Rogers, Roy S.

Abstract Objectives Oral extraintestinal manifestations (OEIMs) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may impact IBD treatment. The aims of this study were to: (1) determine which OEIMs are most prevalent among patients with IBD, (2) investigate the presence of a temporal association between GI luminal disease activity and OEIMs, and (3) determine how often changes in therapeutic management of IBD are needed in the presence of OEIMs. Study Design A retrospective cohort study was performed for adult patients with IBD evaluated between January 2017 and November 2021 with at least 1 oral complaint. Demographic data were collected from the charts of these patients. Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous measures and Fisher’s Exact test for categorical measures were used. Results A total of 116 patients with IBD who had presented with at least 1 oral finding during the study time period were identified. Aphthous ulcers were the most common oral presentation in both Crohn’s disease (CD) (85.1%) and ulcerative colitis (UC) (75.0%). OEIMs were associated with CD activity in the small intestine (P = .004) and colon (P < .001). UC pancolitis was associated with OEIMs (P = .002). In 32.7% of patients, OEIMs led to either an increase in dose or frequency of IBD therapy. In an additional 16.4% of patients, new systemic agents were started because of the OEIMs. Conclusions This study provides evidence that patients with IBD may develop OEIMs synchronous with IBD flares and may require escalation of IBD therapy when OEIMs occur.

Alopecia is prevalent among females, categorised as either scarring or non-scarring, depending on the potential for hair follicle regeneration. Various aetiologic factors are implicated in non-scarring alopecia, including genetic predisposition, loss of immune privilege, oxidative damage, and hormonal fluctuations. Telogen effluvium, alopecia areata, and female pattern hair loss are the main causes of non-scarring alopecia in females of all ages. This review covers the aetiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of the most common non-scarring alopecias in females.

AbstractThe bond between humans and dogs is precious and has been treasured since ancient times. Dog ownership is linked to numerous health benefits, such as increased physical activity and social functioning and decreased depression and cardiovascular events. However, dogs can transmit zoonotic diseases to humans, many of which present with cutaneous findings. This review summarizes the dermatologic manifestations, transmission routes, diagnosis, and treatment of zoonotic diseases transmitted by dogs, including vector‐borne, bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic infections. This review emphasizes the significance of clinicians obtaining a comprehensive exposure history when patients exhibit a rash of unknown origin. Such an approach can provide valuable epidemiological clues related to diagnosing a zoonotic disease transmitted by a pet dog. Furthermore, identifying the dog as an infection source and subsequent veterinary treatment can help prevent recurrent infections in dermatologic patients.

Background Patients with a sore or burning mouth associated with clinically normal oral mucosa present a difficult diagnostic challenge. Objective The objective of this study was to assess the value of patch testing in patients with burning mouth syndrome. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the results of patch testing to an oral series in patients with burning mouth syndrome seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between January 2000 and April 2006. Results Of 195 consecutive patients with a burning or sore mouth, 75 had patch testing to an oral series, and 28 of these patients (37.3%) had allergic patch test reactions. The most common allergens were nickel sulfate hexahydrate 2.5%, balsam of Peru, and gold sodium thiosulfate 0.5%. On follow-up, 15 patients reported improvement, 4 removed or avoided the offending dental metal, and 6 avoided the dietary allergen. Thirteen patients did not improve; 6 avoided identified allergens, but without improvement; 1 removed dental metals without symptom change; and 5 avoided test-positive dietary allergens but without improvement. The remaining 7 nonresponders had nonrelevant patch test results or did not avoid allergens. Conclusions Patch testing can identify patients who may be allergic to dental metals or dietary additives and who may benefit from removal or avoidance of these.