This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kirk D. Wuepper, MD
Department of Dermatology Oregon Health Sciences University 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd Portland, OR 97201-3098

Arch Dermatol. 1990;126(10):1365.

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

To the Editor.—

A recent publication by Zhu and coworkers¹ examined antibody-positive serum samples from 100 sequential patients on sodium chloride-split skin and by Western immunoblot to distinguish bullous pemphigoid from epidermolysis bullosa acquisita. Five percent of unselected patients were shown to have epidermolysis bullosa acquisita.

An editorial in the same issue of the ARCHIVES² brings the problem of such studies into focus. Less than 50% of patients with epidermolysis bullosa acquisita or bullous pemphigoid have free, circulating antibodies capable of reacting with normal salt-split skin. Thus, a determination by indirect immunofluorescence can only be ascertained in less than half of such individuals. The editorial cites an article by Gammon et al³ that showed direct immunofluorescence on perilesional skin incubated in 1 mol/L of sodium chloride induces a separation at the dermoepidermal junction through the lamina lucida. This allowed detection of complement or antibody to (1) epidermis alone . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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