Page 19 of 20

DR12.1-5 | Eczemas Erythroderma Drug Reactions — Assignment

CLINICAL SCENARIO

You are a final-year MBBS student posted in a dermatology outpatient clinic. A 38-year-old tailor presents with a 4-year history of recurrent itchy rashes, and 2 months ago he was admitted with a severe skin reaction after starting a new medication. This assignment asks you to analyse his clinical story, reason through the diagnoses, and plan his ongoing management — integrating competencies DR12.1–DR12.5.

Instructions

Read the clinical vignette and respond to each section in sequence. Use subheadings as given in the scaffolding. Cite clinical reasoning, not just conclusions. Where you apply diagnostic criteria (e.g., BSA thresholds, eosinophil counts), state the threshold explicitly and apply it to the case. All clinical statements must be accurate and consistent with standard dermatology references (IADVL / Neena Khanna's Dermatology). Word count guidance is for each section; do not exceed total word guidance.

Length: Total: 1,300–1,550 words across all five sections. Conciseness is rewarded. Do not pad.

What to Submit

The patient has had recurrent itchy erythematous plaques over both flexural areas of his elbows and knees since age 10 (now better), AND a work-related rash on his hands that began when he started using synthetic dye solutions 4 years ago. (a) Classify each of his two eczema types with justification. (b) Explain the pathogenesis of each, contrasting the immune mechanisms. (c) Describe how you would distinguish the work-related rash from tinea manuum in this patient.

For the work-related hand eczema (from Section 1): (a) Construct a stepwise treatment plan specifying the class of topical steroid appropriate for the hands (potency and rationale), occupational avoidance measures, and the role of emollients. (b) His colleague recommends a combination steroid-antifungal cream (clobetasol + miconazole) available over the counter. Critically evaluate this suggestion, explaining the specific risk of potent topical steroids on sensitive skin sites and the consequences of misuse.

Two months after his hand eczema worsened, the patient was started on co-trimoxazole for a urinary tract infection. Twelve days later he presented as an emergency with erythema and scaling covering 93% of his BSA, temperature 35.5°C, heart rate 122 bpm, and pitting oedema of both legs. (a) Define erythroderma, state the BSA criterion, and confirm whether this case meets the definition. (b) Explain the pathophysiology of each of the following complications present in this patient: hypothermia, tachycardia, and oedema. (c) List the five stabilisation steps you would take as the primary care doctor before specialist transfer.

After hospital admission, the patient is noted to have: (i) his erythroderma improving rapidly after co-trimoxazole is stopped, (ii) eosinophils 1,950/µL, (iii) ALT 190 U/L (normal <40), (iv) facial puffiness, and (v) the co-trimoxazole was started 12 days before presentation. Separately, his wife mentions he had a single, round, pigmented plaque on his lower lip that would briefly inflame every time he took ibuprofen for back pain. (a) Apply diagnostic criteria to classify the erythroderma-inducing drug reaction. Is this SJS, DRESS, TEN, or exanthematous drug reaction? Justify with specific criteria. (b) Classify the lip lesion separately and explain its pathogenesis and distinguishing features from DRESS. (c) State the three most important investigations to differentiate DRESS from SJS/TEN in a patient with both a maculopapular rash and early blistering.

The patient is now discharged. He attends your primary care clinic for a follow-up visit. He asks: 'Can I take ibuprofen again for back pain? What about co-trimoxazole in future? And will my children also react to these drugs?' (a) Advise the patient on ibuprofen rechallenge (re: the lip lesion), addressing the concept of cross-reactivity with other NSAIDs. (b) Advise on co-trimoxazole rechallenge (re: DRESS), and counsel on alternative antibiotics for UTI. (c) Briefly address the genetic/familial risk of drug reactions.

Grading Rubric — Marking Rubric — Eczemas Erythroderma Drug Reactions Assignment

Criterion	Points	Full-marks descriptor
Section 1 — Eczema Classification and Pathogenesis: Accurately classifies both eczema types (endogenous atopic vs exogenous allergic contact dermatitis), correctly contrasts immune mechanisms (IgE-mediated atopic vs Type IV contact), and correctly describes tinea manuum differentiation (KOH scraping, distribution).	20 pts	Both eczemas correctly classified with precise diagnostic criteria. Immune mechanisms accurately contrasted (atopic: Th2/IgE; ACD: Type IV T-cell). KOH microscopy correctly described as gold-standard tinea exclusion.
Section 2 — Management and Prescribing Safety: Correct potency selection for hands (moderate-potent on palms/dorsum), emollient role described, occupational avoidance addressed, and critically evaluates the combination OTC steroid cream (identifies clobetasol as very potent, names atrophy/steroid side effects, rejects OTC recommendation with reasoning).	20 pts	Correct potency for hands (moderate-to-potent appropriate for palms; mild for dorsum/sensitive skin). Emollients as barrier repair, not adjunct. Occupational avoidance and glove recommendations. Correctly identifies clobetasol as a very potent steroid, names atrophogenic risks, and clearly rejects OTC combination use.
Section 3 — Erythroderma Recognition and Stabilisation: Correctly defines erythroderma with >90% BSA criterion, confirms the case meets criteria, accurately explains the pathophysiology of all three complications (hypothermia from vasodilation, tachycardia from high-output state, oedema from hypoalbuminaemia), and lists five appropriate stabilisation steps.	20 pts	Definition precise (>90% BSA). Case correctly confirmed (93% meets threshold). All three complications correctly and specifically explained (vasodilatory heat loss → hypothermia; high-output cardiac state → tachycardia; protein loss/hypoalbuminaemia → oedema). Five appropriate stabilisation steps listed in order.
Section 4 — Drug Reaction Classification and Differentiation: Correctly classifies the erythroderma as drug-induced DRESS (applying latency, eosinophilia, hepatitis, facial oedema criteria), correctly identifies the lip lesion as FDE, contrasts FDE vs DRESS with specific distinguishing features, and names three correct investigations for DRESS vs SJS/TEN differentiation.	25 pts	DRESS correctly identified: 12-day latency (within 2-8 week window), facial oedema, eosinophilia 1,950 (>1,500), hepatitis (ALT 4.75× ULN), systemic reaction. SJS/TEN excluded (no BSA detachment, no Nikolsky). FDE correctly identified and pathogenesis (same-site T-cell memory) correctly described. FDE vs DRESS contrast precise: FDE localised/benign/no organ involvement vs DRESS systemic/multiorgan. Three investigations for DRESS vs SJS/TEN correctly named (BSA assessment, Nikolsky sign, skin biopsy for necrosis vs eosinophilic infiltrate).
Section 5 — Primary Care Counselling: Correct advice on ibuprofen rechallenge for FDE (avoid, cross-reactivity with NSAIDs at same-site), correct co-trimoxazole lifetime ban with specific alternative antibiotic options for UTI, and accurate brief account of pharmacogenomic/familial risk.	15 pts	Ibuprofen rechallenge: correctly advises avoidance; mentions NSAID class cross-reactivity risk for FDE. Co-trimoxazole: lifetime ban stated clearly, names specific UTI alternatives (nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim alone, or quinolone based on sensitivity). Familial risk: correctly notes HLA pharmacogenomics (HLA-B5801 for allopurinol, HLA-B1502 for carbamazepine) or general pharmacogenomic concept.

PEER REVIEW

Review your peer's submission using the rubric above. For each section, assign a score and write 2-3 sentences justifying your score, citing specific content from their answer. Identify one strength and one specific factual gap or reasoning error. Submit your peer review within 48 hours of receiving the assignment.