K E Y W O R D S : 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, baseline series, patch test Positive reactions, n (%) Relevant positive reactions, n (%) Non-relevant positive reactions, n (%) No. of patients (%) + ++ +++ No. of patients (%) + ++ +++ No. of patients (%) + ++ +++ Total: 61 (1.5)

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy is a rare dermatosis with potential serious consequences for both the mother and fetus. Treatment is difficult and historically steroids were the mainstay of treatment. Cyclosporin has been used for a few cases resistant to steroids. We report our own experience of two cases of generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy. Cases of generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy need review by a dermatologist with experience of skin disorders in pregnancy. Both the fetus and mother need to be monitored closely when systemic illness occurs, as there is a risk of stillbirth. Maternal sepsis is a known complication of generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy. Cyclosporin, when used appropriately is effective and relatively safe.

No abstract

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for lupus and Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria are designed to classify disease. However, they have become widely used as diagnostic criteria in clinical situations. Patients may be labelled as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in their medical records, when in fact they have cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) without systemic symptoms. We sought to investigate how many of our cutaneous lupus patients attending a dermatology lupus clinic were mislabelled as either CLE or SLE using the ACR and SLICC criteria. Thirty-six patients with biopsy-proven cutaneous lupus were identified. Fourteen (39%) of the patients were labelled as 'SLE' in their medical notes, either by dermatology or another medical team. Of these 14 patients, 12 (86%) fulfilled the ACR and SLICC criteria; however, two (14%) did not meet the criteria for SLE. Of the remaining 22 patients who were not labelled as having SLE, four (18%) met both the SLICC and ACR criteria, one (5%) met the ACR criteria and one (5%) met the SLICC criteria. These patients had a history of discoid or subacute lupus, with very few systemic symptoms. They met the criteria for SLE primarily on their cutaneous signs and positive serology. It is important to screen patients with CLE routinely for SLE. Although the ACR and SLICC criteria can be helpful as they have a high sensitivity for systemic lupus, their use needs to be paired with the clinical context and patient evolution. We found patients were labelled as SLE when in fact they had no evidence of systemic involvement, as well as patients labelled as cutaneous lupus who fulfilled the criteria for SLE, although unlikely having any systemic involvement. It is important to correctly identify patients as 'cutaneous lupus' or 'systemic lupus erythematosus' and documentation in clinical notes should be accurate to avoid confusion and allow appropriate treatment.

No abstract