Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 13 Documents
Search

Profile of Urticaria and Angioedema Patients at Dr. Moewardi General Hospital Surakarta, Indonesia Dewi, Ayu Kusuma; Muhammad Eko Irawanto; Stella Gracia Octarica; Shelly Lavenia Sambodo; Rahmat Firdaus Dwi Utama; Sugih Primas Adjie
Bioscientia Medicina : Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research Vol. 8 No. 5 (2024): Bioscientia Medicina: Journal of Biomedicine & Translational Research
Publisher : HM Publisher

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37275/bsm.v8i5.994

Abstract

Background: Urticaria is a heterogeneous inflammatory skin disease that results from the activation and degranulation of cutaneous mast cells, followed by the release of histamine and other mediators that cause sensory nerve activation, vasodilation, plasma extravasation, and recruitment of immune cells. The prevalence and incidence of urticaria and angioedema have been extensively studied worldwide, but there is still limited data in Indonesia, especially regarding the profile of urticaria and angioedema patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the profile of urticaria and angioedema patients at Dr. Moewardi General Hospital for the period January 1st, 2020 - December 31st, 2022. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional retrospective study with secondary data derived from medical records of urticaria and angioedema patients. Results: There were 152 patients with urticaria, most of whom were in the age group >60 years (20.39%), female with a male to female ratio of 1:1.92, and worked as housewives (17.76%) and students (16.45%). Most cases were diagnosed with urticaria (86.84%) with some patients having angioedema (13.16%). The most common comorbidities rhinoconjunctivitis (2.63%), atopic dermatitis (1.97%) and asthma (1.32%). The dominant symptoms were itching and bumps (100%). The main treatment received by patients was single AH1 (71.71%) followed by combination therapy of AH1 and systemic corticosteroids (14.47%), combination therapy of AH1 and topical corticosteroids (10.53%), and the rest received combination therapy of AH1, topical corticosteroids, and systemic corticosteroids (3.29%). The skin prick test was positive in 16 patients (35.56%), with the most common allergens found being peanut (37.5%), egg yolk (37.5%), and tomato (37.5%). Conclusion: The characteristics of urticaria patients were dominated by elderly patients, female gender, and working as housewives or not working. Patients were predominantly diagnosed with urticaria with the most common comorbidities being diabetes mellitus. The main treatment received was AH1 class drugs. The most common types of allergens identified were peanuts, egg yolks, and tomatoes.
Intralesional Mumps, Measles, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine as Therapy for Recurrent Condyloma Acuminata: A Case Report Sambodo, Shelly Lavenia; Prasetyadi Mawardi; Endra Yustin Ellistasari; Ammarilis Murastami
Bioscientia Medicina : Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research Vol. 8 No. 10 (2024): Bioscientia Medicina: Journal of Biomedicine & Translational Research
Publisher : HM Publisher

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37275/bsm.v8i10.1092

Abstract

Background: Condyloma acuminata (CA), a prevalent sexually transmitted infection caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), presents challenges in treatment due to its high recurrence rate. While various treatment modalities exist, intralesional immunotherapy with the mumps, measles, rubella (MMR) vaccine has shown promise in managing HPV-related conditions. This case report investigates intralesional MMR vaccine in treating recurrent CA. Case presentation: A 24-year-old female presented with recurrent CA lesions on the labia majora and perianal region. Despite prior treatment with trichloroacetic acid (TCA), the lesions had reappeared. Intralesional MMR vaccine injections were administered twice, one month apart, resulting in complete lesion resolution within six weeks of the second injection. No recurrence was observed during a six-month follow-up period, and the patient reported only mild, transient pain at the injection sites. Conclusion: This case report highlights the potential of intralesional MMR vaccine as an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for recurrent CA. Further research is warranted to validate these findings and establish optimal treatment protocols.
Allergic Contact Dermatitis Caused By Daily Soap Products: One Case Report Sambodo, Shelly Lavenia; Widhiati, Suci
Journal of Social Research Vol. 4 No. 12 (2025): Journal of Social Research
Publisher : International Journal Labs

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55324/josr.v4i12.2896

Abstract

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a skin disorder resulting from contact with an allergenic substance. Most cases of ACD are caused by cosmetic ingredients and daily-use products. We report a case of ACD caused by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and fragrance in soap, confirmed by positive patch test results. A 29-year-old woman with chronic persistent itching that did not improve with medication presented to the Dermatovenereology Outpatient Clinic of Dr. Moewardi Hospital. She had a history of using virgin coconut oil (VCO) and various handwashing soaps. Dermatological examination revealed multiple erythematous macules with overlying scales and xerotic skin, suggestive of ACD. The patient underwent a patch test with standard materials as well as personal products she brought to confirm the diagnosis. The patch test showed a positive allergic reaction to Sunlight® liquid soap, Biore® liquid soap, Cerianerss® lychee-flavored VCO, One Scrub Onemed® 4%, and Paquito® liquid soap. Patch testing is an important and useful tool for diagnosing ACD. Although the procedure is simple, it requires several days for evaluation. In this case, we identified the products responsible for ACD in our patient and advised her to avoid them. Several substances with allergenic potential were identified by comparing product compositions with patch test results. However, these findings could not determine which specific compounds were allergenic. Hence, further patch testing of individual compounds is necessary.