Subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma (SPTCL) is a rare primary cutaneous lymphoma characterized by infiltration of the subcutaneous tissue by neoplastic cytotoxic T cells mimicking panniculitis. There is a strong association between SPTCL and lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP). However, patients who were diagnosed with LEP with a preceding diagnosis of SPTCL have been scarcely reported. We herein reported a 21-year-old Thai woman presenting to a dermatology clinic for evaluation of a 1-month history of a painful mass on the right buttock and bilateral upper eyelid swelling. A subcutaneous mass which was 5 by 2 cm in diameter, tender, firm, and fixed with a smooth surface was palpated over the upper outer quadrant of her right gluteal area. After a diagnosis of SPTCL had been made based on the histological and immunohistochemical studies, treatment with oral dexamethasone and ciclosporin A was initially started. Because of intolerance to adverse reactions of dexamethasone, only ciclosporin A was given. Improvement was not achieved at 6-month follow-up. She then underwent the re-incisional biopsy at the same gluteal area and the histological features were consistent with LEP. After hydroxychloroquine was given, the lesion resolved within 3 months, and no recurrence was detected during the following 6-month follow-up. We emphasize that long-term follow-up of patients with SPTCL is required. Additionally, in case of poor response to the given treatment, a repeat skin biopsy should be considered in order to determine the proper management.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow transplantation retinopathy is a rare condition affecting the posterior pole. The purpose of this case report is to highlight the possible risk factors and clinical features.
METHODS: A 19y old male with relapsed and refractory acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was admitted under haematology with pyrexia of unknown origin. At the time of his admission, he reported bilateral and sequential visual impairment for 2 days. On examination, there was bilateral profound retinopathy across the posterior poles. This was symmetrical and with associated macular oedema. Infective aetiology was excluded and cyclosporine was stopped. Although no definitive treatment was initiated the visual acuity improved whilst macular oedema fluctuated.
CONCLUSIONS: BMT and chemotherapy can cause ocular complications but these are usually confined to the anterior segment. Posterior segment complications in the form of retinopathy is very rare. We report this case to highlight some of the clinical features and course of disease.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab is approved in the UK as add-on treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in patients with inadequate response to H1-antihistamines. Ciclosporin is an established but unlicensed 3rd line option for CSU. Two parallel retrospective observational studies were conducted to describe outcomes of treatment and adverse events with omalizumab or ciclosporin for CSU treatment.
METHODS: Data from UK specialist centres prescribing omalizumab (five centres) or ciclosporin (three centres) in CSU patients were collected from hospital records by clinical staff and pooled for analysis.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients prescribed omalizumab and 72 patients prescribed ciclosporin were included. Twenty-two (48%) omalizumab-treated patients had paired Urticaria Activity Scores (UAS7), showing a 25.4 point improvement during treatment (P < 0.0001). Paired Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was available in 28 (61%) omalizumab-treated and 17 (24%) ciclosporin-treated patients. At least a 75% improvement in DLQI score was observed in 79% of omalizumab-treated and 41% of ciclosporin-treated patients, and 65% of omalizumab-treated patients had complete resolution of their quality-of-life impairment (DLQI 0-1) versus 21% of ciclosporin-treated patients. Clinician comments reported symptom clearance in 15/36 (42%) omalizumab-treated and 10/60 (17%) ciclosporin-treated patients. Proportions of patients with adverse events were similar but those for omalizumab resembled CSU symptoms, making causality assignment difficult, whereas those for ciclosporin were consistent with its known adverse effect profile.
CONCLUSIONS: Validated patient-reported measures of disease severity and quality of life should be used routinely in CSU management. Based on clinician comments and DLQI scores, symptoms and quality of life showed a greater improvement in the omalizumab-treated cohort than in the ciclosporin-treated cohort.

A three year old male entire Staffordshire bull terrier was referred to University College Dublin Veterinary Hospital, with a two week history of fever, inflammation of the right hock, lameness on the right hindlimb, peripheral lymphadenopathy and gastrointestinal signs (vomiting and diarrhoea). For the preceding three months the dog had been treated for atopic dermatitis with oral ciclosporin (5 mg/kg, PO, q 24 hours). Cytological analysis of the affected lymph nodes demonstrated fungal-like organisms predominantly contained within macrophages. Subsequent fungal culture and microscopic identification confirmed the presence of a Byssochlamys sp. This fungus is a saprophytic organism which has been associated with mycotoxin production. It has not previously been identified as a cause of systemic infection in animals or humans. Ciclosporin was discontinued, and a second generation triazole, voriconazole prescribed at a dose of 6 mg/kg for the first two doses, and continued at 3 mg/kg every 12 hours for six months. There was an excellent response. Follow-up examination five weeks after treatment was completed confirmed remission of the disease. The dog remains alive and well three years later. The present case represents an unusual fungal infection in a dog secondary to immunosuppressive therapy with ciclosporin. Such a possibility should be considered in animals presenting with signs consistent with systemic infection when receiving immunosuppressive medication.