Do Dermatologic Diagnosis Change in Hot vs. Cold Periods of The Year? A Sub-Analysis of the DIADERM National Sample (Spain 2016). / ¿Existe variación en los diagnósticos dermatológicos entre la temporada de frío vs. calor? Un subanálisis del estudio DIADERM (España 2016).

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of seasonal variation of cutaneous disorder may be useful for heath planning and disease management. To date, however, descriptions of seasonality including all diagnoses in a representative country sample are very scarce. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if clinical dermatologic diagnosis in Spain change in the hot vs. cold periods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey based on a random sample of dermatologists in Spain, stratified by area. Each participant collected data during 6 days of clinical activity in 2016 (3 in the cold period of the year, 3 in the hot period). Clinical diagnoses were coded using ICD-10. RESULTS: With a 62% response proportion, we got data on 10999 clinical diagnoses. ICD-10 diagnostic groups that showed changes were: other benign neoplasms of skin (D23), rosacea (L71) and other follicular disorders (L73), which were more common in the hot period and acne (L70) which was more frequent in the cold period. We describe differences in the paediatric population and in private vs. public practice. Some of these differences might be associated to differences in the population demanding consultations in different periods. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of most clinical diagnosis made by dermatologists does not change over the year. Just a few of the clinical diagnoses made by dermatologists show a variation in hot vs. cold periods. These variations could be due to the diseases themselves or to seasonal changes in the demand for consultation.

Insulin resistance and NAFLD: Relationship with intrahepatic iron and serum TNF-α using 1H MR spectroscopy and MRI.

AIM: The association of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with insulin resistance (IR) is well established, yet little is known of their possible relationship with intrahepatic iron and serum tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α concentrations in adults without diabetes. Thus, this study looked at the relationship of intrahepatic iron and serum TNF-α with intrahepatic triglycerides and IR in non-diabetic adults. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study of 104 healthy non-diabetic Caucasians, a quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging T2 gradient-echo technique was used to measure hepatic iron, with 1H-MR spectroscopy used to measure hepatic triglycerides. HOMA-IR was calculated to determine IR. RESULTS: The prevalence of hepatic iron overload (HIOL) was 26.6% in individuals with NAFLD vs. 0% in those without. IR was present in 87.5% of subjects with both NAFLD and HIOL, in 45.4% of those with NAFLD but not HIOL, and in 4.5% of those with neither. HOMA-IR was positively correlated with hepatic triglycerides (r = 0.56, P < 0.001) and hepatic iron (r = 0.52, P < 0.001), whereas serum TNF-α concentrations correlated with intrahepatic triglyceride levels (r = 0.28, P < 0.04), but not with intrahepatic iron. Hepatic triglycerides, serum TNF-α and age were the only significant determinants of IR in regression analyses. CONCLUSION: IR is closely associated with intrahepatic triglycerides and, to a lesser extent, intrahepatic iron, with some interplay between them. High serum TNF-α concentrations may contribute to the association between NAFLD and IR, while increased hepatic triglycerides appear to be a determinant of the development of HIOL in non-diabetic subjects without haemochromatosis.