A retrospective analysis of diagnostic testing in a large North American cohort of patients with epidermolysis bullosa
Recommended Citation
Phillips GS, Huang A, Augsburger BD, Kaplan L, Peoples K, Bruckner AL, Khuu P, Tang JY, Lara-Corrales I, Pope E, Wiss K, Levin LE, Morel KD, Hook KP, Paller AS, Eichenfield LF, McCuaig CC, Powell J, Castelo-Soccio L, Levy ML, Price HN, Schachner LA, Browning JC, Jahnke M, Shwayder T, Bayliss S, Lucky AW, and Glick SA. A retrospective analysis of diagnostic testing in a large North American cohort of patients with epidermolysis bullosa. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
10-8-2021
Publication Title
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) has significant implications for prognosis, management, and genetic counseling.
OBJECTIVE: To describe diagnostic testing patterns and assess diagnostic concordance of transmission electron microscopy (TEM), immunofluorescence mapping (IFM), and genetic analysis for EB.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort included patients enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database from January 1, 2004, to July 8, 2019. Tests concluding the same EB type (EB simplex, junctional EB, dominant dystrophic EB, and recessive dystrophic EB) were considered concordant; those concluding different EB types were considered discordant; and those with nonspecific/nondefinitive results were equivocal.
RESULTS: A total of 970 diagnostic tests were conducted from 1984 to 2018 in 771 patients. Genetic analyses were performed chronologically later than IFM or TEM (P < .001). The likelihood of undergoing genetic analysis was greater for junctional EB and recessive dystrophic EB, and the same for dominant dystrophic EB as compared with EB simplex. TEM results in 163 patients were equivocal (55%), concordant (42%), and discordant (3%). IFM results in 185 patients were equivocal (54%), concordant (42%), and discordant (4%).
LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic testing has shifted in favor of genetic analysis. TEM and IFM frequently offer equivocal findings when compared to the specificity afforded by genetic analysis.
PubMed ID
34634382
ePublication
ePub ahead of print
