4.6 Review

Erosive Pustular Dermatosis: Delving into Etiopathogenesis and Management

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life12122097

关键词

erosive pustular dermatosis; etiopathogenesis; differential diagnosis; management; treatment; therapy; corticosteroids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Erosive pustular dermatosis (EPD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder that mainly affects the scalp and can lead to scarring alopecia. The dysregulated immune response is considered to play a central role in the development of EPD. Current treatment options, such as potent topical steroids and systemic retinoids, show response but recurrence is common. Further controlled studies are needed to provide solid recommendations.
Erosive pustular dermatosis (EPD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder that usually affects mature individuals. It predominantly affects the scalp and can lead to scarring alopecia. Risk factors include actinic damage and androgenetic alopecia. A traumatic insult to the skin is considered a vital trigger of the condition. EPD is a diagnosis of exclusion; thus, several neoplastic, infectious, vesiculobullous, and inflammatory conditions should be ruled out. Biopsy and clinicopathologic correlation are required to differentiate between EPD and these entities. A dysregulated, chronic immune response is considered central to the etiopathogenesis of EPD. We performed an evidence-based systematic review of the management options. There were predominantly studies with level IV and V evidence and only two with level III. Despite the responsiveness of EPD to potent topical steroids, such as clobetasol propionate, recurrence occurs after treatment withdrawal. With the available data, tacrolimus 0.1%, curettage-assisted aminolevulinic acid-photodynamic therapy, and systemic retinoids can be considered second-line options for EPD with a role in maintenance regimens. However, controlled data and more powerful studies are needed to make solid recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据