Development, reliability, and validity of a novel Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI).

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of validated standardized outcome measures for epidermolysis bullosa (EB) that can separate activity from damage. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and validate an instrument for inherited EB of all ages and subtypes, the EB Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), which scores activity responsive to therapy separately from scarring. METHODS: The EBDASI was validated by comparing its reliability and validity against the Birmingham EB Severity (BEBS) score (partially validated with activity mixed with scarring), using the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) scale as a reference measurement. Sixteen patients with EB (7 EB simplex, 5 dominant dystrophic EB [DDEB], 2 junctional EB, and 2 recessive dystrophic EB) were assessed by 5 EB experts using the EBDASI, BEBS, and PGA, and data from 9 additional patients assessed on an ad hoc basis during routine patient clinic were also included. RESULTS: For interrater reliability, the overall total score intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence intervals) were: EBDASI 0.964 (0.929-0.986), BEBS 0.852 (0.730-0.937), and PGA 0.873 (0.765-0.946). For intrarater reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficients were: EBDASI 0.994 (0.976-0.998), BEBS 0.926 (0.748-0.981), and PGA 0.932 (0.764-0.982). The EBDASI had a higher correlation with PGA (ρ = 0.871) than BEBS with PGA (ρ = 0.852). Intraclass correlation coefficients scatterplots showed the EBDASI was better at distinguishing milder forms of EB, with better correlations at higher severity scores than the BEBS. LIMITATIONS: A limited number of patients were recruited for this study. An independent study will be required to demonstrate the responsiveness of the EBDASI. CONCLUSION: The EBDASI demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, as compared with 2 other outcome measures.

Retrospective evidence on outcomes and experiences of pregnancy and childbirth in epidermolysis bullosa in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) has not been comprehensively studied. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a foundational database, which could provide peri-obstetric advice in EB. METHODS: Survey questionnaires were sent to obstetricians, unaffected mothers of EB babies, and mothers with EB. Results were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher exact, and t-tests. RESULTS: Out of 1346 obstetricians surveyed, 195 responded, and only 14 had encountered EB. All recommended normal vaginal delivery (NVD), except for one elective Caesarean section (CS). We received responses from 75 unaffected mothers who had delivered EB babies. They had significantly more complications in their EB pregnancies compared to their non-EB pregnancies. A further 44 women with various types of EB who had given birth responded. Most delivered via NVD and had no significant increase in complications in both their EB and non-EB pregnancies. In both groups, there were no significant differences in blistering at birth in babies delivered via NVD and CS. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, most patients with EB who are capable of giving birth do not have an increased risk for pregnancy-related complications and NVD appears to be safe. Awareness of this data amongst obstetricians and dermatologists should lead to improved quality of care for mothers and babies affected with EB.

Retrospective evidence on outcomes and experiences of pregnancy and childbirth in epidermolysis bullosa in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) has not been comprehensively studied. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a foundational database, which could provide peri-obstetric advice in EB. METHODS: Survey questionnaires were sent to obstetricians, unaffected mothers of EB babies, and mothers with EB. Results were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher exact, and t-tests. RESULTS: Out of 1346 obstetricians surveyed, 195 responded, and only 14 had encountered EB. All recommended normal vaginal delivery (NVD), except for one elective Caesarean section (CS). We received responses from 75 unaffected mothers who had delivered EB babies. They had significantly more complications in their EB pregnancies compared to their non-EB pregnancies. A further 44 women with various types of EB who had given birth responded. Most delivered via NVD and had no significant increase in complications in both their EB and non-EB pregnancies. In both groups, there were no significant differences in blistering at birth in babies delivered via NVD and CS. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, most patients with EB who are capable of giving birth do not have an increased risk for pregnancy-related complications and NVD appears to be safe. Awareness of this data amongst obstetricians and dermatologists should lead to improved quality of care for mothers and babies affected with EB.

Inherited epidermolysis bullosa: new diagnostic criteria and classification.

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of inherited, mechanobullous disorders caused by mutations in various structural proteins in the skin. There have been several advances in the classification of EB since it was first introduced in the late 19th century. We now recognize four major types of EB, depending on the location of the target proteins and level of the blisters: EB simplex (epidermolytic), junctional EB (lucidolytic), dystrophic EB (dermolytic), and Kindler syndrome (mixed levels of blistering). This contribution will summarize the most recent classification and discuss the molecular basis, target genes, and proteins involved. We have also included new subtypes, such as autosomal dominant junctional EB and autosomal recessive EB due to mutations in the dystonin (DST) gene, which encodes the epithelial isoform of bullouspemphigoid antigen 1. The main laboratory diagnostic techniques-immunofluorescence mapping, transmission electron microscopy, and mutation analysis-will also be discussed. Finally, the clinical characteristics of the different major EB types and subtypes will be reviewed.

Pemphigoid gestationis: pathogenesis and clinical features.

Pemphigoid gestationis is a rare, autoimmune bullous disease of pregnancy that involves autoantibodies directed against type XVII collagen in the basement membrane zone. This article discusses the immunopathogenesis, diagnostic methods, and clinical features of this fascinating disease.

Pemphigoid gestationis: current management.

Pemphigoid gestationis is an autoimmune blistering disease of pregnancy caused by autoantibodies directed against BP180 (type XVII collagen) in the basement membrane zone. This article discusses the current management of this rare disease.

Management of epidermolysis bullosa acquisita.

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare and debilitating autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering disease caused by autoantibodies directed against type VII collagen or anchoring fibrils in the subepidermal basement membrane zone. Treatment is quite challenging because this disease can be recalcitrant to multiple modalities. This article discusses the current management of this disease.

Responsiveness of nonHerlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa to topical gentian violet.

BACKGROUND: Gentian violet (GV), a mixture of crystal violet and methyl violet, a dye belonging to the di- and triaminophenylmethanes class and has been widely used for its bactericidal and fungicidal properties. To date, there have been no reports of long-term therapeutic use of GV in epidermolysis bullosa (EB). METHODS: Two brothers with nonHerlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) aged 12 and 14 tried topical GV to one lower leg with conventional silicone dressings and this was compared with leaving the other leg with silicone dressings alone, over 4 weeks. Wounds were photographed and measured using Visitrak analysis. Pain, ooze, and appearance were assessed using visual analog scales (VAS) scales and Quality of life using Dermatology Life Quality Index and QOLEB (2) tools. RESULTS: The side treated with dressings and GV reduced to 14.9 cm(2) (-20.74%) and to 9.5 cm(2) (-56.62%) for dressings alone in the older brother (EB-012) and to 4.2 cm(2) (+20%) and 12.5 cm(2) (-7%) for the younger brother (EB-011) in ulcer size, respectively. Both patients did complain of stinging on the sites treated within a few days. QOL measures and VAS scores did not show any significant change. CONCLUSIONS: GV may be considered to be a therapeutic option for ulcers in nH-JEB patients and potentially other EB subtypes. A formal randomized controlled trial and long-term safety study of GV in EB is recommended.