You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 137 No. 1, January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (7)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Bone Marrow Transplantation
 •Transplantation, Other
 •Immunologic Disorders
 •Immunology, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The "Drug vs Graft-vs-Host Disease" Conundrum Gets Tougher, but There Is an Answer

The Challenge to Dermatologists

Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:75-76.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

ANY DERMATOLOGIST who has been consulted to see a patient who has had a bone marrow transplant (BMT) and then developed a new rash recognizes the difficulty in distinguishing a drug eruption from graft-vs host-disease (GVHD). Over the coming years this is going to be a more, not less, frequent source of frustration for several reasons. Bone marrow transplantation has grown by over 10-fold between 1985 and 1995, and it continues to grow by 10% to 20% annually to more than 15 000 procedures per year worldwide.1 This is not surprising because BMT is the only hope for survival for many patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and improving technology and survival rates have extended the clinical indications considerably. A distinct trend though is that owing to new technologies for suppressing acute GVHD and a lack of perfectly matched donors, more BMT recipients are receiving less closely matched transplants. In combination, these . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS IS TRICKY


HISTOPATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS IS IMPOSSIBLE

DO EOSINOPHILS MEAN DRUG OVER GVHD? (NO!)

IS THERE ANY ROLE FOR BIOPSY FOR A POSSIBLE GVHD RASH?

If A DEFINITIVE DIAGNOSIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, WHAT DOES ONE DO?

A DIFFERENT MINDSET FOR THE DERMATOLOGIST


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Late Appearance of Acute Graft-vs-Host Disease After Suspending or Tapering Immunosuppressive Drugs
Ruud Valks, Jesús Fernández-Herrera, Beatriz Bartolomé, Javier Fraga, Esteban Daudén, and Amaro Garcia-Diéz
Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(1):61-65.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Role of Skin Biopsy to Confirm Suspected Acute Graft-vs-Host Disease: Results of Decision Analysis.
Firoz et al.
Arch Dermatol 2006;142:175-182.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Late Occurrence of Graft-vs-Host Disease
Journal Watch Dermatology 2001;2001:2-2.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.