Indian Journal of Dermatology
  Publication of IADVL, WB
  Official organ of AADV
Indexed with Science Citation Index (E) , Web of Science and PubMed
Users online: 1504  
Home About  Editorial Board  Current Issue Archives Online Early Coming Soon Guidelines Subscriptions  e-Alerts    Login  
    Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this page Email this page

Table of Contents 
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 93-94
Authors' reply

1 Department of Dermatology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
2 Department of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Date of Web Publication15-Jan-2016

Correspondence Address:
Anisha George
Department of Dermatology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Thomas E, George A, Deodhar D, John M. Authors' reply. Indian J Dermatol 2016;61:93-4

How to cite this URL:
Thomas E, George A, Deodhar D, John M. Authors' reply. Indian J Dermatol [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Sep 16];61:93-4. Available from:


We are grateful for the comments of Dr. Nofal et al. and appreciate the interest they displayed in our paper entitled, "Scleromyxedema: An Atypical Case." [1] Dr. Nofal et al. felt that our patient had cutaneous manifestations alone, with the association of eosinophilia and should not be classified as scleromyxedema. However, our patient had many systemic features in the form of hepatomegaly with a 17 cm span, mediastinal, and axillary lymphadenopathy, an elevated creatinine at 1.5 mg/dl and leukocytosis of 36,900/mm 3 with an absolute eosinophil count of 31,000/mm 3 . We do not agree that our patient had purely cutaneous involvement and was "otherwise healthy." We used the revised criteria proposed by Rongioletti et al., [2] and, like them, included our patient as atypical because he did not have monoclonal gammopathy.

We used the staging proposed by Donato et al. [3] and categorized our patient as clinical Stage II, with generalized cutaneous mucinosis and/or extracutaneous manifestation(s). They had excluded the absence of thyroid disorder in their diagnostic criteria, similar to what Dr. Nofal et al., have proposed, but required the presence of a serum monoclonal gammopathy along with the histologic presence of dermal mucin deposit with increased collagen deposition and fibroblast proliferation. Donato et al. [3] also noted that monoclonal gammopathy was present in only 80% of all cases. It is recommended to follow the patient for years for development of the same.

Our reservations on a new classification are simply that an old one already exists which is different from the new one proposed by Dr. Nofal et al. The differences are displayed in the [Table 1].

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Thomas E, George A, Deodhar D, John M. Scleromyxedema: An atypical case. Indian J Dermatol 2015;60:323.  Back to cited text no. 1
Rongioletti F, Merlo G, Cinotti E, Fausti V, Cozzani E, Cribier B, et al. Scleromyxedema: A multicenter study of characteristics, comorbidities, course, and therapy in 30 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013;69:66-72.  Back to cited text no. 2
Donato ML, Feasel AM, Weber DM, Prieto VG, Giralt SA, Champlin RE, et al. Scleromyxedema: Role of high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2006;107:463-6.  Back to cited text no. 3


  [Table 1]


Print this article  Email this article
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (265 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded40    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal