Search

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Bruckner serves as an investigator for Fibrocell, Phoenix Tissue Repair, PROQR/Wings, and Castle Creek and on an ad hoc advisory board for Castle Creek. Dr Pope receives research funding from the EB Research Foundation. Dr Paller serves as an investigator for Castle Creek and Lenus Pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant with honorarium for Abeona. Dr Levy serves on the advisory board for Cassiopea, Regeneron; as an investigator for Fibrocell/Castle Creek, Galderma, Janssen, Pfizer; on the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for Novan; and as a section editor for UpToDate. Dr Lucky serves as an investigator for Lenus Pharmaceuticals and Castle Creek and on the scientific advisory board for EBRP (EB Research Partnership) and Abeona. Dr Glick serves as an investigator for Lenus Pharmaceuticals. Authors Phillips, Augsburger, and Peoples and Drs Huang, Kaplan, Khuu, Tang, Lara-Corrales, Wiss, Levin, Morel, Hook, Eichenfield, McCuaig, Powell, Castelo-Soccio, Price, Schachner, Browning, Jahnke, Shwayder, and Bayliss have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Children with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) comprise a rare population with high morbidity and mortality. An improved understanding of the clinical trajectory of patients with EB, including age at time of clinical diagnosis and major clinical events, is needed to refine best practices and improve quality of life and clinical outcomes for patients with EB., Objectives: To describe demographics, clinical characteristics, milestone diagnostic and clinical events (such as initial esophageal dilation), and outcomes in patients with EB using the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database and to determine what characteristics may be associated with overall EB severity and/or disease progression., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included data on patients with EB who were enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database from January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2017; 17 participating EB centers in the United States and Canada contributed data to this study., Exposures: Type of EB, including recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB), dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DDEB), and epidermolysis bullosa simplex (EBS)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic information, clinical characteristics (including age at onset of signs of EB and subsequent clinical diagnosis), types of diagnostic testing performed, and milestone clinical events for patients with RDEB., Results: Of 644 enrolled patients from 17 sites included in this study, 323 were male (50.2%), with a mean (SD) age of 14.4 (11.7) years; 283 (43.9%) had RDEB, 194 (30.1%) had EBS, 104 (16.2%) had DDEB, and 63 (9.8%) had JEB. Signs of disease were present at birth in 202 patients with RDEB (71.4%), 39 with JEB (61.9%), 60 with DDEB (57.7%), and 74 with EBS (38.1%). For those with signs of disease at birth, a clinical diagnosis was made at the time of birth in 135 patients with RDEB (67.0%), 31 with DDEB (52.6%), 35 with EBS, (47.3%) and 18 with JEB (46.2%). Patients with JEB had the highest rate of any confirmatory testing (51 of 63 [81.0%]), followed by RDEB (218 of 283 [77.0%]), DDEB (71 of 104 [68.3%]), and EBS (100 of 194 [51.5%]). For all types of EB, both electron microscopy and immunofluorescence microscopy were performed at younger ages than genetic analysis. Among 283 patients with RDEB, 157 (55.5%) had esophageal dilation, 104 (36.7%) had gastrostomy tube placement, 62 (21.9%) had hand surgery, 18 (6.4%) developed squamous cell carcinoma, and 19 (6.7%) died., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that diagnostic testing for EB is more common for patients with severe phenotypes. Earlier diagnostic testing may enable improved characterizations of patients so that appropriate counseling and clinical care may be offered, especially pertaining to milestone events for those with RDEB.