4.5 Article

Nomenclature of Cutaneous Vasculitis Dermatologic Addendum to the 2012 Revised International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference Nomenclature of Vasculitides

Journal

ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 171-184

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/art.40375

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology [2014-028]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To prepare a dermatologic addendum to the 2012 revised International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference Nomenclature of Vasculitides (CHCC2012) to address vasculitides affecting the skin (D-CHCC). The goal was to standardize the names and definitions for cutaneous vasculitis. Methods: A nominal group technique with a facilitator was used to reach consensus on the D-CHCC nomenclature, using multiple face-to-face meetings, e-mail discussions, and teleconferences. Results: Standardized names, definitions, and descriptions were adopted for cutaneous components of systemic vasculitides (e.g., cutaneous IgA vasculitis as a component of systemic IgA vasculitis), skin-limited variants of systemic vasculitides (e.g., skin-limited IgA vasculitis, drug-induced skin-limited antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis), and cutaneous single-organ vasculitides that have no systemic counterparts (e.g., nodular vasculitis). Cutaneous vasculitides that were not included in the CHCC2012 nomenclature were introduced. Conclusion: Standardized names and definitions are a prerequisite for developing validated classification and diagnostic criteria for cutaneous vasculitis. Accurate identification of specifically defined variants of systemic and skin-limited vasculitides requires knowledgeable integration of data from clinical, laboratory, and pathologic studies. This proposed nomenclature of vasculitides affecting the skin, the D-CHCC, provides a standard framework both for clinicians and for investigators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available