinical presentations. Between the years 2000 and 2004, 134 patients, aged 20-80 years, were patch tested. 121 patients were included in the study. The most frequent oral manifestations were cheilitis and perioral dermatitis (25.6%), burning mouth (15.7%), lichenoid reaction (14.0%), and orofacial granulomatosis (10.7%). 18 (14.9%) patients were dental personnel, all of whom suffered from hand dermatitis. The common allergens detected included goldsodiumthiosulphate (14.0%), nickel sulfate (13.2%), mercury (9.9%), palladium chloride (7.4%), cobalt chloride (5.0%), and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (5.8%). Positive reactions to metals were frequent in all the different clinical variants, and no specific association between a specific clinical presentation and a particular allergen was found. Allergy to mercury was not a significant factor contributing to the pathogenesis of oral lichenoid reactions. However, a strong association with contact allergy to mercury in dental fillings was found in 2 patients with orofacial granulomatosis.

Topical cosmetics and perioral dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Perioral dermatitis (PD) is a common dermatological disease whose aetiology and pathogenesis remain speculative. Both cosmetics and topical corticosteroids have been implicated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 75 patients with PD and 125 randomly selected control patients with negative PD records were included in a questionnaire-based study focusing on cosmetics, their use, and topical corticosteroids. The patients were assessed for atopy by clinical criteria, prick tests and specific IgE against a mixture of aeroallergens (CAP SX 1). RESULTS: There were no significant (p < 0.05) differences in facial skin cleansing between the two groups except for night-time cleansing, which was performed more often in the patient group. The use of skin care products yielded significant differences between the patient and control group in respect to skin care in the morning and the use of day creams. Otherwise, the groups did not differ in their skin care regime (number of skin care products used, type of product, frequency of care). The mean monthly expenditure on cosmetic products did not differ significantly between the two groups. 25.3% of the patients used topical corticosteroids which were initiated in all cases after the onset of the rash. Significantly (p < 0.001) higher values were found in the patient group regarding history of atopic diseases (49.3% vs. 15.2%), prick test reactivity (> or =2 reactive prick tests: 49.3% vs. 8.0%), and specific IgE against aeroallergens (CAP SX1 classes > or =2: 50.7% vs. 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The often heard argument that PD results mainly from external factors is no longer tenable. A variable interaction between external (e.g. cosmetics) and intrinsic factors (e.g. atopic constitution) appears to lead to PD, perhaps by subclinical repetitive irritation and final overtaxing of the reparative capacity of the epithelial barrier function.

[Periocular dermatitis]. / Periokuläre Dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Perioral dermatitis paradoxically sometimes spares the entire perioral region. There may be isolated periocular involvement (periocular dermatitis). PATIENTS/METHODS: The records of 23 patients with only periocular dermatitis were reviewed with respect to the following parameters: clinical findings, history of atopy, topical facial treatment, prick and patch tests, CAP-SX1, previous treatment, time to healing and relapses. 23 patients with no history of periocular dermatitis were matched for age and sex (case-control study). RESULTS: The predominant clinical finding in the affected group was micropapules primarily in the lateral corner of the eye and lower eyelid. The groups differed significantly (p < 0.05) with regard to the history of atopic diseases and reactive prick tests. 22 patients regularly used face-care or eye-care products. These patients did not differ significantly from the control group with regard to frequency and type of product used. 6 patients had been previously treated with topical corticosteroids. The time to healing was 2-8 weeks (median: 4 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Periocular dermatitis is a variation on perioral dermatitis, where-by similar pathogenetic factors are observed. The elimination of topical corticosteroids and the gradual reduction of skin-care products regularly lead to clearing of the condition.