Dermatitis herpetiformis (DH), Duhring disease, is caused by gluten sensitivity and affects 11.2 to 75.3 per 100,000 people in the United States and Europe with an incidence of 0.4 to 3.5 per 100,000 people per year. DH is characterized by a symmetrical blistering rash on the extensor surfaces with severe pruritus. The diagnosis continues to be made primarily by pathognomonic findings on histopathology, especially direct immunofluorescence (DIF). Recently, anti-epidermal transglutaminase (TG3) antibodies have shown to be a primary diagnostic serology, while anti-tissue transglutaminase (TG2) and other autoantibodies may be used to support the diagnosis and for disease monitoring. Newly diagnosed patients with DH should be screened and assessed for associated diseases and complications. A gluten-free diet (GFD) and dapsone are still mainstays of treatment, but other medications may be necessary for recalcitrant cases. Well-controlled DH patients, managed by a dermatologist, a gastroenterologist, and a dietician, have an excellent prognosis. Our review comprehensively details the current diagnostic methods, as well as methods used to monitor its disease course. We also describe both the traditional and novel management options reported in the literature.

Objectives To analyze adverse events (AEs) related to sclerosants reported through the Federal Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods We queried the FAERS database for all cases associated with sclerosants. Reports were analyzed and stratified based on severity of cases and patient death. Results A total of 1215 cases with 3124 reactions were identified among 4 sclerosants. “General disorder and administration site conditions” reaction group was prevalent in all sclerosants. For polidocanol, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were the most common severe reactions while cardiac arrest was frequent in death cases. Anaphylaxis was common in fatalities of sodium tetradecyl sulfate. Ethanolamine oleate was associated with procedural errors, while morrhuate sodium resulted in few cases. Conclusion Our analysis supports previous studies concerning common local symptoms, but also reveals serious and death associated reaction profiles specific to individual sclerosants. Practitioners should be knowledgeable on both non-lethal and fatal AEs for each sclerosant. The multitude of reports concerning serious reactions and deaths we report herein provide a cautionary reminder to venous practitioners and patients that sclerotherapy is not a trivial procedure.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDMultiple non-invasive modalities have become popular alternatives to surgical procedures for body contouring.OBJECTIVETo analyze adverse events (AEs) associated with non-invasive body contouring devices reported through the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.METHODS AND MATERIALSThe MAUDE database were queried for AEs associated with non-invasive body contouring devices between January 2011 and June 2021. An extensive list of keywords and brand and manufacturer names was used.RESULTSA total of 1,325 reports with 1,590 AEs were identified among 6 modalities. More than 70% were reported in the past 5 years. Cryolipolysis made up 38.3% reports, which mostly pertained to paradoxical hyperplasia and hernias. Radiofrequency had the most reports (41.9%). Like laser devices, most of their reports described burns. Focused ultrasound was commonly associated with unintentional fat loss and surface irregularities. Focused electromagnetic field resulted in only 7 reports.CONCLUSIONThe analysis of present study supports previous studies concerning common local symptoms caused by these devices, but it also reveals complications not reported in previous device studies. This study highlights the importance of proper technique and adherence to device guidelines. Practitioners should be knowledgeable of potential complications from each device to both prevent and manage them accordingly.

No abstract