4 resultados para Distinguishing guise
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: Smoothelin is a cytoskeletal protein of differentiated smooth muscle cells with contractile capacity, distinguishing it from other smooth muscle proteins, such as smooth muscle actin (SMA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the expression of smoothelin and SMA in the skin in order to establish specific localizations of smoothelin in smooth muscle cells with high contractile capacity and in the epithelial component of cutaneous adnexal structures. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis (smoothelin and SMA) was performed in 18 patients with normal skin. RESULTS: SMA was expressed by the vascular structures of superficial, deep, intermediate and adventitial plexuses, whereas smoothelin was specifically expressed in the cytoplasm of smooth muscle cells of the deepest vascular plexus and in no other plexus of the dermis. The hair erector muscle showed intense expression of smoothelin and SMA. Cells with nuclear expression of smoothelin and cytoplasmic expression of SMA were observed in the outer root sheath of the inferior portion of the hair follicles and intense cytoplasmic expression in cells of the dermal sheath to SMA. CONCLUSIONS: We report the first study of smoothelin expression in normal skin, which differentiates the superficial vascular plexus from the deep. The deep plexus comprises vessels with high contractile capacity, which is important for understanding dermal hemodynamics in normal skin and pathological processes. We suggest that the function of smoothelin in the outer root sheath may be to enhance the function of SMA, which has been related to mechanical stress. Smoothelin has not been studied in cutaneous pathology; however we believe it may be a marker specific for the diagnosis of leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas of the skin. Also, smoothelin could differentiate arteriovenous malformations of cavernous hemangioma of the skin
Resumo:
The emergence and pandemic spread of a new strain of influenza A (H1N1) virus in 2009 resulted in a serious alarm in clinical and public health services all over the world. One distinguishing feature of this new influenza pandemic was the different profile of hospitalized patients compared to those from traditional seasonal influenza infections. Our goal was to analyze sociodemographic and clinical factors associated to hospitalization following infection by influenza A(H1N1) virus. We report the results of a Spanish nationwide study with laboratory confirmed infection by the new pandemic virus in a case-control design based on hospitalized patients. The main risk factors for hospitalization of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 were determined to be obesity (BMI≥40, with an odds-ratio [OR] 14.27), hematological neoplasia (OR 10.71), chronic heart disease, COPD (OR 5.16) and neurological disease, among the clinical conditions, whereas low education level and some ethnic backgrounds (Gypsies and Amerinds) were the sociodemographic variables found associated to hospitalization. The presence of any clinical condition of moderate risk almost triples the risk of hospitalization (OR 2.88) and high risk conditions raise this value markedly (OR 6.43). The risk of hospitalization increased proportionally when for two (OR 2.08) or for three or more (OR 4.86) risk factors were simultaneously present in the same patient. These findings should be considered when a new influenza virus appears in the human population.
Resumo:
Distinguishing drug-induced liver injury (DILI) from idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) can be challenging. We performed a standardized histologic evaluation to explore potential hallmarks to differentiate AIH versus DILI. Biopsies from patients with clinically well-characterized DILI [n = 35, including 19 hepatocellular injury (HC) and 16 cholestatic/mixed injury (CS)] and AIH (n = 28) were evaluated for Ishak scores, prominent inflammatory cell types in portal and intra-acinar areas, the presence or absence of emperipolesis, rosette formation, and cholestasis in a blinded fashion by four experienced hepatopathologists. Histologic diagnosis was concordant with clinical diagnosis in 65% of cases; but agreement on final diagnosis among the four pathologists was complete in only 46% of cases. Interface hepatitis, focal necrosis, and portal inflammation were present in all evaluated cases, but were more severe in AIH (P < 0.05) than DILI (HC). Portal and intra-acinar plasma cells, rosette formation, and emperiopolesis were features that favored AIH (P < 0.02). A model combining portal inflammation, portal plasma cells, intra-acinar lymphocytes and eosinophils, rosette formation, and canalicular cholestasis yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.90 in predicting DILI (HC) versus AIH. All Ishak inflammation scores were more severe in AIH than DILI (CS) (P ≤ 0.05). The four AIH-favoring features listed above were consistently more prevalent in AIH, whereas portal neutrophils and intracellular (hepatocellular) cholestasis were more prevalent in DILI (CS) (P < 0.02). The combination of portal inflammation, fibrosis, portal neutrophils and plasma cells, and intracellular (hepatocellular) cholestasis yielded an AUC of 0.91 in predicting DILI (CS) versus AIH. Conclusion: Although an overlap of histologic findings exists for AIH and DILI, sufficient differences exist so that pathologists can use the pattern of injury to suggest the correct diagnosis.
Resumo:
The aetiology of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is uncertain but the disease can be triggered in susceptible patients by external factors such as viruses or drugs. AIH usually develops in individuals with a genetic background mainly consisting of some risk alleles of the major histocompatibility complex (HLA). Many drugs have been linked to AIH phenotypes, which sometimes persist after drug discontinuation, suggesting that they awaken latent autoimmunity. At least three clinical scenarios have been proposed that refers to drug- induced autoimmune liver disease (DIAILD): AIH with drug-induced liver injury (DILI); drug induced-AIH (DI-AIH); and immune mediated DILI (IM-DILI). In addition, there are instances showing mixed features of DI-AIH and IM-DILI, as well as DILI cases with positive autoantibodies. Histologically distinguishing DILI from AIH remains a challenge. Even more challenging is the differentiation of AIH from DI-AIH mainly relying in histological features; however, a detailed standardised histologic evaluation of large cohorts of AIH and DI-AIH patients would probably render more subtle features that could be of help in the differential diagnosis between both entities. Growing information on the relationship of drugs and AIH is being available, being drugs like statins and biologic agents more frequently involved in cases of DIAILD. In addition, there is some evidence on the fact that patients diagnosed with DIAILD may have had a previous episode of hepatotoxicity. Further collaborative studies in DIAILD will strengthen the knowledge and understanding of this intriguing and complex disorder which might represent different phenotypes across the spectrum of disease.