Pityriasis rosea among pediatric patients: a cross-sectional, institution based study

Authors

  • Avijit Mondal College of Medicine & JNM Hospital, Kalyani, dist: Nadia, W.B
  • PVSVPHS Brahma Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy, College of Medicine and JNM Hospital, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, India
  • Partha Mukherjee Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy, College of Medicine and JNM Hospital, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66344/jpad.v32i1.1839

Abstract

Background Pityriasis rosea (PR) is an acute, self-limited papulosquamous disorder. The incidence of PR is around 0.5-2% and is commonly seen in young healthy persons, between 10 to 35 years. In paediatric age, prevalence is between 8% to 12% below 10 years and 4% below 4 years. The common differential diagnosis of PR is syphilis, tinea corporis, pityriasis versicolor, guttate psoriasis and pityriasis lichenoides.

 

Objective The aim of this study was to find out the demographic and clinical profiles of pityriasis rosea among paediatric (less than 18 years) patients.

 

Methods The study was carried out over a period of twelve months at Dermatology Out-patient department at tertiary care centres of East India and a total of fifty paediatric (< 18 years) cases of PR were recruited for the study. The diagnosis was made clinically with the details of history, examination and relevant investigations being recorded in case record form, after getting consent from patient or guardian.

 

Results Fifty pityriasis rosea (PR) patients in paediatric age group were recruited from Dermatology out-patient department during study period. The mean age of presentation was 12.45 years with range being 2 to 18 years.  Females outnumbered males (Female: Male ratio 1.27:1) in our study. Classical herald patch was seen in 42 (84%) cases. Atypical morphology was seen in 12 (24%) cases. Pruritus was the only symptom which was noted in 31 patients (62%).

 

Conclusion PR is usually diagnosed clinically but atypical presentation of PR is not uncommon. So high degree of clinical suspicion is needed to diagnosis the atypical form.

References

1. Weiss L. Pityriasis rosea - An erythematous eruption of internal origin. JAMA. 1903; 41:20‑8.

2. Gibert CM. Traite pratique des maladies de la peau et de la syphilis. 3rd ed. Paris: H Plon; 1860. p. 402

3. Zawar V, Jerajani H, Pol R. Current trends in pityriasis rosea. Expert Rev Dermatol. 2010;b:325‑33

4. Drago F, Ciccarese G, Broccolo F, Cozzani E, Parodi A. Pityriasis Rosea in Children: Clinical Features and Laboratory Investigations. Dermatology. 2015;231:9-14.

5. Urbina F, Das A, Sudy E. Clinical variants of pityriasis rosea. World J Clin Cases. 2017;5(6):203-211.

6. Broccolo F, Drago F, Careddu AM, Foglieni C, Turbino L, Cocuzza CE, Gelmetti C, Lusso P, Rebora AE, Malnati MS. Additional evidence that pityriasis rosea is associated with reactivation of human herpesvirus-6 and -7. J Invest Dermatol. 2005;124:1234-40.

7. Piotr Brzezinski, Ahmad Thabit Sinjab. Pityriasis rosea in 12 month old infant. Our Dermatol Online. 2012;3(2):119-22.

8. Khare S, Nagar R, Singh S. Clinico-epidemiological study of pityriasis rosea in children. Int J Med Res Rev. 2015; 3(11):1339-44.

9. Pankaj Adhicari, Seujee Das. A hospital-based clinical study of pityriasis rosea in children. J Evid Based Med Health. 2017;4(7):365-7.

10. Central Anatolia Region of Turkey Emine ÇÖLGEÇEN, Çiğdem KADER, Yılmaz ULAŞ Pınar ÖZTÜRK, Öznur KÜÇÜK, Mehmet BALCI. Pityriasis rosea: a natural history of paediatric cases in the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. Turk J Med Sci. 2016;46:1740-2.

11. Ahdi Amer, MD; Howard Fischer, MD; Xiaoming Li. The Natural History of Pityriasis Rosea in Black American Children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007; 161(5):503-6

12. Gündüz O, Ersoy-Evans S, Karaduman A. Childhood pityriasis rosea. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:750-1.

13. Zawar V. Acral pityriasis rosea in an infant with palmoplantar lesions: A novel manifestation. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2010;1(1):21-3.

14. Vijay Zawar. Unilateral pityriasis rosea in a child. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2010;4(4):54-6.

15. Sterling JC. Virus infections. In: Christopher E. M. Griffiths, Jonathan Barker, Tanya Bleike et. al. editors. Rook's Textbook of Dermatology. 9th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2016. pp. 33.72-81

16. Vano-Galvan S, Ma DL, Lopez-Neyra A, Perez B, Muñoz-Zato E, Jaén P. Atypical pityriasis rosea in a black child. Cases J. 2009;2:6796.

17. Nouf A Alzahrani, Mohammed I Aijasser. Geographic tonguelike presentation in a child with pityriasisrosea: Case report and review of oral manifestations of pityriasis rosea. Paediatr Dermatol. 2018;35:e124-e127.

18. Zawar V, Chuh A. Follicular pityriasis rosea. A case reportand a new classification of clinical variants of the disease. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2012;6:36‑9.

19. Serap Güneş Bilgili, Ayşe Serap Karadağ, Ömer Çalka, Gülçin Güler Şimşek. Two Cases with Vesicular Pityriasis Rosea. J Turk Acad Dermatol. 2012;6(4):1264c1.

20. Chuh A, Zawar V, Lee A. Atypical presentations of pityriasis rosea: Case presentations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2005;19:120-6.

21. Relhan V, Sinha S, Garg VK et al. Pityriasis rosea with erythema multiforme - like lesions: An observational analysis. Indian J Dermatol. 2013;58:242.

22. Panda M, Patro N, Jena M. Pityriasis Rosea Like Drug Rash - A Need to Identify the Disease in Childhood. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(8):YD01-YD02.

23. Mahajan K, RelhanV, Relhan A K, Garg VK. Pityriasis Rosea: An Update on Etiopathogenesis and Management of Difficult Aspects. Indian J Dermatol. 2016; 61(4):375-84.

24. Prasad D, Mittal R R, Walia R, Popli R. Pityriasis rosea: A histopathologic study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2000;66:244-6.

Downloads

Published

29.03.2022

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

1.
Pityriasis rosea among pediatric patients: a cross-sectional, institution based study. J Pak Assoc Dermatol [Internet]. 2022 Mar. 29 [cited 2026 Aug. 9];32(1):96-102. Available from: https://www.jpad.com.pk/index.php/jpad/article/view/1839