4.6 Article

Cutaneous manifestations of immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked (IPEX) syndrome

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 160, 期 3, 页码 645-651

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08835.x

关键词

atopic dermatitis; FOXP3; IPEX syndrome; regulatory T cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked (IPEX) syndrome is a rare disorder characterized by neonatal autoimmune enteropathy, diabetes and thyroiditis, food allergies and skin rash. IPEX syndrome is caused by mutations in FOXP3, a master control gene of regulatory T cells (Tregs), resulting in absent or dysfunctional Tregs. Data in the literature are scarce and the cutaneous manifestations are rarely depicted. To evaluate the frequency and characteristics of cutaneous manifestations found in IPEX. Retrospective single-centre study of a case series of IPEX. Patients' data were retrieved from medical files and numerous parameters concerning general and cutaneous characteristics of the disease were recorded. Ten children with IPEX were studied. Cutaneous involvement was present in seven of 10 chidren; age at onset was 0-4 months, median 1.5. All patients presented with atopic dermatitis (AD). Three presented more psoriasiform lesions. Eczema was severe; most affected areas were lower limbs, trunk and face. Pruritus was present in four of seven, and painful fissurary cheilitis in four of seven. Hyper-IgE was found in seven of 10 and hypereosinophilia in five of 10. Skin biopsies showed eczematiform or psoriasiform features. Affected patients were improved by dermocorticoids; no clear improvement was obtained with immunosuppressive regimens. Other features were urticaria secondary to food allergies and staphylococcal sepsis, mostly Staphylococcus aureus and catheter related. AD seems to be a frequent finding in IPEX syndrome, which is characterized by Treg anomalies. This hints to a possible role of Tregs in AD, which is then discussed in this study.

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