Search

Background: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a heterogeneous group of rare and incurable genetic disorders characterized by fragility of the skin and mucosae, resulting in blisters and erosions. Several epidemiological studies in other populations have been carried out, reporting varying and sometimes inconclusive figures, highlighting the need for standardized epidemiological analyses in well‐characterized cohorts. Objectives: To evaluate the epidemiological data on EB in the Netherlands, extracted from the molecularly well‐characterized cohort in the Dutch EB Registry. Methods: In this observational study all EB‐patients that were based in the Netherlands and captured in the Dutch EB Registry between 1988 and 2018 were included. The epidemiological outcomes were based on complete diagnostic data (clinical features, immunofluorescence, electron microscopy and mutation analysis), with longitudinal follow‐up. Results: A total of 464 EB‐patients (287 families) were included. The incidence and point‐prevalence of EB in the Netherlands were 41.3 per million live births and 22.4 per million population, respectively. EB Simplex (EBS), Junctional EB (JEB), Dystrophic EB (DEB) and Kindler EB were diagnosed in 45.7%, 18.8%, 34.7% and 0.9% of the EB‐patients, respectively, with an incidence and point‐prevalence of 17.5 and 11.9 (EBS), 9.3 and 2.1 (JEB), 14.1 and 8.3 (DEB), 0.5 and 0.2 (Kindler EB). In 90.5% of the EB‐patients the diagnosis was genetically confirmed. During the investigated time period 73 EB‐patients died, 72.6% of whom as a direct consequence of their EB. Conclusion: The epidemiological outcomes of EB in the Netherlands are high, attributed to a high detection rate in a well‐organized set‐up, indicating that EB might be more common than previously assumed. These epidemiological data help to understand the extensive need for (specialized) medical care of EB‐patients and is invaluable for the design and execution of therapeutic trials. This study emphasizes the importance of thorough reporting systems and registries worldwide. Linked Commentary: L. Bruckner‐Tuderman. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021; 35: 783–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17165. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Several new genes and clinical subtypes have been identified since the publication in 2014 of the report of the last International Consensus Meeting on Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). Objectives: We sought to reclassify disorders with skin fragility, with a focus on EB, based on new clinical and molecular data. Methods: This was a consensus expert review. Results: In this latest consensus report, we introduce the concept of genetic disorders with skin fragility, of which classical EB represents the prototype. Other disorders with skin fragility, where blisters are a minor part of the clinical picture or are not seen because skin cleavage is very superficial, are classified as separate categories. These include peeling skin disorders, erosive disorders, hyperkeratotic disorders, and connective tissue disorders with skin fragility. Because of the common manifestation of skin fragility, these 'EB‐related' disorders should be considered under the EB umbrella in terms of medical and socioeconomic provision of care. Conclusions: The proposed classification scheme should be of value both to clinicians and researchers, emphasizing both clinical and genetic features of EB. What is already known about this topic? Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of genetic disorders with skin blistering.The last updated recommendations on diagnosis and classification were published in 2014. What does this study add? We introduce the concept of genetic disorders with skin fragility, of which classical EB represents the prototype.Clinical and genetic aspects, genotype–phenotype correlations, disease‐modifying factors and natural history of EB are reviewed.Other disorders with skin fragility, e.g. peeling skin disorders, erosive disorders, hyperkeratotic disorders, and connective tissue disorders with skin fragility are classified as separate categories; these 'EB‐related' disorders should be considered under the EB umbrella in terms of medical and socioeconomic provision of care. Linked Comment:Pope. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:603. Linked Comment:Pope. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:603. Plain language summary available online [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]