Classification Meeting 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEW Inherited epidermolysis bullosa: Updated recommendations on diagnosis and classification Jo-David Fine, MD, MPH, FRCP,a,b Leena Bruckner-Tuderman, MD, PhD,c RobinA.J.Eady,DSc,FRCP,FMedSci,d EugeneA.Bauer,MD,e Johann W. Bauer, MD,f Cristina Has, MD,c Adrian Heagerty, MD, FRCP,g Helmut Hintner, MD,f Alain Hovnanian, MD, PhD,h MarcelF.Jonkman,MD,PhD,i IreneLeigh,CBE,DSc,FRCP,FRSE,FMedSci,j M. Peter Marinkovich, MD,e,k Anna E. Martinez, FRCPCH,l John A. McGrath, MD, FRCP, FMedSci,d Jemima E. Mellerio, MD, FRCP,d,l Celia Moss, DM, FRCP, MRCPCH,m DedeeF.Murrell,MD,FACD,n HiroshiShimizu,MD,PhD,o JouniUitto,MD,PhD,p David Woodley, MD,q and Giovanna Zambruno, MDr Nashville, Tennessee; Freiburg, Germany; London and Birmingham, England; Stanford, Palo Alto, and Los Angeles, California; Salzburg, Austria; Toulouse, France; Groningen, The Netherlands; Dundee, Scotland; Sydney, Australia; Sapporo, Japan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Rome, Italy Background: Several new targeted genes and clinical subtypes have been identified since publication in 2008 of the report of the last international consensus meeting on diagnosis and classification of epidermolysis bullosa (EB). As a correlate, new clinical manifestations have been seen in several subtypes previously described. Objective: We sought to arrive at an updated consensus on the classification of EB subtypes, based on newer data, both clinical and molecular. Results: In this latest consensus report, we introduce a new approach to classification (‘‘onion skinning’’) that takes into account sequentially the major EB type present (based on identification of the level of skin cleavage), phenotypic characteristics (distribution and severity of disease activity; specific extracutaneous features; other), mode of inheritance, targeted protein and its relative expression in skin, gene involved and type(s) of mutation present, andewhen possibleespecific mutation(s) and their location(s). Limitations: This classification scheme critically takes into account all published data through June 2013. Further modifications are likely in the future, as more is learned about this group of diseases. Conclusion: The proposed classification scheme should be of value both to clinicians and researchers, emphasizing both clinical and molecular features of each EB subtype, and has sufficient flexibility incorporated in its structure to permit further modifications in the future. ( J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;70:1103-26.) Key words: classification; diagnosis; electron microscopy; epidermolysis bullosa; gene; genetics; monoclonal antibodies. From the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashvillea; Funding sources: None. (Although the authors have acknowl- National Epidermolysis Bullosa Registry, Nashvilleb; University edged in other unrelated publications their extramural support Medical Center Freiburgc; St John’s Institute of Dermatology, for their own epidermolysis bullosaerelated research pro- King’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital grams, none of these has provided funding for the Consensus National Health Service Foundation Trustd; Stanford University Conference or the generation of this report.) School of Medicinee; Paracelsus Private Medical University, Conflicts of interest: None declared. Salzburgf; Heart of England Foundation Trust, Birminghamg; Accepted for publication January 25, 2014. INSERM and Department of Genetics, Toulouseh; University Reprints not available from the authors. Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningeni; University Correspondence to: Jo-David Fine, MD, MPH, FRCP, Division of of Dundeej; Dermatology Service, Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Dermatology, c/o Vanderbilt Health One Hundred Oaks, Medical Centerk; Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children Dermatology Suite 26300, 719 Thompson Ln, Nashville, TN National Health Service Foundation Trust, Londonl; Birmingham 37204. E-mail: [email protected]. Children’s Hospital and University of Birminghamm; St George Published online March 31, 2014. Hospital and University of New South Wales, Sydneyn; Hok- 0190-9622/$36.00 kaido University School of Medicine, Sapporoo; Thomas Jeffer- Ó 2014 by the American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. son University, Philadelphiap; University of Southern California, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.01.903 Los Angelesq; and Istituto Dermopatico dell’ Immacolata, IDI-IRCCS, Rome.r 1103 1104 Fine et al JAM ACAD DERMATOL JUNE 2014 Each of the many subtypes of inherited epider- EB. JEB includes all subtypes of EB in which blisters molysis bullosa (EB) is currently defined by its mode develop within the mid portion or junction, the so- of transmission and a combination of phenotypic, called lamina lucida, of the skin basement membrane ultrastructural, immunohistochemical, and molecu- zone (BMZ). DEB (in the past referred to occasion- lar findings.1 Much has been learned about the ally as ‘‘dermolytic’’ EB) includes all EB subtypes in natural history and etiopathogenesis of EB since which blistering occurs within the uppermost dermis this disease was first formally classified, based on (ie, just beneath the lamina densa of the skin BMZ). electron microscopic fea- Finally, Kindler syndrome, tures described in 1962,2 as which was added to the EB CAPSULE SUMMARY a result of the application of classification in 2008, de- epidemiology, cell biology, scribes a specific entity that d Many new genes and clinical phenotypes immunology, and molecular is characterized by the pres- of inherited epidermolysis bullosa have biology to the study of large ence of clinical phenotypic been characterized since the last numbers of clinically well- features unique among EB international consensus meeting on characterized patients. (most notably photosensi- diagnosis and classification was Four international con- tivity) and blistering that published in 2008. sensus meetings on its diag- arises in multiple levels nosis and classification have d A new classification system (‘‘onion skin’’ within and/or beneath the been held since 1988, the last approach) has been created that BMZ, rather than within a in Vienna, Austria, in 2007.1 sequentially takes into account the discrete plane, as occurs in Since then, several new phe- epidermolysis bullosa type, mode of all other EB types. notypes and causative genes inheritance, phenotype, have been identified. In June immunofluorescence antigen mapping DIAGNOSTIC TESTING 2013 a number of leading findings, and mutation(s) present in each IN EB EB experts met in London, patient. Diagnostic testing and United Kingdom, to review d Detailed summaries on the typical classification in EB begin the collective data on this findings in each recognized with the identification of the disease and to reformulate epidermolysis bullosa subtype are level of skin cleavage via the means whereby patients provided for use by clinicians and immunofluorescence anti- with EB can be subclassified, researchers. gen mapping (IFM) and/or with increasing focus on the transmission electron micro- molecular origin of each sub- scopy on preferably newly type whenever possible. induced blisters. The use of monoclonal antibodies directed against components of the skin BMZ and MAJOR EB TYPES epidermal antigens can further facilitate subclassifi- We recommend that the currently used names for cation, because skin samples from most of the EB the 4 major EB typeseEB simplex (EBS), junctional EB subtypes vary in the intensity of antigen staining (if (JEB), dystrophic EB (DEB), and Kindlerebe retained, even present) of specific structural proteins, corre- so as to maintain continuity with decades of clinical sponding to the presence of a mutation within its and basic scientific literature and to prevent any associated gene. Details of the immunohistochem- confusion or ambiguity arising among patients; EB ical and ultrastructural findings in each of the major support organizations; medical, nursing, and other EB subtypes may be found in our last consensus clinical colleagues; governmental agencies; and report, published in 2008.1 third-party insurers. Changing those names would Once the level of skin cleavage and the antigen add little or no value and might prove counterpro- staining profile have been determined, pursuit of ductive to the diagnosis and care of these patients. mutational analysis is recommended, if available and EBS encompasses all subtypes of EB having affordable, because this will permit the most precise mechanical fragility and blistering confined to the subclassification. The latter information will become epidermis. When the classification system was last critical for genetic counseling in the future, if and revised, EBS was further separated into suprabasal when molecular treatments become a reality. For and basal subgroups, based on the histopathologic now, molecular fingerprinting provides the most site of cleavage within the epidermis.1 In the past precise way of ascertaining mode of transmission, EBS was referred to by some as ‘‘epidermolytic’’ enabling the clinician to accurately perform genetic although this term is inaccurate, because cellular counseling. Reliance solely on mutational findings lysis is not a primary feature of any type or subtype of for accurate clinical prognostication, however, must JAM ACAD DERMATOL Fine et al 1105 VOLUME 70, NUMBER 6 kindred, because of the influence of environmental Abbreviations used: and/or modifying genetic factors. BMZ: basement membrane zone BP: bullous pemphigoid DDEB: dominant dystrophic epidermolysis ‘‘ONION SKIN’’ APPROACH TO bullosa DEB: dystrophic