Article

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

To the Editor:

Hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis are dramatic presentations with a narrow differential diagnosis. It rarely has been reported to present alongside the more typical features of acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (AHEI), which is a benign self-limited leukocytoclastic vasculitis most often seen in children aged 4 months to 2 years. Extracutaneous involvement rarely is seen in AHEI, though joint, gastrointestinal tract, and renal involvement have been reported.¹ Most patients present with edematous, annular, or cockade purpuric vasculitic lesions classically involving the face and distal extremities with relative sparing of the trunk. We present a case of a well-appearing, 10-month-old infant boy with hemorrhagic vasculitic lesions, acral edema, and an associated episode of hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis.

A 10-month-old infant boy who was otherwise healthy presented to the emergency department (ED) with an acute-onset, progressively worsening cutaneous eruption of 2 days’ duration. A thorough history revealed that the eruption initially had presented as several small, bright-red papules on the thighs. The eruption subsequently spread to involve the buttocks, legs, and arms (Figures 1 and 2). The parents also noted that the patient had experienced an episode of bloody tears and epistaxis that lasted a few minutes at the pediatrician’s office earlier that morning, a finding that prompted the urgent referral to the ED.

Dermatology was then consulted. A review of systems was notable for rhinorrhea and diarrhea during the week leading to the eruption. The patient’s parents denied fevers, decreased oral intake, or a recent course of antibiotics. The patient’s medical history was notable only for atopic dermatitis treated with emollients and occasional topical steroids. The parents denied recent travel or vaccinations. Physical examination showed an afebrile, well-appearing infant with multiple nontender, slightly edematous, circular, purpuric papules and plaques scattered on the buttocks and extremities with edema on the dorsal feet. The remainder of the patient’s workup in the ED was notable for mild elevations in C-reactive protein levels (1.4 mg/dL [reference range, 0–1.2 mg/dL]) and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (22 mm/h [reference range, 2–12 mm/h]). A complete blood cell count; liver function tests; urinalysis; and coagulation studies, including prothrombin, partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio, were unremarkable. Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy was diagnosed based on the clinical manifestations.

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (also known as Finkelstein disease, medallionlike purpura, Seidemayer syndrome, infantile postinfectious irislike purpura and edema, and purpura en cocarde avec oedeme) is believed to result from an immune complex–related reaction, often in the setting of an upper respiratory tract infection; medications, especially antibiotics; or vaccinations. The condition previously was considered a benign form of Henoch-Schönlein purpura; however, it is now recognized as its own clinical entity. Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy commonly affects children between the ages of 4 months and 2 years. The incidence peaks in the winter months, and males tend to be more affected than females.¹

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is clinically characterized by a triad of large purpuric lesions, low-grade fever, and peripheral acral edema. Edema can develop on the hands, feet, and genitalia. Importantly, facial edema has been noted to precede skin lesions.² Coin-shaped or targetoid hemorrhagic and purpuric lesions in a cockade or rosette pattern with scalloped margins typically begin on the distal extremities and tend to spread proximally. The lesions are variable in size but have been reported to be as large as 5 cm in diameter. Although joint pain, bloody diarrhea, hematuria, and proteinuria can accompany AHEI, most cases are devoid of systemic symptoms.³ Hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis—both present in our patient—are rare findings with AHEI. It is likely that most providers, including dermatologists, may be unfamiliar with these striking clinical findings. Although the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis has not been formally investigated, we postulate that it likely is related to the formation of immune complexes that lead to small vessel vasculitis, underpinning the characteristic findings in AHEI.^4,5 This reasoning is supported by the complete resolution of symptoms corresponding with clinical clearance of the cutaneous vasculitis in 2 prior cases^4,5 as well as in our patient who did not have a relapse of symptoms following cessation of the cutaneous eruption at a pediatric follow-up appointment 2 weeks later.

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a clinical diagnosis; however, a skin biopsy can be performed to confirm the clinical suspicion and rule out more serious conditions. Histopathologic examination reveals a leukocytoclastic vasculitis involving the capillaries and postcapillary venules of the upper and mid dermis. Laboratory test results usually are nonspecific but can help distinguish AHEI from more serious diseases. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level may be slightly elevated in infants with AHEI. Urinalysis and stool guaiac tests also can be performed to evaluate for any renal or gastrointestinal involvement.⁶

The differential diagnosis includes IgA vasculitis, erythema multiforme, acute meningococcemia, urticarial vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, and child abuse. IgA vasculitis often presents with more systemic involvement, with abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, diarrhea, and hematochezia occurring in up to 50% of patients. The cutaneous findings of erythema multiforme classically are confined to the limbs and face, and edema of the extremities typically is not seen. Patients with acute meningococcemia appear toxic with high fevers, malaise, and possible septic shock.⁵

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a self-limited condition typically lasting 1 to 3 weeks and requires only supportive care.⁷ Antibiotics should be given to treat concurrent bacterial infections, and antihistamines and steroids may be useful for symptomatic relief. Importantly, however, systemic corticosteroids do not appear to conclusively alter the disease course.⁸

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a rare benign leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a striking presentation often seen following an upper respiratory tract infection or course of antibiotics. Our case demonstrates that on rare occasions, AHEI may be accompanied by hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis—findings that can be quite alarming to both parents and medical providers. Nonetheless, patients and their caretakers should be assured that the condition is self-limited and resolves without permanent sequalae.

To the Editor:

Hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis are dramatic presentations with a narrow differential diagnosis. It rarely has been reported to present alongside the more typical features of acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (AHEI), which is a benign self-limited leukocytoclastic vasculitis most often seen in children aged 4 months to 2 years. Extracutaneous involvement rarely is seen in AHEI, though joint, gastrointestinal tract, and renal involvement have been reported.¹ Most patients present with edematous, annular, or cockade purpuric vasculitic lesions classically involving the face and distal extremities with relative sparing of the trunk. We present a case of a well-appearing, 10-month-old infant boy with hemorrhagic vasculitic lesions, acral edema, and an associated episode of hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis.

A 10-month-old infant boy who was otherwise healthy presented to the emergency department (ED) with an acute-onset, progressively worsening cutaneous eruption of 2 days’ duration. A thorough history revealed that the eruption initially had presented as several small, bright-red papules on the thighs. The eruption subsequently spread to involve the buttocks, legs, and arms (Figures 1 and 2). The parents also noted that the patient had experienced an episode of bloody tears and epistaxis that lasted a few minutes at the pediatrician’s office earlier that morning, a finding that prompted the urgent referral to the ED.

Dermatology was then consulted. A review of systems was notable for rhinorrhea and diarrhea during the week leading to the eruption. The patient’s parents denied fevers, decreased oral intake, or a recent course of antibiotics. The patient’s medical history was notable only for atopic dermatitis treated with emollients and occasional topical steroids. The parents denied recent travel or vaccinations. Physical examination showed an afebrile, well-appearing infant with multiple nontender, slightly edematous, circular, purpuric papules and plaques scattered on the buttocks and extremities with edema on the dorsal feet. The remainder of the patient’s workup in the ED was notable for mild elevations in C-reactive protein levels (1.4 mg/dL [reference range, 0–1.2 mg/dL]) and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (22 mm/h [reference range, 2–12 mm/h]). A complete blood cell count; liver function tests; urinalysis; and coagulation studies, including prothrombin, partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio, were unremarkable. Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy was diagnosed based on the clinical manifestations.

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (also known as Finkelstein disease, medallionlike purpura, Seidemayer syndrome, infantile postinfectious irislike purpura and edema, and purpura en cocarde avec oedeme) is believed to result from an immune complex–related reaction, often in the setting of an upper respiratory tract infection; medications, especially antibiotics; or vaccinations. The condition previously was considered a benign form of Henoch-Schönlein purpura; however, it is now recognized as its own clinical entity. Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy commonly affects children between the ages of 4 months and 2 years. The incidence peaks in the winter months, and males tend to be more affected than females.¹

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is clinically characterized by a triad of large purpuric lesions, low-grade fever, and peripheral acral edema. Edema can develop on the hands, feet, and genitalia. Importantly, facial edema has been noted to precede skin lesions.² Coin-shaped or targetoid hemorrhagic and purpuric lesions in a cockade or rosette pattern with scalloped margins typically begin on the distal extremities and tend to spread proximally. The lesions are variable in size but have been reported to be as large as 5 cm in diameter. Although joint pain, bloody diarrhea, hematuria, and proteinuria can accompany AHEI, most cases are devoid of systemic symptoms.³ Hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis—both present in our patient—are rare findings with AHEI. It is likely that most providers, including dermatologists, may be unfamiliar with these striking clinical findings. Although the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis has not been formally investigated, we postulate that it likely is related to the formation of immune complexes that lead to small vessel vasculitis, underpinning the characteristic findings in AHEI.^4,5 This reasoning is supported by the complete resolution of symptoms corresponding with clinical clearance of the cutaneous vasculitis in 2 prior cases^4,5 as well as in our patient who did not have a relapse of symptoms following cessation of the cutaneous eruption at a pediatric follow-up appointment 2 weeks later.

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a clinical diagnosis; however, a skin biopsy can be performed to confirm the clinical suspicion and rule out more serious conditions. Histopathologic examination reveals a leukocytoclastic vasculitis involving the capillaries and postcapillary venules of the upper and mid dermis. Laboratory test results usually are nonspecific but can help distinguish AHEI from more serious diseases. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level may be slightly elevated in infants with AHEI. Urinalysis and stool guaiac tests also can be performed to evaluate for any renal or gastrointestinal involvement.⁶

The differential diagnosis includes IgA vasculitis, erythema multiforme, acute meningococcemia, urticarial vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, and child abuse. IgA vasculitis often presents with more systemic involvement, with abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, diarrhea, and hematochezia occurring in up to 50% of patients. The cutaneous findings of erythema multiforme classically are confined to the limbs and face, and edema of the extremities typically is not seen. Patients with acute meningococcemia appear toxic with high fevers, malaise, and possible septic shock.⁵

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a self-limited condition typically lasting 1 to 3 weeks and requires only supportive care.⁷ Antibiotics should be given to treat concurrent bacterial infections, and antihistamines and steroids may be useful for symptomatic relief. Importantly, however, systemic corticosteroids do not appear to conclusively alter the disease course.⁸

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a rare benign leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a striking presentation often seen following an upper respiratory tract infection or course of antibiotics. Our case demonstrates that on rare occasions, AHEI may be accompanied by hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis—findings that can be quite alarming to both parents and medical providers. Nonetheless, patients and their caretakers should be assured that the condition is self-limited and resolves without permanent sequalae.

To the Editor:

Hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis are dramatic presentations with a narrow differential diagnosis. It rarely has been reported to present alongside the more typical features of acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (AHEI), which is a benign self-limited leukocytoclastic vasculitis most often seen in children aged 4 months to 2 years. Extracutaneous involvement rarely is seen in AHEI, though joint, gastrointestinal tract, and renal involvement have been reported.¹ Most patients present with edematous, annular, or cockade purpuric vasculitic lesions classically involving the face and distal extremities with relative sparing of the trunk. We present a case of a well-appearing, 10-month-old infant boy with hemorrhagic vasculitic lesions, acral edema, and an associated episode of hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis.

A 10-month-old infant boy who was otherwise healthy presented to the emergency department (ED) with an acute-onset, progressively worsening cutaneous eruption of 2 days’ duration. A thorough history revealed that the eruption initially had presented as several small, bright-red papules on the thighs. The eruption subsequently spread to involve the buttocks, legs, and arms (Figures 1 and 2). The parents also noted that the patient had experienced an episode of bloody tears and epistaxis that lasted a few minutes at the pediatrician’s office earlier that morning, a finding that prompted the urgent referral to the ED.

Dermatology was then consulted. A review of systems was notable for rhinorrhea and diarrhea during the week leading to the eruption. The patient’s parents denied fevers, decreased oral intake, or a recent course of antibiotics. The patient’s medical history was notable only for atopic dermatitis treated with emollients and occasional topical steroids. The parents denied recent travel or vaccinations. Physical examination showed an afebrile, well-appearing infant with multiple nontender, slightly edematous, circular, purpuric papules and plaques scattered on the buttocks and extremities with edema on the dorsal feet. The remainder of the patient’s workup in the ED was notable for mild elevations in C-reactive protein levels (1.4 mg/dL [reference range, 0–1.2 mg/dL]) and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (22 mm/h [reference range, 2–12 mm/h]). A complete blood cell count; liver function tests; urinalysis; and coagulation studies, including prothrombin, partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio, were unremarkable. Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy was diagnosed based on the clinical manifestations.

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (also known as Finkelstein disease, medallionlike purpura, Seidemayer syndrome, infantile postinfectious irislike purpura and edema, and purpura en cocarde avec oedeme) is believed to result from an immune complex–related reaction, often in the setting of an upper respiratory tract infection; medications, especially antibiotics; or vaccinations. The condition previously was considered a benign form of Henoch-Schönlein purpura; however, it is now recognized as its own clinical entity. Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy commonly affects children between the ages of 4 months and 2 years. The incidence peaks in the winter months, and males tend to be more affected than females.¹

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is clinically characterized by a triad of large purpuric lesions, low-grade fever, and peripheral acral edema. Edema can develop on the hands, feet, and genitalia. Importantly, facial edema has been noted to precede skin lesions.² Coin-shaped or targetoid hemorrhagic and purpuric lesions in a cockade or rosette pattern with scalloped margins typically begin on the distal extremities and tend to spread proximally. The lesions are variable in size but have been reported to be as large as 5 cm in diameter. Although joint pain, bloody diarrhea, hematuria, and proteinuria can accompany AHEI, most cases are devoid of systemic symptoms.³ Hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis—both present in our patient—are rare findings with AHEI. It is likely that most providers, including dermatologists, may be unfamiliar with these striking clinical findings. Although the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis has not been formally investigated, we postulate that it likely is related to the formation of immune complexes that lead to small vessel vasculitis, underpinning the characteristic findings in AHEI.^4,5 This reasoning is supported by the complete resolution of symptoms corresponding with clinical clearance of the cutaneous vasculitis in 2 prior cases^4,5 as well as in our patient who did not have a relapse of symptoms following cessation of the cutaneous eruption at a pediatric follow-up appointment 2 weeks later.

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a clinical diagnosis; however, a skin biopsy can be performed to confirm the clinical suspicion and rule out more serious conditions. Histopathologic examination reveals a leukocytoclastic vasculitis involving the capillaries and postcapillary venules of the upper and mid dermis. Laboratory test results usually are nonspecific but can help distinguish AHEI from more serious diseases. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level may be slightly elevated in infants with AHEI. Urinalysis and stool guaiac tests also can be performed to evaluate for any renal or gastrointestinal involvement.⁶

The differential diagnosis includes IgA vasculitis, erythema multiforme, acute meningococcemia, urticarial vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, and child abuse. IgA vasculitis often presents with more systemic involvement, with abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, diarrhea, and hematochezia occurring in up to 50% of patients. The cutaneous findings of erythema multiforme classically are confined to the limbs and face, and edema of the extremities typically is not seen. Patients with acute meningococcemia appear toxic with high fevers, malaise, and possible septic shock.⁵

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a self-limited condition typically lasting 1 to 3 weeks and requires only supportive care.⁷ Antibiotics should be given to treat concurrent bacterial infections, and antihistamines and steroids may be useful for symptomatic relief. Importantly, however, systemic corticosteroids do not appear to conclusively alter the disease course.⁸

Acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy is a rare benign leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a striking presentation often seen following an upper respiratory tract infection or course of antibiotics. Our case demonstrates that on rare occasions, AHEI may be accompanied by hemorrhagic lacrimation and epistaxis—findings that can be quite alarming to both parents and medical providers. Nonetheless, patients and their caretakers should be assured that the condition is self-limited and resolves without permanent sequalae.

The 18th Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium was held in March 2022 in Boston, Massachusetts. With a theme of Diversity in Action: Science, Healthcare & Society, researchers gathered to present new findings, share key insights, and discuss the continuing evolution of the field. Three awards were presented from the scientific posters at the symposium.

The Best Poster Presentation Award was presented to Brandyn M. White, BS, for “A Preliminary Analysis of the DDB1 Gene: Genome-Wide Association Studies in African and Admixed African American Populations—Is Our Skin Different?” authored by Brandyn M. White, BS; Chidubem A.V. Okeke, BS; Raveena Khanna, MD; Ginette A. Okoye, MD; Michael C. Campbell, PhD; and Angel S. Byrd, MD, PhD. Their research evaluated the association of variant DNA damage binding protein 1, DDB1, with African populations and highlighted the possible phenotypic variations between African and admixed African American populations. Further, it discussed the advantages of conducting future genome-wide association studies in the Washington metropolitan area to better understand dermatological diseases that disproportionately affect skin of color patients.

The Best Oral Presentation Award was presented to Erica Ogwumike, BA, for “Matching into Dermatology Residency: The Impact of Research Fellowships” authored by Erica Ogwumike, BA; Chine Chime, MS, MPH; and Rebecca Vasquez, MD. The aim of this study was to explore what variables were important for 2 events: taking a research fellowship and matching into dermatology. The authors analyzed Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications for all medical students applying to the UT Southwestern Dermatology Residency Program in the 2014-2015 cycle. They found that 1 of 5 students participated in a research fellowship prior to applying to dermatology residency, and it was not associated with increased odds of matching. They also discovered that students more likely to take a research fellowship were Latinx, attended a medical school ranked in the Top 25, and were not Alpha Omega Alpha members. Nevertheless, total publications did increase the odds of matching; therefore, the authors concluded that when looking for a research fellowship, applicants should look for one that allows productivity so that this measure can be achieved. Further investigation is needed to substantiate these results, but this study was a starting point to examine the characteristics involved in taking a research fellowship in dermatology. 

Finally, the Crowd Favorite Award was presented to Jennifer Cucalon, BS, for “Non-invasive, In-Vivo RCM Monitoring of Lentigines Treated With Cryotherapy to Establish Minimum Freeze Time in Seconds (Dose) in Skin of Color” authored by Jennifer Cucalon, BS, and Babar K. Rao, MD. This pilot study showed a minimum freezing time of 3 seconds to be effective in removing lentigines in darker skin; increasing the dose to 6 and 9 seconds had no added benefit. The authors also demonstrated reflectance confocal microscopy to be an appropriate, noninvasive, in vivo tool to visualize pigmentary changes and monitor the effectiveness of treatments for various skin conditions.

The 19th Annual Scientific Symposium will take place on March 16, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme will be Where Science, Innovation & Inclusion Meet. For more information, visit https://skinofcolorsociety.org/19th-annual-skin-of-color-society-scientific-symposium/.

The 18th Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium was held in March 2022 in Boston, Massachusetts. With a theme of Diversity in Action: Science, Healthcare & Society, researchers gathered to present new findings, share key insights, and discuss the continuing evolution of the field. Three awards were presented from the scientific posters at the symposium.

The Best Poster Presentation Award was presented to Brandyn M. White, BS, for “A Preliminary Analysis of the DDB1 Gene: Genome-Wide Association Studies in African and Admixed African American Populations—Is Our Skin Different?” authored by Brandyn M. White, BS; Chidubem A.V. Okeke, BS; Raveena Khanna, MD; Ginette A. Okoye, MD; Michael C. Campbell, PhD; and Angel S. Byrd, MD, PhD. Their research evaluated the association of variant DNA damage binding protein 1, DDB1, with African populations and highlighted the possible phenotypic variations between African and admixed African American populations. Further, it discussed the advantages of conducting future genome-wide association studies in the Washington metropolitan area to better understand dermatological diseases that disproportionately affect skin of color patients.

The Best Oral Presentation Award was presented to Erica Ogwumike, BA, for “Matching into Dermatology Residency: The Impact of Research Fellowships” authored by Erica Ogwumike, BA; Chine Chime, MS, MPH; and Rebecca Vasquez, MD. The aim of this study was to explore what variables were important for 2 events: taking a research fellowship and matching into dermatology. The authors analyzed Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications for all medical students applying to the UT Southwestern Dermatology Residency Program in the 2014-2015 cycle. They found that 1 of 5 students participated in a research fellowship prior to applying to dermatology residency, and it was not associated with increased odds of matching. They also discovered that students more likely to take a research fellowship were Latinx, attended a medical school ranked in the Top 25, and were not Alpha Omega Alpha members. Nevertheless, total publications did increase the odds of matching; therefore, the authors concluded that when looking for a research fellowship, applicants should look for one that allows productivity so that this measure can be achieved. Further investigation is needed to substantiate these results, but this study was a starting point to examine the characteristics involved in taking a research fellowship in dermatology. 

Finally, the Crowd Favorite Award was presented to Jennifer Cucalon, BS, for “Non-invasive, In-Vivo RCM Monitoring of Lentigines Treated With Cryotherapy to Establish Minimum Freeze Time in Seconds (Dose) in Skin of Color” authored by Jennifer Cucalon, BS, and Babar K. Rao, MD. This pilot study showed a minimum freezing time of 3 seconds to be effective in removing lentigines in darker skin; increasing the dose to 6 and 9 seconds had no added benefit. The authors also demonstrated reflectance confocal microscopy to be an appropriate, noninvasive, in vivo tool to visualize pigmentary changes and monitor the effectiveness of treatments for various skin conditions.

The 19th Annual Scientific Symposium will take place on March 16, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme will be Where Science, Innovation & Inclusion Meet. For more information, visit https://skinofcolorsociety.org/19th-annual-skin-of-color-society-scientific-symposium/.

The 18th Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium was held in March 2022 in Boston, Massachusetts. With a theme of Diversity in Action: Science, Healthcare & Society, researchers gathered to present new findings, share key insights, and discuss the continuing evolution of the field. Three awards were presented from the scientific posters at the symposium.

The Best Poster Presentation Award was presented to Brandyn M. White, BS, for “A Preliminary Analysis of the DDB1 Gene: Genome-Wide Association Studies in African and Admixed African American Populations—Is Our Skin Different?” authored by Brandyn M. White, BS; Chidubem A.V. Okeke, BS; Raveena Khanna, MD; Ginette A. Okoye, MD; Michael C. Campbell, PhD; and Angel S. Byrd, MD, PhD. Their research evaluated the association of variant DNA damage binding protein 1, DDB1, with African populations and highlighted the possible phenotypic variations between African and admixed African American populations. Further, it discussed the advantages of conducting future genome-wide association studies in the Washington metropolitan area to better understand dermatological diseases that disproportionately affect skin of color patients.

The Best Oral Presentation Award was presented to Erica Ogwumike, BA, for “Matching into Dermatology Residency: The Impact of Research Fellowships” authored by Erica Ogwumike, BA; Chine Chime, MS, MPH; and Rebecca Vasquez, MD. The aim of this study was to explore what variables were important for 2 events: taking a research fellowship and matching into dermatology. The authors analyzed Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) applications for all medical students applying to the UT Southwestern Dermatology Residency Program in the 2014-2015 cycle. They found that 1 of 5 students participated in a research fellowship prior to applying to dermatology residency, and it was not associated with increased odds of matching. They also discovered that students more likely to take a research fellowship were Latinx, attended a medical school ranked in the Top 25, and were not Alpha Omega Alpha members. Nevertheless, total publications did increase the odds of matching; therefore, the authors concluded that when looking for a research fellowship, applicants should look for one that allows productivity so that this measure can be achieved. Further investigation is needed to substantiate these results, but this study was a starting point to examine the characteristics involved in taking a research fellowship in dermatology. 

Finally, the Crowd Favorite Award was presented to Jennifer Cucalon, BS, for “Non-invasive, In-Vivo RCM Monitoring of Lentigines Treated With Cryotherapy to Establish Minimum Freeze Time in Seconds (Dose) in Skin of Color” authored by Jennifer Cucalon, BS, and Babar K. Rao, MD. This pilot study showed a minimum freezing time of 3 seconds to be effective in removing lentigines in darker skin; increasing the dose to 6 and 9 seconds had no added benefit. The authors also demonstrated reflectance confocal microscopy to be an appropriate, noninvasive, in vivo tool to visualize pigmentary changes and monitor the effectiveness of treatments for various skin conditions.

The 19th Annual Scientific Symposium will take place on March 16, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme will be Where Science, Innovation & Inclusion Meet. For more information, visit https://skinofcolorsociety.org/19th-annual-skin-of-color-society-scientific-symposium/.

To the Editor:

A 44-year-old woman presented with a low-grade fever (temperature, 38.0 °C) and painful acral lesions of 1 week’s duration. She had a history of hepatitis C viral infection and intravenous (IV) drug use, as well as polymicrobial infective endocarditis that involved the tricuspid and aortic valves; pathogenic organisms were identified via blood culture as Enterococcus faecalis, Serratia species, Streptococcus viridans, and Candida albicans. The patient had received a mechanical aortic valve and bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement 5 months prior with warfarin therapy and had completed a postsurgical 6-week course of high-dose micafungin. She reported that she had developed painful, violaceous, thin papules on the plantar surface of the left foot 2 weeks prior to presentation. Her symptoms improved with a short systemic steroid taper; however, within a week she developed new tender, erythematous, thin papules on the plantar surface of the right foot and the palmar surface of the left hand with associated lower extremity swelling. She denied other symptoms, including fever, chills, neurologic symptoms, shortness of breath, chest pain, nausea, vomiting, hematuria, and hematochezia. Due to worsening cutaneous findings, the patient presented to the emergency department, prompting hospital admission for empiric antibacterial therapy with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam for suspected infectious endocarditis. Dermatology was consulted after 1 day of antibacterial therapy without improvement to determine the etiology of the patient’s skin findings.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile with partially blanching violaceous to purpuric, tender, edematous papules on the left fourth and fifth finger pads, as well as scattered, painful, purpuric patches with stellate borders on the right plantar foot (Figure 1). Laboratory test results revealed mild anemia (hemoglobin, 11.9 g/dL [reference range, 12.0–15.0 g/dL], mild neutrophilia (neutrophils, 8.4×10⁹/L [reference range, 1.9–7.9×10⁹/L], elevated acute-phase reactants (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 71 mm/h [reference range, 0–20 mm/h]; C-reactive protein, 5.7 mg/dL [reference range, 0.0–0.5 mg/dL]), and positive hepatitis C virus antibody with an undetectable viral load. At the time of dermatologic evaluation, admission blood cultures and transthoracic echocardiogram were negative. Additionally, a transesophageal echocardiogram, limited by artifact from the mechanical aortic valve, was equivocal for valvular pathology. Subsequent ophthalmologic evaluation was negative for lesions associated with endocarditis, such as retinal hemorrhages.

Punch biopsies of the left fourth finger pad were submitted for histopathologic analysis and tissue cultures. Histopathology demonstrated deep dermal perivascular neutrophilic inflammation with multiple intravascular thrombi, perivascular fibrin, and karyorrhectic debris (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed fungal spores with rare pseudohyphae within the thrombosed vascular spaces and the perivascular dermis, consistent with fungal septic emboli (Figure 3).

Empiric systemic antifungal coverage composed of IV liposomal amphotericin B and oral flucytosine was initiated, and the patient’s tender acral papules rapidly improved. Within 48 hours of biopsy, skin tissue culture confirmed the presence of C albicans. Four days after the preliminary dermatopathology report, confirmatory blood cultures resulted with pansensitive C albicans. Final tissue and blood cultures were negative for bacteria including mycobacteria. In addition to a 6-week course of IV amphotericin B and flucytosine, repeat surgical intervention was considered, and lifelong suppressive antifungal oral therapy was recommended. Unfortunately, the patient did not present for follow-up. Three months later, she presented to the emergency department with peritonitis; in the operating room, she was found to have ischemia of the entirety of the small and large intestines and died shortly thereafter.

Fungal endocarditis is rare, tending to develop in patient populations with particular risk factors such as immune compromise, structural heart defects or prosthetic valves, and IV drug use. Candida infective endocarditis (CIE) represents less than 2% of infective endocarditis cases and carries a high mortality rate (30%–80%).^1-3 Diagnosis may be challenging, as the clinical presentation varies widely. Although some patients may present with classic features of infective endocarditis, including fever, cardiac murmurs, and positive blood cultures, many cases of infective endocarditis present with nonspecific symptoms, raising a broad clinical differential diagnosis. Delay in diagnosis, which is seen in 82% of patients with fungal endocarditis, may be attributed to the slow progression of symptoms, inconclusive cardiac imaging, or negative blood cultures seen in almost one-third of cases.^2,3 The feared complication of systemic embolization via infective endocarditis may occur in up to one-half of cases, with the highest rates associated with staphylococcal or fungal pathogens.² The risk for embolization in fungal endocarditis is independent of the size of the cardiac valve vegetations; accordingly, sequelae of embolic complications may arise despite negative cardiac imaging.⁴ Embolic complications, which typically are seen within the first 2 to 4 weeks of treatment, may serve as the presenting feature of endocarditis and may even occur after completion of antimicrobial therapy.

Detection of cutaneous manifestations of infective endocarditis, including Janeway lesions, Osler nodes, and splinter hemorrhages, may allow for earlier diagnosis. Despite eponymous recognition, Janeway lesions and Osler nodes are relatively uncommon manifestations of infective endocarditis and may be found in only 5% to 15% of cases.⁵ Biopsies of suspected Janeway lesions and Osler nodes may allow for recognition of relevant vascular pathology, identification of the causative pathogen, and strong support for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis.^4-7

The initial photomicrograph of corresponding Janeway lesion histopathology was published by Kerr in 1955 and revealed dermal microabscesses posited to be secondary to bacterial emboli.^8,9 Additional cases through the years have reported overlapping histopathologic features of Janeway lesions and Osler nodes, with the latter often defined by the presence of vasculitis.⁴ Although there appears to be ongoing debate and overlap between the 2 integumentary findings, a general consensus on differentiation takes into account both the clinical signs and symptoms as well as the histopathologic findings.^10,11

Osler nodes present as tender, violaceous, subcutaneous nodules on the acral surfaces, usually on the pads of the fingers and toes.⁵ The pathogenesis involves the deposition of immune complexes as a sequela of vascular occlusion by microthrombi classically seen in the late phase of subacute endocarditis. Janeway lesions present as nontender erythematous macules on the acral surfaces and are thought to represent microthrombi with dermal microabscesses, more common in acute endocarditis. Our patient demonstrated features of both Osler nodes and Janeway lesions. Despite the presence of fungal thrombi—a pathophysiology closer to that of Janeway lesions—the clinical presentation of painful acral nodules affecting finger pads and histologic features of vasculitis may be better characterized as Osler nodes. Regardless of pathogenesis, these cutaneous findings serve as a minor clinical criterion in the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis when present.¹²

Candida infective endocarditis should be suspected in a patient with a history of valvular disease or prior infective endocarditis with fungemia, unexplained neurologic signs, or manifestations of peripheral embolization despite negative blood cultures.³ Particularly in the setting of negative cardiac imaging, recognition of CIE requires heightened diagnostic acumen and clinicopathologic correlation. Although culture and pathologic examination of valvular vegetations represents the gold standard for diagnosis of CIE, aspiration and culture of easily accessible septic emboli may provide rapid identification of the etiologic pathogen. In 1976, Alpert et al¹³ identified C albicans from an aspirated Osler node. Postmortem examination revealed extensive involvement of the homograft valve and aortic root with C albicans.¹³ Many other examples exist in the literature demonstrating matching pathogenic isolates from microbiologic cultures of skin and blood.^4,9,14,15 Thadepalli and Francis⁷ investigated 26 cases of endocarditis in heroin users in which the admitting diagnosis was endocarditis in only 4 cases. The etiologic pathogen was aspirated from secondary sites of localized infections secondary to emboli, including cutaneous lesions in 10 of the cases. Gram stain and culture revealed the causative organism leading to the ultimate diagnosis and management in 17 of 26 patients with endocarditis.⁷

The incidence of fungal endocarditis is increasing, with a reported 67% of cases caused by nosocomial infection.¹ Given the rising incidence of fungal endocarditis and its accompanying diagnostic difficulties, including frequently negative blood cultures and cardiac imaging, clinicians must perform careful skin examinations, employ judicious use of skin biopsy, and carefully correlate clinical and pathologic findings to improve recognition of this disease and guide patient care.

To the Editor:

A 44-year-old woman presented with a low-grade fever (temperature, 38.0 °C) and painful acral lesions of 1 week’s duration. She had a history of hepatitis C viral infection and intravenous (IV) drug use, as well as polymicrobial infective endocarditis that involved the tricuspid and aortic valves; pathogenic organisms were identified via blood culture as Enterococcus faecalis, Serratia species, Streptococcus viridans, and Candida albicans. The patient had received a mechanical aortic valve and bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement 5 months prior with warfarin therapy and had completed a postsurgical 6-week course of high-dose micafungin. She reported that she had developed painful, violaceous, thin papules on the plantar surface of the left foot 2 weeks prior to presentation. Her symptoms improved with a short systemic steroid taper; however, within a week she developed new tender, erythematous, thin papules on the plantar surface of the right foot and the palmar surface of the left hand with associated lower extremity swelling. She denied other symptoms, including fever, chills, neurologic symptoms, shortness of breath, chest pain, nausea, vomiting, hematuria, and hematochezia. Due to worsening cutaneous findings, the patient presented to the emergency department, prompting hospital admission for empiric antibacterial therapy with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam for suspected infectious endocarditis. Dermatology was consulted after 1 day of antibacterial therapy without improvement to determine the etiology of the patient’s skin findings.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile with partially blanching violaceous to purpuric, tender, edematous papules on the left fourth and fifth finger pads, as well as scattered, painful, purpuric patches with stellate borders on the right plantar foot (Figure 1). Laboratory test results revealed mild anemia (hemoglobin, 11.9 g/dL [reference range, 12.0–15.0 g/dL], mild neutrophilia (neutrophils, 8.4×10⁹/L [reference range, 1.9–7.9×10⁹/L], elevated acute-phase reactants (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 71 mm/h [reference range, 0–20 mm/h]; C-reactive protein, 5.7 mg/dL [reference range, 0.0–0.5 mg/dL]), and positive hepatitis C virus antibody with an undetectable viral load. At the time of dermatologic evaluation, admission blood cultures and transthoracic echocardiogram were negative. Additionally, a transesophageal echocardiogram, limited by artifact from the mechanical aortic valve, was equivocal for valvular pathology. Subsequent ophthalmologic evaluation was negative for lesions associated with endocarditis, such as retinal hemorrhages.

Punch biopsies of the left fourth finger pad were submitted for histopathologic analysis and tissue cultures. Histopathology demonstrated deep dermal perivascular neutrophilic inflammation with multiple intravascular thrombi, perivascular fibrin, and karyorrhectic debris (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed fungal spores with rare pseudohyphae within the thrombosed vascular spaces and the perivascular dermis, consistent with fungal septic emboli (Figure 3).

Empiric systemic antifungal coverage composed of IV liposomal amphotericin B and oral flucytosine was initiated, and the patient’s tender acral papules rapidly improved. Within 48 hours of biopsy, skin tissue culture confirmed the presence of C albicans. Four days after the preliminary dermatopathology report, confirmatory blood cultures resulted with pansensitive C albicans. Final tissue and blood cultures were negative for bacteria including mycobacteria. In addition to a 6-week course of IV amphotericin B and flucytosine, repeat surgical intervention was considered, and lifelong suppressive antifungal oral therapy was recommended. Unfortunately, the patient did not present for follow-up. Three months later, she presented to the emergency department with peritonitis; in the operating room, she was found to have ischemia of the entirety of the small and large intestines and died shortly thereafter.

Fungal endocarditis is rare, tending to develop in patient populations with particular risk factors such as immune compromise, structural heart defects or prosthetic valves, and IV drug use. Candida infective endocarditis (CIE) represents less than 2% of infective endocarditis cases and carries a high mortality rate (30%–80%).^1-3 Diagnosis may be challenging, as the clinical presentation varies widely. Although some patients may present with classic features of infective endocarditis, including fever, cardiac murmurs, and positive blood cultures, many cases of infective endocarditis present with nonspecific symptoms, raising a broad clinical differential diagnosis. Delay in diagnosis, which is seen in 82% of patients with fungal endocarditis, may be attributed to the slow progression of symptoms, inconclusive cardiac imaging, or negative blood cultures seen in almost one-third of cases.^2,3 The feared complication of systemic embolization via infective endocarditis may occur in up to one-half of cases, with the highest rates associated with staphylococcal or fungal pathogens.² The risk for embolization in fungal endocarditis is independent of the size of the cardiac valve vegetations; accordingly, sequelae of embolic complications may arise despite negative cardiac imaging.⁴ Embolic complications, which typically are seen within the first 2 to 4 weeks of treatment, may serve as the presenting feature of endocarditis and may even occur after completion of antimicrobial therapy.

Detection of cutaneous manifestations of infective endocarditis, including Janeway lesions, Osler nodes, and splinter hemorrhages, may allow for earlier diagnosis. Despite eponymous recognition, Janeway lesions and Osler nodes are relatively uncommon manifestations of infective endocarditis and may be found in only 5% to 15% of cases.⁵ Biopsies of suspected Janeway lesions and Osler nodes may allow for recognition of relevant vascular pathology, identification of the causative pathogen, and strong support for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis.^4-7

The initial photomicrograph of corresponding Janeway lesion histopathology was published by Kerr in 1955 and revealed dermal microabscesses posited to be secondary to bacterial emboli.^8,9 Additional cases through the years have reported overlapping histopathologic features of Janeway lesions and Osler nodes, with the latter often defined by the presence of vasculitis.⁴ Although there appears to be ongoing debate and overlap between the 2 integumentary findings, a general consensus on differentiation takes into account both the clinical signs and symptoms as well as the histopathologic findings.^10,11

Osler nodes present as tender, violaceous, subcutaneous nodules on the acral surfaces, usually on the pads of the fingers and toes.⁵ The pathogenesis involves the deposition of immune complexes as a sequela of vascular occlusion by microthrombi classically seen in the late phase of subacute endocarditis. Janeway lesions present as nontender erythematous macules on the acral surfaces and are thought to represent microthrombi with dermal microabscesses, more common in acute endocarditis. Our patient demonstrated features of both Osler nodes and Janeway lesions. Despite the presence of fungal thrombi—a pathophysiology closer to that of Janeway lesions—the clinical presentation of painful acral nodules affecting finger pads and histologic features of vasculitis may be better characterized as Osler nodes. Regardless of pathogenesis, these cutaneous findings serve as a minor clinical criterion in the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis when present.¹²

Candida infective endocarditis should be suspected in a patient with a history of valvular disease or prior infective endocarditis with fungemia, unexplained neurologic signs, or manifestations of peripheral embolization despite negative blood cultures.³ Particularly in the setting of negative cardiac imaging, recognition of CIE requires heightened diagnostic acumen and clinicopathologic correlation. Although culture and pathologic examination of valvular vegetations represents the gold standard for diagnosis of CIE, aspiration and culture of easily accessible septic emboli may provide rapid identification of the etiologic pathogen. In 1976, Alpert et al¹³ identified C albicans from an aspirated Osler node. Postmortem examination revealed extensive involvement of the homograft valve and aortic root with C albicans.¹³ Many other examples exist in the literature demonstrating matching pathogenic isolates from microbiologic cultures of skin and blood.^4,9,14,15 Thadepalli and Francis⁷ investigated 26 cases of endocarditis in heroin users in which the admitting diagnosis was endocarditis in only 4 cases. The etiologic pathogen was aspirated from secondary sites of localized infections secondary to emboli, including cutaneous lesions in 10 of the cases. Gram stain and culture revealed the causative organism leading to the ultimate diagnosis and management in 17 of 26 patients with endocarditis.⁷

The incidence of fungal endocarditis is increasing, with a reported 67% of cases caused by nosocomial infection.¹ Given the rising incidence of fungal endocarditis and its accompanying diagnostic difficulties, including frequently negative blood cultures and cardiac imaging, clinicians must perform careful skin examinations, employ judicious use of skin biopsy, and carefully correlate clinical and pathologic findings to improve recognition of this disease and guide patient care.

To the Editor:

A 44-year-old woman presented with a low-grade fever (temperature, 38.0 °C) and painful acral lesions of 1 week’s duration. She had a history of hepatitis C viral infection and intravenous (IV) drug use, as well as polymicrobial infective endocarditis that involved the tricuspid and aortic valves; pathogenic organisms were identified via blood culture as Enterococcus faecalis, Serratia species, Streptococcus viridans, and Candida albicans. The patient had received a mechanical aortic valve and bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement 5 months prior with warfarin therapy and had completed a postsurgical 6-week course of high-dose micafungin. She reported that she had developed painful, violaceous, thin papules on the plantar surface of the left foot 2 weeks prior to presentation. Her symptoms improved with a short systemic steroid taper; however, within a week she developed new tender, erythematous, thin papules on the plantar surface of the right foot and the palmar surface of the left hand with associated lower extremity swelling. She denied other symptoms, including fever, chills, neurologic symptoms, shortness of breath, chest pain, nausea, vomiting, hematuria, and hematochezia. Due to worsening cutaneous findings, the patient presented to the emergency department, prompting hospital admission for empiric antibacterial therapy with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam for suspected infectious endocarditis. Dermatology was consulted after 1 day of antibacterial therapy without improvement to determine the etiology of the patient’s skin findings.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile with partially blanching violaceous to purpuric, tender, edematous papules on the left fourth and fifth finger pads, as well as scattered, painful, purpuric patches with stellate borders on the right plantar foot (Figure 1). Laboratory test results revealed mild anemia (hemoglobin, 11.9 g/dL [reference range, 12.0–15.0 g/dL], mild neutrophilia (neutrophils, 8.4×10⁹/L [reference range, 1.9–7.9×10⁹/L], elevated acute-phase reactants (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 71 mm/h [reference range, 0–20 mm/h]; C-reactive protein, 5.7 mg/dL [reference range, 0.0–0.5 mg/dL]), and positive hepatitis C virus antibody with an undetectable viral load. At the time of dermatologic evaluation, admission blood cultures and transthoracic echocardiogram were negative. Additionally, a transesophageal echocardiogram, limited by artifact from the mechanical aortic valve, was equivocal for valvular pathology. Subsequent ophthalmologic evaluation was negative for lesions associated with endocarditis, such as retinal hemorrhages.

Punch biopsies of the left fourth finger pad were submitted for histopathologic analysis and tissue cultures. Histopathology demonstrated deep dermal perivascular neutrophilic inflammation with multiple intravascular thrombi, perivascular fibrin, and karyorrhectic debris (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed fungal spores with rare pseudohyphae within the thrombosed vascular spaces and the perivascular dermis, consistent with fungal septic emboli (Figure 3).

Empiric systemic antifungal coverage composed of IV liposomal amphotericin B and oral flucytosine was initiated, and the patient’s tender acral papules rapidly improved. Within 48 hours of biopsy, skin tissue culture confirmed the presence of C albicans. Four days after the preliminary dermatopathology report, confirmatory blood cultures resulted with pansensitive C albicans. Final tissue and blood cultures were negative for bacteria including mycobacteria. In addition to a 6-week course of IV amphotericin B and flucytosine, repeat surgical intervention was considered, and lifelong suppressive antifungal oral therapy was recommended. Unfortunately, the patient did not present for follow-up. Three months later, she presented to the emergency department with peritonitis; in the operating room, she was found to have ischemia of the entirety of the small and large intestines and died shortly thereafter.

Fungal endocarditis is rare, tending to develop in patient populations with particular risk factors such as immune compromise, structural heart defects or prosthetic valves, and IV drug use. Candida infective endocarditis (CIE) represents less than 2% of infective endocarditis cases and carries a high mortality rate (30%–80%).^1-3 Diagnosis may be challenging, as the clinical presentation varies widely. Although some patients may present with classic features of infective endocarditis, including fever, cardiac murmurs, and positive blood cultures, many cases of infective endocarditis present with nonspecific symptoms, raising a broad clinical differential diagnosis. Delay in diagnosis, which is seen in 82% of patients with fungal endocarditis, may be attributed to the slow progression of symptoms, inconclusive cardiac imaging, or negative blood cultures seen in almost one-third of cases.^2,3 The feared complication of systemic embolization via infective endocarditis may occur in up to one-half of cases, with the highest rates associated with staphylococcal or fungal pathogens.² The risk for embolization in fungal endocarditis is independent of the size of the cardiac valve vegetations; accordingly, sequelae of embolic complications may arise despite negative cardiac imaging.⁴ Embolic complications, which typically are seen within the first 2 to 4 weeks of treatment, may serve as the presenting feature of endocarditis and may even occur after completion of antimicrobial therapy.

Detection of cutaneous manifestations of infective endocarditis, including Janeway lesions, Osler nodes, and splinter hemorrhages, may allow for earlier diagnosis. Despite eponymous recognition, Janeway lesions and Osler nodes are relatively uncommon manifestations of infective endocarditis and may be found in only 5% to 15% of cases.⁵ Biopsies of suspected Janeway lesions and Osler nodes may allow for recognition of relevant vascular pathology, identification of the causative pathogen, and strong support for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis.^4-7

The initial photomicrograph of corresponding Janeway lesion histopathology was published by Kerr in 1955 and revealed dermal microabscesses posited to be secondary to bacterial emboli.^8,9 Additional cases through the years have reported overlapping histopathologic features of Janeway lesions and Osler nodes, with the latter often defined by the presence of vasculitis.⁴ Although there appears to be ongoing debate and overlap between the 2 integumentary findings, a general consensus on differentiation takes into account both the clinical signs and symptoms as well as the histopathologic findings.^10,11

Osler nodes present as tender, violaceous, subcutaneous nodules on the acral surfaces, usually on the pads of the fingers and toes.⁵ The pathogenesis involves the deposition of immune complexes as a sequela of vascular occlusion by microthrombi classically seen in the late phase of subacute endocarditis. Janeway lesions present as nontender erythematous macules on the acral surfaces and are thought to represent microthrombi with dermal microabscesses, more common in acute endocarditis. Our patient demonstrated features of both Osler nodes and Janeway lesions. Despite the presence of fungal thrombi—a pathophysiology closer to that of Janeway lesions—the clinical presentation of painful acral nodules affecting finger pads and histologic features of vasculitis may be better characterized as Osler nodes. Regardless of pathogenesis, these cutaneous findings serve as a minor clinical criterion in the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis when present.¹²

Candida infective endocarditis should be suspected in a patient with a history of valvular disease or prior infective endocarditis with fungemia, unexplained neurologic signs, or manifestations of peripheral embolization despite negative blood cultures.³ Particularly in the setting of negative cardiac imaging, recognition of CIE requires heightened diagnostic acumen and clinicopathologic correlation. Although culture and pathologic examination of valvular vegetations represents the gold standard for diagnosis of CIE, aspiration and culture of easily accessible septic emboli may provide rapid identification of the etiologic pathogen. In 1976, Alpert et al¹³ identified C albicans from an aspirated Osler node. Postmortem examination revealed extensive involvement of the homograft valve and aortic root with C albicans.¹³ Many other examples exist in the literature demonstrating matching pathogenic isolates from microbiologic cultures of skin and blood.^4,9,14,15 Thadepalli and Francis⁷ investigated 26 cases of endocarditis in heroin users in which the admitting diagnosis was endocarditis in only 4 cases. The etiologic pathogen was aspirated from secondary sites of localized infections secondary to emboli, including cutaneous lesions in 10 of the cases. Gram stain and culture revealed the causative organism leading to the ultimate diagnosis and management in 17 of 26 patients with endocarditis.⁷

The incidence of fungal endocarditis is increasing, with a reported 67% of cases caused by nosocomial infection.¹ Given the rising incidence of fungal endocarditis and its accompanying diagnostic difficulties, including frequently negative blood cultures and cardiac imaging, clinicians must perform careful skin examinations, employ judicious use of skin biopsy, and carefully correlate clinical and pathologic findings to improve recognition of this disease and guide patient care.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Gulf War Illness (GWI) is a mystery wrapped in an enigma—a complex interplay of multiple symptoms, caused by a variety of environmental and chemical hazards. To make things more difficult, there are no diagnostic biomarkers or objective laboratory tests with which to confirm a GWI case. Instead, clinicians rely on patients’ reports of symptoms and the absence of other explanations for the symptoms.

Looking to provide more information on the epidemiology and biology of GWI, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) researchers analyzed data from the VA Cooperative Studies Program 2006/Million Veteran Program 029 cohort, the largest sample of GW-era veterans available for research to date: 35,902 veterans, of whom 13,107 deployed to a post 9/11 Persian Gulf conflict.

The researchers used the Kansas (KS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions of GWI, both of which are based on patient self-reports. The KS GWI criteria for phenotype KS Sym+ require ≥ 2 mild symptoms or ≥ 1 moderate or severe symptoms in at least 3 of 6 domains: fatigue/sleep problems, pain, neurologic/cognitive/mood, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and skin. The criteria for phenotype KS Sym+/Dx- also exclude some diagnosed health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes mellitus, and heart disease. The researchers examined both of these phenotypes.

They also used 2 phenotypes of the CDC definition: CDC GWI is met if the veteran reports ≥ 1 symptoms in 2 of 3 domains (fatigue, musculoskeletal, and mood/cognition). The second, CDC GWI severe, is met if the veteran rates ≥ 1 symptoms as severe in ≥ 2 domains.

Of the veterans studied, 67.1% met the KS Sym+ phenotype; 21.5% met the KS Sym+/Dx– definition. A majority (81.1%) met the CDC GWI phenotype; 18.6% met the severe phenotype. The most prevalent KS GWI domains were neurologic/cognitive/mood (81.9%), fatigue/sleep problems (73.9%), and pain (71.5%).

Although their findings mainly laid a foundation for further research, the researchers pointed to some potential new avenues for exploration. For instance, “Importantly,” the researchers say, “we consistently observed that deployed relative to nondeployed veterans had higher odds of meeting each GWI phenotype.” For both deployed and nondeployed veterans, those who served in the Army or Marine Corps had higher odds of meeting the KS Sym+, CDC GWI, and CDC GWI severe phenotypes. Among the deployed, Reservists had higher odds of CDC GWI and CDC GWI severe than did active-duty veterans.

Their findings also revealed that older age was associated with lower odds of meeting the GWI phenotypes. “[S]omewhat surprisingly,” they note, this finding held in both nondeployed and deployed samples, even after adjusting for military rank during the war. The researchers cite other research that has suggested younger service members are at greater risk for GWI (because they’re more likely, for example, to be exposed to deployment-related toxins). Most studies, the researchers note, have shown GWI and related symptoms to be more common among enlisted personnel than officers. Biomarkers of aging, such as epigenetic age acceleration, they suggest, “may be useful in untangling the relationship between age and GWI case status.” 

Because they separately examined the association of demographic characteristics with the GWI phenotypes, the researchers also found that women, regardless of deployment status, had higher odds of meeting the GWI phenotypes compared with men.

Their findings will be used, the researchers say, “to understand how genetic variation is associated with the GWI phenotypes and to identify potential pathophysiologic underpinnings of GWI, pleiotropy with other traits, and gene by environment interactions.” With information from this large dataset of GW-era veterans, they will have a “powerful tool” for in-depth study of exposures and underlying genetic susceptibility to GWI—studies that could not be performed, they say, without the full description of the GWI phenotypes they have documented.

The study had several strengths, the researchers say. For example, unlike previous studies, this one had a sample size large enough to allow more representation of subpopulations, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, and military service. The researchers also collected data from surveys, especially data on veterans’ self-reported symptoms and other information “incompletely and infrequently documented in medical records.”

Finally, the data for the study were collected more than 27 years after the GW. It, therefore, gives an “updated, detailed description” of symptoms and conditions affecting GW-era veterans, decades after their return from service.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Gulf War Illness (GWI) is a mystery wrapped in an enigma—a complex interplay of multiple symptoms, caused by a variety of environmental and chemical hazards. To make things more difficult, there are no diagnostic biomarkers or objective laboratory tests with which to confirm a GWI case. Instead, clinicians rely on patients’ reports of symptoms and the absence of other explanations for the symptoms.

Looking to provide more information on the epidemiology and biology of GWI, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) researchers analyzed data from the VA Cooperative Studies Program 2006/Million Veteran Program 029 cohort, the largest sample of GW-era veterans available for research to date: 35,902 veterans, of whom 13,107 deployed to a post 9/11 Persian Gulf conflict.

The researchers used the Kansas (KS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions of GWI, both of which are based on patient self-reports. The KS GWI criteria for phenotype KS Sym+ require ≥ 2 mild symptoms or ≥ 1 moderate or severe symptoms in at least 3 of 6 domains: fatigue/sleep problems, pain, neurologic/cognitive/mood, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and skin. The criteria for phenotype KS Sym+/Dx- also exclude some diagnosed health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes mellitus, and heart disease. The researchers examined both of these phenotypes.

They also used 2 phenotypes of the CDC definition: CDC GWI is met if the veteran reports ≥ 1 symptoms in 2 of 3 domains (fatigue, musculoskeletal, and mood/cognition). The second, CDC GWI severe, is met if the veteran rates ≥ 1 symptoms as severe in ≥ 2 domains.

Of the veterans studied, 67.1% met the KS Sym+ phenotype; 21.5% met the KS Sym+/Dx– definition. A majority (81.1%) met the CDC GWI phenotype; 18.6% met the severe phenotype. The most prevalent KS GWI domains were neurologic/cognitive/mood (81.9%), fatigue/sleep problems (73.9%), and pain (71.5%).

Although their findings mainly laid a foundation for further research, the researchers pointed to some potential new avenues for exploration. For instance, “Importantly,” the researchers say, “we consistently observed that deployed relative to nondeployed veterans had higher odds of meeting each GWI phenotype.” For both deployed and nondeployed veterans, those who served in the Army or Marine Corps had higher odds of meeting the KS Sym+, CDC GWI, and CDC GWI severe phenotypes. Among the deployed, Reservists had higher odds of CDC GWI and CDC GWI severe than did active-duty veterans.

Their findings also revealed that older age was associated with lower odds of meeting the GWI phenotypes. “[S]omewhat surprisingly,” they note, this finding held in both nondeployed and deployed samples, even after adjusting for military rank during the war. The researchers cite other research that has suggested younger service members are at greater risk for GWI (because they’re more likely, for example, to be exposed to deployment-related toxins). Most studies, the researchers note, have shown GWI and related symptoms to be more common among enlisted personnel than officers. Biomarkers of aging, such as epigenetic age acceleration, they suggest, “may be useful in untangling the relationship between age and GWI case status.” 

Because they separately examined the association of demographic characteristics with the GWI phenotypes, the researchers also found that women, regardless of deployment status, had higher odds of meeting the GWI phenotypes compared with men.

Their findings will be used, the researchers say, “to understand how genetic variation is associated with the GWI phenotypes and to identify potential pathophysiologic underpinnings of GWI, pleiotropy with other traits, and gene by environment interactions.” With information from this large dataset of GW-era veterans, they will have a “powerful tool” for in-depth study of exposures and underlying genetic susceptibility to GWI—studies that could not be performed, they say, without the full description of the GWI phenotypes they have documented.

The study had several strengths, the researchers say. For example, unlike previous studies, this one had a sample size large enough to allow more representation of subpopulations, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, and military service. The researchers also collected data from surveys, especially data on veterans’ self-reported symptoms and other information “incompletely and infrequently documented in medical records.”

Finally, the data for the study were collected more than 27 years after the GW. It, therefore, gives an “updated, detailed description” of symptoms and conditions affecting GW-era veterans, decades after their return from service.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Gulf War Illness (GWI) is a mystery wrapped in an enigma—a complex interplay of multiple symptoms, caused by a variety of environmental and chemical hazards. To make things more difficult, there are no diagnostic biomarkers or objective laboratory tests with which to confirm a GWI case. Instead, clinicians rely on patients’ reports of symptoms and the absence of other explanations for the symptoms.

Looking to provide more information on the epidemiology and biology of GWI, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) researchers analyzed data from the VA Cooperative Studies Program 2006/Million Veteran Program 029 cohort, the largest sample of GW-era veterans available for research to date: 35,902 veterans, of whom 13,107 deployed to a post 9/11 Persian Gulf conflict.

The researchers used the Kansas (KS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions of GWI, both of which are based on patient self-reports. The KS GWI criteria for phenotype KS Sym+ require ≥ 2 mild symptoms or ≥ 1 moderate or severe symptoms in at least 3 of 6 domains: fatigue/sleep problems, pain, neurologic/cognitive/mood, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and skin. The criteria for phenotype KS Sym+/Dx- also exclude some diagnosed health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes mellitus, and heart disease. The researchers examined both of these phenotypes.

They also used 2 phenotypes of the CDC definition: CDC GWI is met if the veteran reports ≥ 1 symptoms in 2 of 3 domains (fatigue, musculoskeletal, and mood/cognition). The second, CDC GWI severe, is met if the veteran rates ≥ 1 symptoms as severe in ≥ 2 domains.

Of the veterans studied, 67.1% met the KS Sym+ phenotype; 21.5% met the KS Sym+/Dx– definition. A majority (81.1%) met the CDC GWI phenotype; 18.6% met the severe phenotype. The most prevalent KS GWI domains were neurologic/cognitive/mood (81.9%), fatigue/sleep problems (73.9%), and pain (71.5%).

Although their findings mainly laid a foundation for further research, the researchers pointed to some potential new avenues for exploration. For instance, “Importantly,” the researchers say, “we consistently observed that deployed relative to nondeployed veterans had higher odds of meeting each GWI phenotype.” For both deployed and nondeployed veterans, those who served in the Army or Marine Corps had higher odds of meeting the KS Sym+, CDC GWI, and CDC GWI severe phenotypes. Among the deployed, Reservists had higher odds of CDC GWI and CDC GWI severe than did active-duty veterans.

Their findings also revealed that older age was associated with lower odds of meeting the GWI phenotypes. “[S]omewhat surprisingly,” they note, this finding held in both nondeployed and deployed samples, even after adjusting for military rank during the war. The researchers cite other research that has suggested younger service members are at greater risk for GWI (because they’re more likely, for example, to be exposed to deployment-related toxins). Most studies, the researchers note, have shown GWI and related symptoms to be more common among enlisted personnel than officers. Biomarkers of aging, such as epigenetic age acceleration, they suggest, “may be useful in untangling the relationship between age and GWI case status.” 

Because they separately examined the association of demographic characteristics with the GWI phenotypes, the researchers also found that women, regardless of deployment status, had higher odds of meeting the GWI phenotypes compared with men.

Their findings will be used, the researchers say, “to understand how genetic variation is associated with the GWI phenotypes and to identify potential pathophysiologic underpinnings of GWI, pleiotropy with other traits, and gene by environment interactions.” With information from this large dataset of GW-era veterans, they will have a “powerful tool” for in-depth study of exposures and underlying genetic susceptibility to GWI—studies that could not be performed, they say, without the full description of the GWI phenotypes they have documented.

The study had several strengths, the researchers say. For example, unlike previous studies, this one had a sample size large enough to allow more representation of subpopulations, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, and military service. The researchers also collected data from surveys, especially data on veterans’ self-reported symptoms and other information “incompletely and infrequently documented in medical records.”

Finally, the data for the study were collected more than 27 years after the GW. It, therefore, gives an “updated, detailed description” of symptoms and conditions affecting GW-era veterans, decades after their return from service.

To the Editor:

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare but severe subtype of psoriasis that can present with systemic symptoms and organ failure, sometimes leading to hospitalization and even death.^1,2 Due to the rarity of this subtype and GPP being excluded from clinical trials for plaque psoriasis, there is limited information on the optimal treatment of this disease.

More than 20 systemic medications have been described in the literature for treating GPP, including systemic steroids, traditional immunosuppressants, retinoids, and biologics, which often are used in combination; none have been consistently effective.³ Among biologic therapies, the use of tumor necrosis factor α as well as IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors has been reported, with the least amount of experience with IL-17 inhibitors.⁴

A 53-year-old Korean woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a widespread painful rash involving the face, neck, torso, arms, and legs that had been treated intermittently with systemic steroids by her primary care physician for several months before presentation. She had no relevant medical or dermatologic history. She denied taking prescription or over-the-counter medications.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile, but she reported general malaise and chills. She had widespread erythematous, annular, scaly plaques that coalesced into polycyclic plaques studded with nonfollicular-based pustules on the forehead, frontal hairline, neck, chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs (Figure 1).

Two 4-mm punch biopsies were performed for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence. Histopathologic analysis showed prominent subcorneal neutrophilic pustules and spongiform collections of neutrophils in the spinous layer without notable eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence was negative.

Based on the clinical history, physical examination, histopathology, and unremarkable drug history, a diagnosis of GPP was made. Initially, acitretin 25 mg/d was prescribed, but the patient was unable to start treatment because the cost of the drug was prohibitive. Her condition worsened, and she returned to the clinic 2 days later. Based on knowledge of an ongoing phase 3, open-label study for risankizumab in GPP, a sample of risankizumab 150 mg was administered subcutaneously in this patient. Three days later, most of the pustules on the upper half of the patient’s body had dried up and she began to desquamate from head to toe (Figure 3).The patient developed notable edema of the lower extremities, which required furosemide 20 mg/d andibuprofen 600 mg every 6 hours for symptom relief.

Ten days after the initial dose of risankizumab, the patient continued to steadily improve. All the pustules had dried up and she was already showing signs of re-epithelialization. Edema and pain also had notably improved. She received 2 additional samples of risankizumab 150 mg at weeks 4 and 16, at which point she was able to receive compassionate care through the drug manufacturer’s program. At follow-up 151 days after the initial dose of risankizumab, the patient’s skin was completely clear.

Generalized pustular psoriasis remains a difficult disease to study, given its rarity and unpredictable course. Spesolimab, a humanized anti–IL-36 receptor monoclonal antibody, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of GPP.⁵ In the pivotal trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03782792),⁵ an astonishingly high 54% of patients (19/35) given a single dose of intravenous spesolimab reached the primary end point of no pustules at day 7. However, safety concerns, such as serious infections and severe cutaneous adverse reactions, as well as logistical challenges that come with intravenous administration for an acute disease, may prevent widespread adoption by community dermatologists.

Tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors currently are approved for the treatment of GPP in Japan, Thailand, and Taiwan based on small, nonrandomized, open-label studies.^6-10 More recently, results from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study to assess the efficacy and safety of 2 different dosing regimens of risankizumab with 8 Japanese patients with GPP were published.¹¹ However, there currently is only a single approved medication for GPP in Europe and the United States. Therefore, additional therapies, particularly those that have already been established in dermatology, would be welcome in treating this disease.

A number of questions still need to be answered regarding treating GPP with risankizumab:

• What is the optimal dose and schedule of this drug? Our patient received the standard 150-mg dose that is FDA approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis; would a higher dose, such as the FDA-approved 600-mg dosing used to treat Crohn disease, have led to a more rapid and durable response?¹²

• For how long should these patients be treated? Will their disease follow the same course as psoriasis vulgaris, requiring long-term, continuous treatment?

• An ongoing 5-year, open-label extension study of spesolimab might eventually answer that question and currently is recruiting participants (NCT03886246).

• Is there a way to predict a priori which patients will be responders? Biomarkers—especially through the use of tape stripping—are promising, but validation studies are still needed.¹³

• Because 69% (24/35) of enrolled patients in the treatment group of the spesolimab trial did not harbor a mutation of the IL36RN gene, how reliable is mutation status in predicting treatment response?⁵

Of note, some of these questions also apply to guttate psoriasis, a far more common subtype of psoriasis that also is worth exploring.

Nevertheless, these are exciting times for patients with GPP. What was once considered an obscure orphan disease is the focus of major recent publications³ and phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled studies.⁵ We can be cautiously optimistic that in the next few years we will be in a better position to care for patients with GPP.

To the Editor:

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare but severe subtype of psoriasis that can present with systemic symptoms and organ failure, sometimes leading to hospitalization and even death.^1,2 Due to the rarity of this subtype and GPP being excluded from clinical trials for plaque psoriasis, there is limited information on the optimal treatment of this disease.

More than 20 systemic medications have been described in the literature for treating GPP, including systemic steroids, traditional immunosuppressants, retinoids, and biologics, which often are used in combination; none have been consistently effective.³ Among biologic therapies, the use of tumor necrosis factor α as well as IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors has been reported, with the least amount of experience with IL-17 inhibitors.⁴

A 53-year-old Korean woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a widespread painful rash involving the face, neck, torso, arms, and legs that had been treated intermittently with systemic steroids by her primary care physician for several months before presentation. She had no relevant medical or dermatologic history. She denied taking prescription or over-the-counter medications.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile, but she reported general malaise and chills. She had widespread erythematous, annular, scaly plaques that coalesced into polycyclic plaques studded with nonfollicular-based pustules on the forehead, frontal hairline, neck, chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs (Figure 1).

Two 4-mm punch biopsies were performed for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence. Histopathologic analysis showed prominent subcorneal neutrophilic pustules and spongiform collections of neutrophils in the spinous layer without notable eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence was negative.

Based on the clinical history, physical examination, histopathology, and unremarkable drug history, a diagnosis of GPP was made. Initially, acitretin 25 mg/d was prescribed, but the patient was unable to start treatment because the cost of the drug was prohibitive. Her condition worsened, and she returned to the clinic 2 days later. Based on knowledge of an ongoing phase 3, open-label study for risankizumab in GPP, a sample of risankizumab 150 mg was administered subcutaneously in this patient. Three days later, most of the pustules on the upper half of the patient’s body had dried up and she began to desquamate from head to toe (Figure 3).The patient developed notable edema of the lower extremities, which required furosemide 20 mg/d andibuprofen 600 mg every 6 hours for symptom relief.

Ten days after the initial dose of risankizumab, the patient continued to steadily improve. All the pustules had dried up and she was already showing signs of re-epithelialization. Edema and pain also had notably improved. She received 2 additional samples of risankizumab 150 mg at weeks 4 and 16, at which point she was able to receive compassionate care through the drug manufacturer’s program. At follow-up 151 days after the initial dose of risankizumab, the patient’s skin was completely clear.

Generalized pustular psoriasis remains a difficult disease to study, given its rarity and unpredictable course. Spesolimab, a humanized anti–IL-36 receptor monoclonal antibody, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of GPP.⁵ In the pivotal trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03782792),⁵ an astonishingly high 54% of patients (19/35) given a single dose of intravenous spesolimab reached the primary end point of no pustules at day 7. However, safety concerns, such as serious infections and severe cutaneous adverse reactions, as well as logistical challenges that come with intravenous administration for an acute disease, may prevent widespread adoption by community dermatologists.

Tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors currently are approved for the treatment of GPP in Japan, Thailand, and Taiwan based on small, nonrandomized, open-label studies.^6-10 More recently, results from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study to assess the efficacy and safety of 2 different dosing regimens of risankizumab with 8 Japanese patients with GPP were published.¹¹ However, there currently is only a single approved medication for GPP in Europe and the United States. Therefore, additional therapies, particularly those that have already been established in dermatology, would be welcome in treating this disease.

A number of questions still need to be answered regarding treating GPP with risankizumab:

• What is the optimal dose and schedule of this drug? Our patient received the standard 150-mg dose that is FDA approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis; would a higher dose, such as the FDA-approved 600-mg dosing used to treat Crohn disease, have led to a more rapid and durable response?¹²

• For how long should these patients be treated? Will their disease follow the same course as psoriasis vulgaris, requiring long-term, continuous treatment?

• An ongoing 5-year, open-label extension study of spesolimab might eventually answer that question and currently is recruiting participants (NCT03886246).

• Is there a way to predict a priori which patients will be responders? Biomarkers—especially through the use of tape stripping—are promising, but validation studies are still needed.¹³

• Because 69% (24/35) of enrolled patients in the treatment group of the spesolimab trial did not harbor a mutation of the IL36RN gene, how reliable is mutation status in predicting treatment response?⁵

Of note, some of these questions also apply to guttate psoriasis, a far more common subtype of psoriasis that also is worth exploring.

Nevertheless, these are exciting times for patients with GPP. What was once considered an obscure orphan disease is the focus of major recent publications³ and phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled studies.⁵ We can be cautiously optimistic that in the next few years we will be in a better position to care for patients with GPP.

To the Editor:

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare but severe subtype of psoriasis that can present with systemic symptoms and organ failure, sometimes leading to hospitalization and even death.^1,2 Due to the rarity of this subtype and GPP being excluded from clinical trials for plaque psoriasis, there is limited information on the optimal treatment of this disease.

More than 20 systemic medications have been described in the literature for treating GPP, including systemic steroids, traditional immunosuppressants, retinoids, and biologics, which often are used in combination; none have been consistently effective.³ Among biologic therapies, the use of tumor necrosis factor α as well as IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors has been reported, with the least amount of experience with IL-17 inhibitors.⁴

A 53-year-old Korean woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a widespread painful rash involving the face, neck, torso, arms, and legs that had been treated intermittently with systemic steroids by her primary care physician for several months before presentation. She had no relevant medical or dermatologic history. She denied taking prescription or over-the-counter medications.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile, but she reported general malaise and chills. She had widespread erythematous, annular, scaly plaques that coalesced into polycyclic plaques studded with nonfollicular-based pustules on the forehead, frontal hairline, neck, chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs (Figure 1).

Two 4-mm punch biopsies were performed for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence. Histopathologic analysis showed prominent subcorneal neutrophilic pustules and spongiform collections of neutrophils in the spinous layer without notable eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence was negative.

Based on the clinical history, physical examination, histopathology, and unremarkable drug history, a diagnosis of GPP was made. Initially, acitretin 25 mg/d was prescribed, but the patient was unable to start treatment because the cost of the drug was prohibitive. Her condition worsened, and she returned to the clinic 2 days later. Based on knowledge of an ongoing phase 3, open-label study for risankizumab in GPP, a sample of risankizumab 150 mg was administered subcutaneously in this patient. Three days later, most of the pustules on the upper half of the patient’s body had dried up and she began to desquamate from head to toe (Figure 3).The patient developed notable edema of the lower extremities, which required furosemide 20 mg/d andibuprofen 600 mg every 6 hours for symptom relief.

Ten days after the initial dose of risankizumab, the patient continued to steadily improve. All the pustules had dried up and she was already showing signs of re-epithelialization. Edema and pain also had notably improved. She received 2 additional samples of risankizumab 150 mg at weeks 4 and 16, at which point she was able to receive compassionate care through the drug manufacturer’s program. At follow-up 151 days after the initial dose of risankizumab, the patient’s skin was completely clear.

Generalized pustular psoriasis remains a difficult disease to study, given its rarity and unpredictable course. Spesolimab, a humanized anti–IL-36 receptor monoclonal antibody, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of GPP.⁵ In the pivotal trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03782792),⁵ an astonishingly high 54% of patients (19/35) given a single dose of intravenous spesolimab reached the primary end point of no pustules at day 7. However, safety concerns, such as serious infections and severe cutaneous adverse reactions, as well as logistical challenges that come with intravenous administration for an acute disease, may prevent widespread adoption by community dermatologists.

Tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors currently are approved for the treatment of GPP in Japan, Thailand, and Taiwan based on small, nonrandomized, open-label studies.^6-10 More recently, results from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study to assess the efficacy and safety of 2 different dosing regimens of risankizumab with 8 Japanese patients with GPP were published.¹¹ However, there currently is only a single approved medication for GPP in Europe and the United States. Therefore, additional therapies, particularly those that have already been established in dermatology, would be welcome in treating this disease.

A number of questions still need to be answered regarding treating GPP with risankizumab:

• What is the optimal dose and schedule of this drug? Our patient received the standard 150-mg dose that is FDA approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis; would a higher dose, such as the FDA-approved 600-mg dosing used to treat Crohn disease, have led to a more rapid and durable response?¹²

• For how long should these patients be treated? Will their disease follow the same course as psoriasis vulgaris, requiring long-term, continuous treatment?

• An ongoing 5-year, open-label extension study of spesolimab might eventually answer that question and currently is recruiting participants (NCT03886246).

• Is there a way to predict a priori which patients will be responders? Biomarkers—especially through the use of tape stripping—are promising, but validation studies are still needed.¹³

• Because 69% (24/35) of enrolled patients in the treatment group of the spesolimab trial did not harbor a mutation of the IL36RN gene, how reliable is mutation status in predicting treatment response?⁵

Of note, some of these questions also apply to guttate psoriasis, a far more common subtype of psoriasis that also is worth exploring.

Nevertheless, these are exciting times for patients with GPP. What was once considered an obscure orphan disease is the focus of major recent publications³ and phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled studies.⁵ We can be cautiously optimistic that in the next few years we will be in a better position to care for patients with GPP.

To the Editor:

Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is constantly changing, routine vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection is recommended. The messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna as well as the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) and NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) vaccines are the most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. Adverse effects following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are well documented; recent studies report a small incidence of adverse effects in the general population, with most being minor (eg, headache, fever, muscle pain).^1,2 Interestingly, reports of exacerbation of psoriasis and new-onset psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination suggest a potential association.^3,4 However, the literature investigating the vaccine adverse effect profile in this demographic is scarce. We examined the incidence of adverse effects from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with psoriasis.

This retrospective cohort study used the COVID-19 Research Database (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/) to examine the adverse effects following the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines in patients with and without psoriasis. The sample size for the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was too small to analyze.

Claims were evaluated from August to October 2021 for 2 diagnoses of psoriasis prior to January 1, 2020, using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L40.9 to increase the positive predictive value and ensure that the diagnosis preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients younger than 18 years and those who did not receive 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were excluded. Controls who did not have a diagnosis of psoriasis were matched for age, sex, and hypertension at a 4:1 ratio. Hypertension represented the most common comorbidity that could feasibly be controlled for in this study population. Other comorbidities recorded included obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic ischemic heart disease, rhinitis, and chronic kidney disease.

Common adverse effects as long as 30 days after vaccination were identified using ICD-10 codes. Adverse effects of interest were anaphylactic reaction, initial encounter of adverse effect of viral vaccines, fever, allergic urticaria, weakness, altered mental status, malaise, allergic reaction, chest pain, symptoms involving circulatory or respiratory systems, localized rash, axillary lymphadenopathy, infection, and myocarditis.⁵ Poisson regression was performed using Stata 17 analytical software.

We identified 4273 patients with psoriasis and 17,092 controls who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Table). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for doses 1 and 2 were calculated for each vaccine (eTable). Adverse effects with sufficient data to generate an aOR included weakness, altered mental status, malaise, chest pain, and symptoms involving the circulatory or respiratory system. The aORs for allergic urticaria and initial encounter of adverse effect of viral vaccines were only calculated for the Moderna mRNA vaccine due to low sample size.

This study demonstrated that patients with psoriasis do not appear to have a significantly increased risk of adverse effects from mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although the ORs in this study were not significant, most recorded adverse effects demonstrated an aOR less than 1, suggesting that there might be a lower risk of certain adverse effects in psoriasis patients. This could be explained by the immunomodulatory effects of certain systemic psoriasis treatments that might influence the adverse effect presentation.

The study is limited by the lack of treatment data, small sample size, and the fact that it did not assess flares or worsening of psoriasis with the vaccines. Underreporting of adverse effects by patients and underdiagnosis of adverse effects secondary to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines due to its novel nature, incompletely understood consequences, and limited ICD-10 codes associated with adverse effects all contributed to the small sample size.

Our findings suggest that the risk for immediate adverse effects from the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is not increased among psoriasis patients. However, the impact of immunomodulatory agents on vaccine efficacy and expected adverse effects should be investigated. As more individuals receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the adverse effect profile in patients with psoriasis is an important area of investigation.

To the Editor:

Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is constantly changing, routine vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection is recommended. The messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna as well as the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) and NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) vaccines are the most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. Adverse effects following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are well documented; recent studies report a small incidence of adverse effects in the general population, with most being minor (eg, headache, fever, muscle pain).^1,2 Interestingly, reports of exacerbation of psoriasis and new-onset psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination suggest a potential association.^3,4 However, the literature investigating the vaccine adverse effect profile in this demographic is scarce. We examined the incidence of adverse effects from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with psoriasis.

This retrospective cohort study used the COVID-19 Research Database (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/) to examine the adverse effects following the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines in patients with and without psoriasis. The sample size for the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was too small to analyze.

Claims were evaluated from August to October 2021 for 2 diagnoses of psoriasis prior to January 1, 2020, using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L40.9 to increase the positive predictive value and ensure that the diagnosis preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients younger than 18 years and those who did not receive 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were excluded. Controls who did not have a diagnosis of psoriasis were matched for age, sex, and hypertension at a 4:1 ratio. Hypertension represented the most common comorbidity that could feasibly be controlled for in this study population. Other comorbidities recorded included obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic ischemic heart disease, rhinitis, and chronic kidney disease.

Common adverse effects as long as 30 days after vaccination were identified using ICD-10 codes. Adverse effects of interest were anaphylactic reaction, initial encounter of adverse effect of viral vaccines, fever, allergic urticaria, weakness, altered mental status, malaise, allergic reaction, chest pain, symptoms involving circulatory or respiratory systems, localized rash, axillary lymphadenopathy, infection, and myocarditis.⁵ Poisson regression was performed using Stata 17 analytical software.

We identified 4273 patients with psoriasis and 17,092 controls who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Table). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for doses 1 and 2 were calculated for each vaccine (eTable). Adverse effects with sufficient data to generate an aOR included weakness, altered mental status, malaise, chest pain, and symptoms involving the circulatory or respiratory system. The aORs for allergic urticaria and initial encounter of adverse effect of viral vaccines were only calculated for the Moderna mRNA vaccine due to low sample size.

This study demonstrated that patients with psoriasis do not appear to have a significantly increased risk of adverse effects from mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although the ORs in this study were not significant, most recorded adverse effects demonstrated an aOR less than 1, suggesting that there might be a lower risk of certain adverse effects in psoriasis patients. This could be explained by the immunomodulatory effects of certain systemic psoriasis treatments that might influence the adverse effect presentation.

The study is limited by the lack of treatment data, small sample size, and the fact that it did not assess flares or worsening of psoriasis with the vaccines. Underreporting of adverse effects by patients and underdiagnosis of adverse effects secondary to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines due to its novel nature, incompletely understood consequences, and limited ICD-10 codes associated with adverse effects all contributed to the small sample size.

Our findings suggest that the risk for immediate adverse effects from the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is not increased among psoriasis patients. However, the impact of immunomodulatory agents on vaccine efficacy and expected adverse effects should be investigated. As more individuals receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the adverse effect profile in patients with psoriasis is an important area of investigation.

To the Editor:

Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is constantly changing, routine vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection is recommended. The messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna as well as the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) and NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) vaccines are the most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. Adverse effects following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are well documented; recent studies report a small incidence of adverse effects in the general population, with most being minor (eg, headache, fever, muscle pain).^1,2 Interestingly, reports of exacerbation of psoriasis and new-onset psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination suggest a potential association.^3,4 However, the literature investigating the vaccine adverse effect profile in this demographic is scarce. We examined the incidence of adverse effects from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with psoriasis.

This retrospective cohort study used the COVID-19 Research Database (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/) to examine the adverse effects following the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines in patients with and without psoriasis. The sample size for the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was too small to analyze.

Claims were evaluated from August to October 2021 for 2 diagnoses of psoriasis prior to January 1, 2020, using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L40.9 to increase the positive predictive value and ensure that the diagnosis preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients younger than 18 years and those who did not receive 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were excluded. Controls who did not have a diagnosis of psoriasis were matched for age, sex, and hypertension at a 4:1 ratio. Hypertension represented the most common comorbidity that could feasibly be controlled for in this study population. Other comorbidities recorded included obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic ischemic heart disease, rhinitis, and chronic kidney disease.

Common adverse effects as long as 30 days after vaccination were identified using ICD-10 codes. Adverse effects of interest were anaphylactic reaction, initial encounter of adverse effect of viral vaccines, fever, allergic urticaria, weakness, altered mental status, malaise, allergic reaction, chest pain, symptoms involving circulatory or respiratory systems, localized rash, axillary lymphadenopathy, infection, and myocarditis.⁵ Poisson regression was performed using Stata 17 analytical software.

We identified 4273 patients with psoriasis and 17,092 controls who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Table). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for doses 1 and 2 were calculated for each vaccine (eTable). Adverse effects with sufficient data to generate an aOR included weakness, altered mental status, malaise, chest pain, and symptoms involving the circulatory or respiratory system. The aORs for allergic urticaria and initial encounter of adverse effect of viral vaccines were only calculated for the Moderna mRNA vaccine due to low sample size.

This study demonstrated that patients with psoriasis do not appear to have a significantly increased risk of adverse effects from mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although the ORs in this study were not significant, most recorded adverse effects demonstrated an aOR less than 1, suggesting that there might be a lower risk of certain adverse effects in psoriasis patients. This could be explained by the immunomodulatory effects of certain systemic psoriasis treatments that might influence the adverse effect presentation.

The study is limited by the lack of treatment data, small sample size, and the fact that it did not assess flares or worsening of psoriasis with the vaccines. Underreporting of adverse effects by patients and underdiagnosis of adverse effects secondary to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines due to its novel nature, incompletely understood consequences, and limited ICD-10 codes associated with adverse effects all contributed to the small sample size.

Our findings suggest that the risk for immediate adverse effects from the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is not increased among psoriasis patients. However, the impact of immunomodulatory agents on vaccine efficacy and expected adverse effects should be investigated. As more individuals receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the adverse effect profile in patients with psoriasis is an important area of investigation.