mites among solid organ transplant recipients: a cross-sectional study.

Adriana Marquardt-Feszler, Jakub Ruszkowski, Karolina Cekała, Maria Alicja Dêbska-Ślizień, Beata Imko-Walczuk
Author Information
  1. Adriana Marquardt-Feszler: Dermatology and Venereology Outpatient Clinic, Copernicus, Independent Public Healthcare Centre, Gdansk, Poland.
  2. Jakub Ruszkowski: Department of Nephrology, Transplantology and Internal Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland.
  3. Karolina Cekała: Dermatology and Venereology Outpatient Clinic, Copernicus, Independent Public Healthcare Centre, Gdansk, Poland.
  4. Maria Alicja Dêbska-Ślizień: Department of Nephrology, Transplantology and Internal Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland.
  5. Beata Imko-Walczuk: Dermatology and Venereology Outpatient Clinic, Copernicus, Independent Public Healthcare Centre, Gdansk, Poland.

Abstract

Introduction: mites (DM) are pathogenic parasites that in some people cause demodicosis. It is widely discussed which groups of patients are more prone to develop the disease.
Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of DM in a population of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) in comparison to immunocompetent controls.
Material and methods: A total of 225 SOTRs were tested for DM by 2 methods: microscopic evaluation of scrapings of the face and by dermoscopic examination of the face. Additionally, a group of 95 patients, who do not have any immunosuppression history, were asked to volunteer as controls. Every patient in study group was examined for face symptoms and had his medical history reviewed.
Results: The prevalence of positive test was not significantly different among SOTRs comparing to controls (21 positive results among SOTRs (9.3%) vs. 6 positive controls (6.3%), ( = 0.38)), but there was a numerically higher rate in SOTRs population. Patients treated with tacrolimus had a higher odds ratio of a positive test when compared to those treated with cyclosporine A ( = 0.046). Skin symptoms were characterized by relatively high negative predictive values (91.0-93.7%). Itch had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, whereas exfoliation had the highest diagnostic accuracy.
Conclusions: In our study, demodicosis does not occur more often among SOTRs than in the general population. Notably, itch and exfoliation are symptoms of the greatest diagnostic value in demodicosis diagnosis. Patients receiving tacrolimus had a higher prevalence of a positive test when compared to those treated with cyclosporine A.

Keywords

References

  1. Dermatology. 1997;195(3):232-4 [PMID: 9407168]
  2. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1982 Nov;7(5):583-9 [PMID: 7142466]
  3. Indian J Dermatol. 2021 Mar-Apr;66(2):165-168 [PMID: 34188272]
  4. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2011 Nov-Dec;74(6):422-4 [PMID: 22331115]
  5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017 Jan 31;7(1):35-38 [PMID: 28243492]
  6. Br J Dermatol. 2001 Jan;144(1):139-42 [PMID: 11167695]
  7. Int J Dermatol. 2022 Oct;61(10):1245-1252 [PMID: 35398883]
  8. Br J Dermatol. 2014 Jun;170(6):1219-25 [PMID: 24471456]
  9. J Dermatol Sci. 2016 Apr;82(1):3-8 [PMID: 26747056]
  10. Arch Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 07;35(3):376-384 [PMID: 33458661]
  11. Int J Dermatol. 2010 Sep;49(9):1018-23 [PMID: 20931672]
  12. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Jan;35(1):62-72 [PMID: 32294279]
  13. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019 Nov;19(11):665-674 [PMID: 31570879]
  14. Pediatr Dermatol. 2003 Jan-Feb;20(1):28-30 [PMID: 12558842]
  15. Biochem (Lond). 2009 Aug 1;31(4):2-6 [PMID: 20664811]
  16. Int J Dermatol. 2019 Oct;58(10):1153-1159 [PMID: 31198996]
  17. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 Jul;36(7):987-1002 [PMID: 35278332]
  18. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017 Feb 8;97(2):242-248 [PMID: 27573185]
  19. Ann Dermatol. 2017 Apr;29(2):137-142 [PMID: 28392639]
  20. Exp Dermatol. 2012 Dec;21(12):906-10 [PMID: 23171449]
  21. Dermatology. 2001;203(3):272-3 [PMID: 11701989]
  22. J Int Med Res. 2004 Jul-Aug;32(4):411-5 [PMID: 15303773]
  23. Int J Dermatol. 2006 Sep;45(9):1066-8 [PMID: 16961510]
  24. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010 Apr;24(4):410-4 [PMID: 19744179]
  25. Am J Transplant. 2016 Feb;16(2):712-6 [PMID: 26431451]
  26. Heliyon. 2022 Oct 13;8(10):e10874 [PMID: 36276718]
  27. Ren Fail. 2005;27(5):495-9 [PMID: 16152985]
  28. Br J Dermatol. 1993 Jun;128(6):650-9 [PMID: 8338749]
  29. Acta Derm Venereol. 2002;82(1):3-6 [PMID: 12013194]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SOTRspositivedemodicosiscontrolsamongmitesDMprevalencepopulationorganfacestudysymptomstesthighertreatedpatientssolidtransplantmethods:groupimmunosuppressionhistory3%6=0PatientstacrolimuscomparedcyclosporineexfoliationdiagnosticIntroduction:pathogenicparasitespeoplecausewidelydiscussedgroupspronedevelopdiseaseAim:evaluaterecipientscomparisonimmunocompetentMaterialtotal225tested2microscopicevaluationscrapingsdermoscopicexaminationAdditionally95askedvolunteerEverypatientexaminedmedicalreviewedResults:significantlydifferentcomparing21results9vs38numericallyrateoddsratio046Skincharacterizedrelativelyhighnegativepredictivevalues910-937%ItchbestbalancesensitivityspecificitywhereashighestaccuracyConclusions:occuroftengeneralNotablyitchgreatestvaluediagnosisreceivingArecipients:cross-sectionalDemodextransplantationrosacea

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.