Ann Dermatol.  2017 Apr;29(2):137-142. 10.5021/ad.2017.29.2.137.

Demodex Mite Density Determinations by Standardized Skin Surface Biopsy and Direct Microscopic Examination and Their Relations with Clinical Types and Distribution Patterns

• Yun CH
• Yun JH
• Baek JO
• Roh JY
• Lee JR

• KMID: 2394835
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5021/ad.2017.29.2.137

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Demodicosis is a parasitic skin disease caused by Demodex mites, and the determination of mite density per square centimeter is important to diagnose demodicosis. Standardized skin surface biopsy (SSSB) and direct microscopic examination (DME) are commonly used to determine Demodex mites density (Dd). However, no study has previously compared these two methods with respect to clinical types and distribution patterns of demodicosis.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the value of SSSB and DME findings in reference to the clinical types and distribution patterns of demodicosis.
METHODS
The medical records of 35 patients diagnosed with demodicosis between December 2011 and June 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Demodicosis was classified according to four clinical types (pityriasis folliculorum, rosacea type, acne type, and perioral type) and three distribution patterns (diffuse pattern, U-zone pattern, and T-zone pattern). Two samples, one for SSSB and one for DME, were obtained from a lesion of each patient.
RESULTS
In all patients, mean Dd and the proportion with a high Dd (>5D/cm²) by DME (14.5±3.3, 80.0%, respectively) were higher than by SSSB (5.5±1.3, 37.1%, respectively; p<0.01, p=0.02, respectively). In terms of clinical types, for rosacea type, mean Dd and proportion with a high Dd by DME (12.4±3.5, 84.6%, respectively) were significantly greater than those determined by SSSB (3.6±1.2, 23.1%; p=0.04, p=0.04, respectively). In terms of distribution pattern, for the diffuse pattern, mean Dd and the proportion with a high Dd by DME (17.5±3.7, 100%, respectively) were significantly higher than those determined by SSSB (6.0±2.7, 26.7%; p<0.01, p<0.01, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The results of our study revealed that DME is a more sensitive method for detecting Demodex than SSSB, especially in patients with diffuse pattern and suspected rosacea type. Further research is needed to confirm this finding.

Keyword

Demodex; Demodicosis; Direct microscopic examination; Standardized skin surface biopsy

MeSH Terms

Acne Vulgaris
Biopsy*
Humans
Medical Records
Methods
Mites*
Retrospective Studies
Rosacea
Skin Diseases, Parasitic
Skin*

Reference

1. Baima B, Sticherling M. Demodicidosis revisited. Acta Derm Venereol. 2002; 82:3–6.

2. Bonnar E, Eustace P, Powell FC. The Demodex mite population in rosacea. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1993; 28:443–448.

3. Ayres S Jr, Ayres S 3rd. Demodectic eruptions (demodicidosis) in the human. 30 years' experience with 2 commonly unrecognized entities: pityriasis folliculorum (Demodex) and acne rosacea (Demodex type). Arch Dermatol. 1961; 83:816–827.

4. Ecker RI, Winkelmann RK. Demodex granuloma. Arch Dermatol. 1979; 115:343–344.

5. Hoekzema R, Hulsebosch HJ, Bos JD. Demodicidosis or rosacea: what did we treat? Br J Dermatol. 1995; 133:294–299.

6. Forton F, Seys B. Density of Demodex folliculorum in rosacea: a case-control study using standardized skin-surface biopsy. Br J Dermatol. 1993; 128:650–659.

7. Abd-El-Al AM, Bayoumy AM, Abou Salem EA. A study on Demodex folliculorum in rosacea. J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 1997; 27:183–195.

8. Erbağci Z, Ozgöztaşi O. The significance of Demodex folliculorum density in rosacea. Int J Dermatol. 1998; 37:421–425.

9. el-Shazly AM, Ghaneum BM, Morsy TA, Aaty HE. The pathogenesis of Demodex folliculorum (hair follicular mites) in females with and without rosacea. J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 2001; 31:867–875.

10. Ayres S Jr, Mihan R. Rosacea-like demodicidosis involving the eyelids. A case report. Arch Dermatol. 1967; 95:63–66.

11. Grosshans EM, Kremer M, Maleville J. Demodex folliculorum and the histogenesis of granulomatous rosacea. Hautarzt. 1974; 25:166–177.

12. Pena GP, Andrade Filho JS. Is demodex really non-pathogenic? Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2000; 42:171–173.

13. Dolenc-Voljc M, Pohar M, Lunder T. Density of Demodex folliculorum in perioral dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2005; 85:211–215.

14. Norn MS. Demodex folliculorum. Incidence, regional distribution, pathogenicity. Dan Med Bull. 1971; 18:14–17.

15. Morgan RJ, Coston TO. Demodex blepharitis. South Med J. 1964; 57:694–699.

16. Clifford CW, Fulk GW. Association of diabetes, lash loss, and Staphylococcus aureus with infestation of eyelids by Demodex folliculorum (Acari: Demodicidae). J Med Entomol. 1990; 27:467–470.

17. Karincaoglu Y, Bayram N, Aycan O, Esrefoglu M. The clinical importance of demodex folliculorum presenting with nonspecific facial signs and symptoms. J Dermatol. 2004; 31:618–626.

18. Purcell SM, Hayes TJ, Dixon SL. Pustular folliculitis associated with Demodex folliculorum. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986; 15:1159–1162.

19. Aşkin U, Seçkin D. Comparison of the two techniques for measurement of the density of Demodex folliculorum: standardized skin surface biopsy and direct microscopic examination. Br J Dermatol. 2010; 162:1124–1126.

20. Forton F, Germaux MA, Brasseur T, De Liever A, Laporte M, Mathys C, et al. Demodicosis and rosacea: epidemiology and significance in daily dermatologic practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005; 52:74–87.

21. Chen W, Plewig G. Human demodicosis: revisit and a proposed classification. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 170:1219–1225.

22. Kim MS, Kim BS, Koh WS, Lee SS, Seo SL, Chun DK, et al. Rosacea: clinical study of 67 cases. Ann Dermatol. 2001; 13:39–43.

23. Hsu CK, Hsu MM, Lee JY. Demodicosis: a clinicopathological study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009; 60:453–462.

24. Akilov OE, Butov YS, Mumcuoglu KY. A clinico-pathological approach to the classification of human demodicosis. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2005; 3:607–614.

25. Forton F, Song M. Limitations of standardized skin surface biopsy in measurement of the density of Demodex folliculorum. A case report. Br J Dermatol. 1998; 139:697–700.

26. Forton F. Standardized skin surface biopsy: method to estimate the Demodex folliculorum density, not to study the Demodex folliculorum prevalence. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007; 21:1301–1302. author reply 1302.

27. Forton F, Seys B, Marchal JL, Song AM. Demodex folliculorum and topical treatment: acaricidal action evaluated by standardized skin surface biopsy. Br J Dermatol. 1998; 138:461–466.

28. Forton FM. Papulopustular rosacea, skin immunity and Demodex: pityriasis folliculorum as a missing link. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012; 26:19–28.

29. Zhao YE, Peng Y, Wang XL, Wu LP, Wang M, Yan HL, et al. Facial dermatosis associated with Demodex: a case-control study. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011; 12:1008–1015.

30. Kim BY, Choi JW, Park KC, Youn SW. Sebum, acne, skin elasticity, and gender difference-which is the major influencing factor for facial pores? Skin Res Technol. 2013; 19:e45–e53.

31. Jung HJ, Suh HY, Shim JH, Li K, Ahn JY, Park MY, et al. Analysis of the distribution of pores and factors affecting facial pores. Korean J Dermatol. 2014; 52:851–857.

32. Aylesworth R, Vance JC. Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis in cutaneous biopsies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1982; 7:583–589.