Article

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) is a rare disorder of zinc metabolism that typically presents in infancy.¹ Although it is clinically characterized by acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, only 20% of cases present with this triad.² Zinc deficiency in AE can either be acquired or inborn (congenital). Acquired forms can occur from dietary inadequacy or malabsorption, whereas genetic causes are related to an autosomal-recessive disorder affecting zinc transporters.¹ We report a case of a 3-month-old female infant with acquired AE who was successfully treated with zinc supplementation over the course of 3 weeks.

Case Report

A 3-month-old female infant presented to the emergency department with a rash of 2 weeks’ duration. She was born full term with no birth complications. The patient’s mother reported that the rash started on the cheeks, then enlarged and spread to the neck, back, and perineum. The patient also had been having diarrhea during this time. She previously had received mupirocin and cephalexin with no response to treatment. Maternal history was negative for lupus, and the mother’s diet consisted of a variety of foods but not many vegetables. The patient was exclusively breastfed, and there was no pertinent history of similar rashes occurring in other family members.

Physical examination revealed the patient had annular and polycyclic, hyperkeratotic, crusted papules and plaques on the cheeks, neck, back, and axillae, as well as the perineum/groin and perianal regions (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis at the time included neonatal lupus, zinc deficiency, and syphilis. Relevant laboratory testing and a shave biopsy of the left axilla were obtained.

Comment

Etiology of AE—Acrodermatitis enteropathica was first identified in 1942 as an acral rash associated with diarrhea³; in 1973, Barnes and Moynahan⁴ discovered zinc deficiency as a causal agent for these findings. The causes of AE are further subclassified as either an acquired or inborn etiology. Congenital causes commonly are seen in infants within the first few months of life, whereas acquired forms are seen at any age. Acquired forms in infants can occur from failure of the mother to secrete zinc in breast milk, low maternal serum zinc levels, or other reasons causing low nutritional intake. A single mutation in the SLC30A2 gene has been found to markedly reduce zinc concentrations in breast milk, thus causing zinc deficiency in breastfed infants.⁵ Other acquired forms can be caused by malabsorption, sometimes after surgery such as intestinal bypass or from intravenous nutrition without sufficient zinc.¹ The congenital form of AE is an autosomal-recessive disorder occurring from mutations in the SLC39A4 gene located on band 8q24.3. Affected individuals have a decreased ability to absorb zinc in the small intestine because of defects in zinc transporters ZIP and ZnT.⁶ Based on our patient’s laboratory findings and history, it is believed that the zinc deficiency was acquired, as the condition normalized with repletion and has not required any supplementation in the year of follow-up. In addition, the absence of a pertinent family history supported an acquired diagnosis, which has various etiologies, whereas the congenital form primarily is a genetic disease.

Diagnosis of AE—The characteristic clinical features of AE include erythematous, dry, scaly papules and plaques that may evolve into crusted, erosive, pustular lesions. These lesions typically are distributed in a periorificial and acral pattern.^1,2 Although AE includes the clinical triad of acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, most cases present with only partial features of this syndrome, as seen in our patient, who presented with only 2 symptoms—dermatitis and diarrhea. The diagnosis of AE is based on clinical and laboratory abnormalities, especially a low serum zinc level. Low levels of zinc-dependent enzymes, such as alkaline phosphatase, may support the diagnosis, as seen in our patient. Histologic evaluation is characteristic but is not diagnostic, as the same findings can be seen in other nutritional disorders. Such findings include confluent parakeratosis associated with a reduced granular layer in early lesions and subsequent ballooning of subcorneal keratinocytes, upper epidermal pallor, and intraepidermal clefts. Late lesions exhibit psoriasiform hyperplasia of the epidermis with less epidermal pallor.⁷

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) is a rare disorder of zinc metabolism that typically presents in infancy.¹ Although it is clinically characterized by acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, only 20% of cases present with this triad.² Zinc deficiency in AE can either be acquired or inborn (congenital). Acquired forms can occur from dietary inadequacy or malabsorption, whereas genetic causes are related to an autosomal-recessive disorder affecting zinc transporters.¹ We report a case of a 3-month-old female infant with acquired AE who was successfully treated with zinc supplementation over the course of 3 weeks.

Case Report

A 3-month-old female infant presented to the emergency department with a rash of 2 weeks’ duration. She was born full term with no birth complications. The patient’s mother reported that the rash started on the cheeks, then enlarged and spread to the neck, back, and perineum. The patient also had been having diarrhea during this time. She previously had received mupirocin and cephalexin with no response to treatment. Maternal history was negative for lupus, and the mother’s diet consisted of a variety of foods but not many vegetables. The patient was exclusively breastfed, and there was no pertinent history of similar rashes occurring in other family members.

Physical examination revealed the patient had annular and polycyclic, hyperkeratotic, crusted papules and plaques on the cheeks, neck, back, and axillae, as well as the perineum/groin and perianal regions (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis at the time included neonatal lupus, zinc deficiency, and syphilis. Relevant laboratory testing and a shave biopsy of the left axilla were obtained.

Comment

Etiology of AE—Acrodermatitis enteropathica was first identified in 1942 as an acral rash associated with diarrhea³; in 1973, Barnes and Moynahan⁴ discovered zinc deficiency as a causal agent for these findings. The causes of AE are further subclassified as either an acquired or inborn etiology. Congenital causes commonly are seen in infants within the first few months of life, whereas acquired forms are seen at any age. Acquired forms in infants can occur from failure of the mother to secrete zinc in breast milk, low maternal serum zinc levels, or other reasons causing low nutritional intake. A single mutation in the SLC30A2 gene has been found to markedly reduce zinc concentrations in breast milk, thus causing zinc deficiency in breastfed infants.⁵ Other acquired forms can be caused by malabsorption, sometimes after surgery such as intestinal bypass or from intravenous nutrition without sufficient zinc.¹ The congenital form of AE is an autosomal-recessive disorder occurring from mutations in the SLC39A4 gene located on band 8q24.3. Affected individuals have a decreased ability to absorb zinc in the small intestine because of defects in zinc transporters ZIP and ZnT.⁶ Based on our patient’s laboratory findings and history, it is believed that the zinc deficiency was acquired, as the condition normalized with repletion and has not required any supplementation in the year of follow-up. In addition, the absence of a pertinent family history supported an acquired diagnosis, which has various etiologies, whereas the congenital form primarily is a genetic disease.

Diagnosis of AE—The characteristic clinical features of AE include erythematous, dry, scaly papules and plaques that may evolve into crusted, erosive, pustular lesions. These lesions typically are distributed in a periorificial and acral pattern.^1,2 Although AE includes the clinical triad of acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, most cases present with only partial features of this syndrome, as seen in our patient, who presented with only 2 symptoms—dermatitis and diarrhea. The diagnosis of AE is based on clinical and laboratory abnormalities, especially a low serum zinc level. Low levels of zinc-dependent enzymes, such as alkaline phosphatase, may support the diagnosis, as seen in our patient. Histologic evaluation is characteristic but is not diagnostic, as the same findings can be seen in other nutritional disorders. Such findings include confluent parakeratosis associated with a reduced granular layer in early lesions and subsequent ballooning of subcorneal keratinocytes, upper epidermal pallor, and intraepidermal clefts. Late lesions exhibit psoriasiform hyperplasia of the epidermis with less epidermal pallor.⁷

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) is a rare disorder of zinc metabolism that typically presents in infancy.¹ Although it is clinically characterized by acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, only 20% of cases present with this triad.² Zinc deficiency in AE can either be acquired or inborn (congenital). Acquired forms can occur from dietary inadequacy or malabsorption, whereas genetic causes are related to an autosomal-recessive disorder affecting zinc transporters.¹ We report a case of a 3-month-old female infant with acquired AE who was successfully treated with zinc supplementation over the course of 3 weeks.

Case Report

A 3-month-old female infant presented to the emergency department with a rash of 2 weeks’ duration. She was born full term with no birth complications. The patient’s mother reported that the rash started on the cheeks, then enlarged and spread to the neck, back, and perineum. The patient also had been having diarrhea during this time. She previously had received mupirocin and cephalexin with no response to treatment. Maternal history was negative for lupus, and the mother’s diet consisted of a variety of foods but not many vegetables. The patient was exclusively breastfed, and there was no pertinent history of similar rashes occurring in other family members.

Physical examination revealed the patient had annular and polycyclic, hyperkeratotic, crusted papules and plaques on the cheeks, neck, back, and axillae, as well as the perineum/groin and perianal regions (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis at the time included neonatal lupus, zinc deficiency, and syphilis. Relevant laboratory testing and a shave biopsy of the left axilla were obtained.

Comment

Etiology of AE—Acrodermatitis enteropathica was first identified in 1942 as an acral rash associated with diarrhea³; in 1973, Barnes and Moynahan⁴ discovered zinc deficiency as a causal agent for these findings. The causes of AE are further subclassified as either an acquired or inborn etiology. Congenital causes commonly are seen in infants within the first few months of life, whereas acquired forms are seen at any age. Acquired forms in infants can occur from failure of the mother to secrete zinc in breast milk, low maternal serum zinc levels, or other reasons causing low nutritional intake. A single mutation in the SLC30A2 gene has been found to markedly reduce zinc concentrations in breast milk, thus causing zinc deficiency in breastfed infants.⁵ Other acquired forms can be caused by malabsorption, sometimes after surgery such as intestinal bypass or from intravenous nutrition without sufficient zinc.¹ The congenital form of AE is an autosomal-recessive disorder occurring from mutations in the SLC39A4 gene located on band 8q24.3. Affected individuals have a decreased ability to absorb zinc in the small intestine because of defects in zinc transporters ZIP and ZnT.⁶ Based on our patient’s laboratory findings and history, it is believed that the zinc deficiency was acquired, as the condition normalized with repletion and has not required any supplementation in the year of follow-up. In addition, the absence of a pertinent family history supported an acquired diagnosis, which has various etiologies, whereas the congenital form primarily is a genetic disease.

Diagnosis of AE—The characteristic clinical features of AE include erythematous, dry, scaly papules and plaques that may evolve into crusted, erosive, pustular lesions. These lesions typically are distributed in a periorificial and acral pattern.^1,2 Although AE includes the clinical triad of acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, most cases present with only partial features of this syndrome, as seen in our patient, who presented with only 2 symptoms—dermatitis and diarrhea. The diagnosis of AE is based on clinical and laboratory abnormalities, especially a low serum zinc level. Low levels of zinc-dependent enzymes, such as alkaline phosphatase, may support the diagnosis, as seen in our patient. Histologic evaluation is characteristic but is not diagnostic, as the same findings can be seen in other nutritional disorders. Such findings include confluent parakeratosis associated with a reduced granular layer in early lesions and subsequent ballooning of subcorneal keratinocytes, upper epidermal pallor, and intraepidermal clefts. Late lesions exhibit psoriasiform hyperplasia of the epidermis with less epidermal pallor.⁷

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Tinea capitis (TC) most often is caused by Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis. The peak incidence is between 3 and 7 years of age. Noninflammatory TC typically presents as fine scaling with single or multiple scaly patches of circular alopecia (grey patches); diffuse or patchy, fine, white, adherent scaling of the scalp resembling generalized dandruff with subtle hair loss; or single or multiple patches of well-demarcated areas of alopecia with fine scale studded with broken-off hairs at the scalp surface, resulting in a black dot appearance. Inflammatory variants of TC include kerion and favus.¹ Herein, updates on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of TC are provided, as well as a discussion of changes in the fungal microbiome associated with TC. Lastly, insights to some queries that practitioners may encounter when treating children with TC are provided.

Genetic Susceptibility

Molecular techniques have identified a number of macrophage regulator, leukocyte activation and migration, and cutaneous permeability genes associated with susceptibility to TC. These findings indicate that genetically determined deficiency in adaptive immune responses may affect the predisposition to dermatophyte infections.²

Clinical Varieties of Infection

Dermatophytes causing ringworm are capable of invading the hair shafts and can simultaneously invade smooth or glabrous skin (eg, T tonsurans, Trichophyton schoenleinii, Trichophyton violaceum). Some causative dermatophytes can even penetrate the nails (eg, Trichophyton soudanense). The clinical presentation is dependent on 3 main patterns of hair invasion³:

• Ectothrix: A mid-follicular pattern of invasion with hyphae growing down to the hair bulb that commonly is caused by Microsporum species. It clinically presents with scaling and inflammation with hair shafts breaking 2 to 3 mm above the scalp level.

• Endothrix: This pattern is nonfluorescent on Wood lamp examination, and hairs often break at the scalp level (black dot type). Trichophyton tonsurans, T soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, and T violaceum are common causes.

• Favus: In this pattern, T schoenleinii is a common cause, and hairs grow to considerable lengths above the scalp with less damage than the other patterns. The hair shafts present with characteristic air spaces, and hyphae form clusters at the level of the epidermis.

Diagnosis

Optimal treatment of TC relies on proper identification of the causative agent. Fungal culture remains the gold standard of mycologic diagnosis regardless of its delayed results, which may take up to 4 weeks for proper identification of the fungal colonies and require ample expertise to interpret the morphologic features of the grown colonies.⁴

Other tests such as the potassium hydroxide preparation are nonspecific and do not identify the dermatophyte species. Although this method has been reported to have 5% to 15% false-negative results in routine practice depending on the skill of the observer and the quality of sampling, microscopic examination is essential, as it may allow the clinician to start treatment sooner pending culture results. The use of a Wood lamp is not suitable for definitive species identification, as this technique primarily is useful for observing fluorescence in ectothrix infection caused by Microsporum species, with the exception of T schoenleinii; otherwise, Trichophyton species, which cause endothrix infections, do not fluoresce.⁵Polymerase chain reaction is a sensitive technique that can help identify both the genus and species of common dermatophytes. Common target sequences include the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and translation elongation factor 1α. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry also has become popular for dermatophyte identification.⁶Trichoscopic diagnosis of TC, which is simple and noninvasive, is becoming increasingly popular. Features such as short, broken, black dot, comma, corkscrew, and/or zigzag hairs, as well as perifollicular scaling, are helpful for diagnosing TC (Figure). Moreover, trichoscopy can be useful for differentiating other common causes of hair loss, such as trichotillomania and alopecia areata. It had been reported that the trichoscopic features of TC can be seen as early as 2 weeks after starting treatment and therefore this can be a reliable period in which to follow-up with the patient to evaluate progress. The disappearance of black dots and comma hairs can be appreciated from 2 weeks onwards by trichoscopic evaluation.⁴

Treatment

The common recommendation for first-line treatment of TC is the use of systemic antifungals with the use of a topical agent as an adjuvant to prevent the spread of fungal spores. For almost 6 decades, griseofulvin had been the gold-standard fungistatic used for treating TC in patients older than 2 years until the 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of terbinafine fungicidal oral granules for treatment of TC in patients older than 4 years.⁷

Meta-analyses have demonstrated comparable efficacy for a 4-week course of terbinafine compared to 6 weeks of griseofulvin for TC based on the infectious organism. Terbinafine demonstrated superiority in treating T tonsurans and a similar efficacy in treating T violaceum, while griseofulvin was superior in treating M canis and other Microsporum species.^8,9

The off-label use of fluconazole and itraconazole to treat TC is gaining popularity, with limited trials showing increased evidence of their effectiveness. There is not much clinical evidence to support the use of other oral antifungals, including the newer azoles such as voriconazole or posaconazole.⁹

Newer limited evidence has shown the off-label use of photodynamic therapy to be a promising alternative to systemic antifungal therapy in treating TC, pending validation by larger sample trials.¹⁰In my practice, I have found that severe cases of TC demonstrating inflammation or possible widespread id reactions are better treated with oral steroids. Ketoconazole shampoo or selenium sulfide used 2 to 3 times weekly to prevent spread in the early phases of therapy is a good adjunct to systemic treatment. Cases with kerions should be assessed for the possibility of a coexisting bacterial infection under the crusts, and if confirmed, antibiotics should be started.⁹The commonly used systemic antifungals generally are safe with a low side-effect profile, but there is a risk for hepatotoxicity. The FDA recommends that baseline alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels should be obtained prior to beginning a terbinafine-based treatment regimen.¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has specifically stated that laboratory testing of serum hepatic enzymes is not a requirement if a griseofulvin-based regimen does not exceed 8 weeks; however, transaminase levels (alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) should be considered in patients using terbinafine at baseline or if treatment is prolonged beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹² In agreement with the FDA guidelines, the Canadian Pediatric Society has suggested that liver enzymes should be periodically monitored in patients being treated with terbinafine beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹³

Changes in the Fungal Microbiome

Research has shown that changes in the fungal microbiome were associated with an altered bacterial community in patients with TC. During fungal infection, the relative abundances of Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Streptococcus decreased. In addition, some uncommon bacterial genera such as Herbaspirillum and Methylorubrum were detected on the scalp in TC.¹⁴

Carrier State

Carrier state is determined for those siblings and contacts of cases with a clinically normal scalp that are positive on culture. Those individuals could represent a potential reservoir responsible for contamination (or recontamination) of the patient as well as treatment failure. Opinions remain divided as to whether to use oral antifungal therapy in these carriers or maintain therapy on antifungal shampoos containing ketoconazole or povidone-iodine. Due to the paucity of available data, my experience has shown that it is sufficient to use antifungal shampoos for such carriers. In zoophilic infections, it is important to identify and treat the animal source.^6-9

Final Thoughts

Successful treatment of TC requires accurate identification of the pathogen, which commonly is achieved via fungal culture. Despite its practical value, the conventional identification of dermatophytes based on morphologic features can be highly challenging due to the low positive rate and delayed results. Trichoscopy is a quick, handy, and noninvasive tool that can better indicate the diagnosis and also is helpful for follow-up on treatment progress. Due to better understanding of the immunology and genetic susceptibility associated with TC spread, the current treatment pipeline holds more insight into better control of this condition. Increased surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and early onset of systemic treatment are the key to proper prevention of spread of TC.

Tinea capitis (TC) most often is caused by Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis. The peak incidence is between 3 and 7 years of age. Noninflammatory TC typically presents as fine scaling with single or multiple scaly patches of circular alopecia (grey patches); diffuse or patchy, fine, white, adherent scaling of the scalp resembling generalized dandruff with subtle hair loss; or single or multiple patches of well-demarcated areas of alopecia with fine scale studded with broken-off hairs at the scalp surface, resulting in a black dot appearance. Inflammatory variants of TC include kerion and favus.¹ Herein, updates on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of TC are provided, as well as a discussion of changes in the fungal microbiome associated with TC. Lastly, insights to some queries that practitioners may encounter when treating children with TC are provided.

Genetic Susceptibility

Molecular techniques have identified a number of macrophage regulator, leukocyte activation and migration, and cutaneous permeability genes associated with susceptibility to TC. These findings indicate that genetically determined deficiency in adaptive immune responses may affect the predisposition to dermatophyte infections.²

Clinical Varieties of Infection

Dermatophytes causing ringworm are capable of invading the hair shafts and can simultaneously invade smooth or glabrous skin (eg, T tonsurans, Trichophyton schoenleinii, Trichophyton violaceum). Some causative dermatophytes can even penetrate the nails (eg, Trichophyton soudanense). The clinical presentation is dependent on 3 main patterns of hair invasion³:

• Ectothrix: A mid-follicular pattern of invasion with hyphae growing down to the hair bulb that commonly is caused by Microsporum species. It clinically presents with scaling and inflammation with hair shafts breaking 2 to 3 mm above the scalp level.

• Endothrix: This pattern is nonfluorescent on Wood lamp examination, and hairs often break at the scalp level (black dot type). Trichophyton tonsurans, T soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, and T violaceum are common causes.

• Favus: In this pattern, T schoenleinii is a common cause, and hairs grow to considerable lengths above the scalp with less damage than the other patterns. The hair shafts present with characteristic air spaces, and hyphae form clusters at the level of the epidermis.

Diagnosis

Optimal treatment of TC relies on proper identification of the causative agent. Fungal culture remains the gold standard of mycologic diagnosis regardless of its delayed results, which may take up to 4 weeks for proper identification of the fungal colonies and require ample expertise to interpret the morphologic features of the grown colonies.⁴

Other tests such as the potassium hydroxide preparation are nonspecific and do not identify the dermatophyte species. Although this method has been reported to have 5% to 15% false-negative results in routine practice depending on the skill of the observer and the quality of sampling, microscopic examination is essential, as it may allow the clinician to start treatment sooner pending culture results. The use of a Wood lamp is not suitable for definitive species identification, as this technique primarily is useful for observing fluorescence in ectothrix infection caused by Microsporum species, with the exception of T schoenleinii; otherwise, Trichophyton species, which cause endothrix infections, do not fluoresce.⁵Polymerase chain reaction is a sensitive technique that can help identify both the genus and species of common dermatophytes. Common target sequences include the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and translation elongation factor 1α. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry also has become popular for dermatophyte identification.⁶Trichoscopic diagnosis of TC, which is simple and noninvasive, is becoming increasingly popular. Features such as short, broken, black dot, comma, corkscrew, and/or zigzag hairs, as well as perifollicular scaling, are helpful for diagnosing TC (Figure). Moreover, trichoscopy can be useful for differentiating other common causes of hair loss, such as trichotillomania and alopecia areata. It had been reported that the trichoscopic features of TC can be seen as early as 2 weeks after starting treatment and therefore this can be a reliable period in which to follow-up with the patient to evaluate progress. The disappearance of black dots and comma hairs can be appreciated from 2 weeks onwards by trichoscopic evaluation.⁴

Treatment

The common recommendation for first-line treatment of TC is the use of systemic antifungals with the use of a topical agent as an adjuvant to prevent the spread of fungal spores. For almost 6 decades, griseofulvin had been the gold-standard fungistatic used for treating TC in patients older than 2 years until the 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of terbinafine fungicidal oral granules for treatment of TC in patients older than 4 years.⁷

Meta-analyses have demonstrated comparable efficacy for a 4-week course of terbinafine compared to 6 weeks of griseofulvin for TC based on the infectious organism. Terbinafine demonstrated superiority in treating T tonsurans and a similar efficacy in treating T violaceum, while griseofulvin was superior in treating M canis and other Microsporum species.^8,9

The off-label use of fluconazole and itraconazole to treat TC is gaining popularity, with limited trials showing increased evidence of their effectiveness. There is not much clinical evidence to support the use of other oral antifungals, including the newer azoles such as voriconazole or posaconazole.⁹

Newer limited evidence has shown the off-label use of photodynamic therapy to be a promising alternative to systemic antifungal therapy in treating TC, pending validation by larger sample trials.¹⁰In my practice, I have found that severe cases of TC demonstrating inflammation or possible widespread id reactions are better treated with oral steroids. Ketoconazole shampoo or selenium sulfide used 2 to 3 times weekly to prevent spread in the early phases of therapy is a good adjunct to systemic treatment. Cases with kerions should be assessed for the possibility of a coexisting bacterial infection under the crusts, and if confirmed, antibiotics should be started.⁹The commonly used systemic antifungals generally are safe with a low side-effect profile, but there is a risk for hepatotoxicity. The FDA recommends that baseline alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels should be obtained prior to beginning a terbinafine-based treatment regimen.¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has specifically stated that laboratory testing of serum hepatic enzymes is not a requirement if a griseofulvin-based regimen does not exceed 8 weeks; however, transaminase levels (alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) should be considered in patients using terbinafine at baseline or if treatment is prolonged beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹² In agreement with the FDA guidelines, the Canadian Pediatric Society has suggested that liver enzymes should be periodically monitored in patients being treated with terbinafine beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹³

Changes in the Fungal Microbiome

Research has shown that changes in the fungal microbiome were associated with an altered bacterial community in patients with TC. During fungal infection, the relative abundances of Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Streptococcus decreased. In addition, some uncommon bacterial genera such as Herbaspirillum and Methylorubrum were detected on the scalp in TC.¹⁴

Carrier State

Carrier state is determined for those siblings and contacts of cases with a clinically normal scalp that are positive on culture. Those individuals could represent a potential reservoir responsible for contamination (or recontamination) of the patient as well as treatment failure. Opinions remain divided as to whether to use oral antifungal therapy in these carriers or maintain therapy on antifungal shampoos containing ketoconazole or povidone-iodine. Due to the paucity of available data, my experience has shown that it is sufficient to use antifungal shampoos for such carriers. In zoophilic infections, it is important to identify and treat the animal source.^6-9

Final Thoughts

Successful treatment of TC requires accurate identification of the pathogen, which commonly is achieved via fungal culture. Despite its practical value, the conventional identification of dermatophytes based on morphologic features can be highly challenging due to the low positive rate and delayed results. Trichoscopy is a quick, handy, and noninvasive tool that can better indicate the diagnosis and also is helpful for follow-up on treatment progress. Due to better understanding of the immunology and genetic susceptibility associated with TC spread, the current treatment pipeline holds more insight into better control of this condition. Increased surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and early onset of systemic treatment are the key to proper prevention of spread of TC.

Tinea capitis (TC) most often is caused by Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis. The peak incidence is between 3 and 7 years of age. Noninflammatory TC typically presents as fine scaling with single or multiple scaly patches of circular alopecia (grey patches); diffuse or patchy, fine, white, adherent scaling of the scalp resembling generalized dandruff with subtle hair loss; or single or multiple patches of well-demarcated areas of alopecia with fine scale studded with broken-off hairs at the scalp surface, resulting in a black dot appearance. Inflammatory variants of TC include kerion and favus.¹ Herein, updates on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of TC are provided, as well as a discussion of changes in the fungal microbiome associated with TC. Lastly, insights to some queries that practitioners may encounter when treating children with TC are provided.

Genetic Susceptibility

Molecular techniques have identified a number of macrophage regulator, leukocyte activation and migration, and cutaneous permeability genes associated with susceptibility to TC. These findings indicate that genetically determined deficiency in adaptive immune responses may affect the predisposition to dermatophyte infections.²

Clinical Varieties of Infection

Dermatophytes causing ringworm are capable of invading the hair shafts and can simultaneously invade smooth or glabrous skin (eg, T tonsurans, Trichophyton schoenleinii, Trichophyton violaceum). Some causative dermatophytes can even penetrate the nails (eg, Trichophyton soudanense). The clinical presentation is dependent on 3 main patterns of hair invasion³:

• Ectothrix: A mid-follicular pattern of invasion with hyphae growing down to the hair bulb that commonly is caused by Microsporum species. It clinically presents with scaling and inflammation with hair shafts breaking 2 to 3 mm above the scalp level.

• Endothrix: This pattern is nonfluorescent on Wood lamp examination, and hairs often break at the scalp level (black dot type). Trichophyton tonsurans, T soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, and T violaceum are common causes.

• Favus: In this pattern, T schoenleinii is a common cause, and hairs grow to considerable lengths above the scalp with less damage than the other patterns. The hair shafts present with characteristic air spaces, and hyphae form clusters at the level of the epidermis.

Diagnosis

Optimal treatment of TC relies on proper identification of the causative agent. Fungal culture remains the gold standard of mycologic diagnosis regardless of its delayed results, which may take up to 4 weeks for proper identification of the fungal colonies and require ample expertise to interpret the morphologic features of the grown colonies.⁴

Other tests such as the potassium hydroxide preparation are nonspecific and do not identify the dermatophyte species. Although this method has been reported to have 5% to 15% false-negative results in routine practice depending on the skill of the observer and the quality of sampling, microscopic examination is essential, as it may allow the clinician to start treatment sooner pending culture results. The use of a Wood lamp is not suitable for definitive species identification, as this technique primarily is useful for observing fluorescence in ectothrix infection caused by Microsporum species, with the exception of T schoenleinii; otherwise, Trichophyton species, which cause endothrix infections, do not fluoresce.⁵Polymerase chain reaction is a sensitive technique that can help identify both the genus and species of common dermatophytes. Common target sequences include the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and translation elongation factor 1α. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry also has become popular for dermatophyte identification.⁶Trichoscopic diagnosis of TC, which is simple and noninvasive, is becoming increasingly popular. Features such as short, broken, black dot, comma, corkscrew, and/or zigzag hairs, as well as perifollicular scaling, are helpful for diagnosing TC (Figure). Moreover, trichoscopy can be useful for differentiating other common causes of hair loss, such as trichotillomania and alopecia areata. It had been reported that the trichoscopic features of TC can be seen as early as 2 weeks after starting treatment and therefore this can be a reliable period in which to follow-up with the patient to evaluate progress. The disappearance of black dots and comma hairs can be appreciated from 2 weeks onwards by trichoscopic evaluation.⁴

Treatment

The common recommendation for first-line treatment of TC is the use of systemic antifungals with the use of a topical agent as an adjuvant to prevent the spread of fungal spores. For almost 6 decades, griseofulvin had been the gold-standard fungistatic used for treating TC in patients older than 2 years until the 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of terbinafine fungicidal oral granules for treatment of TC in patients older than 4 years.⁷

Meta-analyses have demonstrated comparable efficacy for a 4-week course of terbinafine compared to 6 weeks of griseofulvin for TC based on the infectious organism. Terbinafine demonstrated superiority in treating T tonsurans and a similar efficacy in treating T violaceum, while griseofulvin was superior in treating M canis and other Microsporum species.^8,9

The off-label use of fluconazole and itraconazole to treat TC is gaining popularity, with limited trials showing increased evidence of their effectiveness. There is not much clinical evidence to support the use of other oral antifungals, including the newer azoles such as voriconazole or posaconazole.⁹

Newer limited evidence has shown the off-label use of photodynamic therapy to be a promising alternative to systemic antifungal therapy in treating TC, pending validation by larger sample trials.¹⁰In my practice, I have found that severe cases of TC demonstrating inflammation or possible widespread id reactions are better treated with oral steroids. Ketoconazole shampoo or selenium sulfide used 2 to 3 times weekly to prevent spread in the early phases of therapy is a good adjunct to systemic treatment. Cases with kerions should be assessed for the possibility of a coexisting bacterial infection under the crusts, and if confirmed, antibiotics should be started.⁹The commonly used systemic antifungals generally are safe with a low side-effect profile, but there is a risk for hepatotoxicity. The FDA recommends that baseline alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels should be obtained prior to beginning a terbinafine-based treatment regimen.¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has specifically stated that laboratory testing of serum hepatic enzymes is not a requirement if a griseofulvin-based regimen does not exceed 8 weeks; however, transaminase levels (alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) should be considered in patients using terbinafine at baseline or if treatment is prolonged beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹² In agreement with the FDA guidelines, the Canadian Pediatric Society has suggested that liver enzymes should be periodically monitored in patients being treated with terbinafine beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹³

Changes in the Fungal Microbiome

Research has shown that changes in the fungal microbiome were associated with an altered bacterial community in patients with TC. During fungal infection, the relative abundances of Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Streptococcus decreased. In addition, some uncommon bacterial genera such as Herbaspirillum and Methylorubrum were detected on the scalp in TC.¹⁴

Carrier State

Carrier state is determined for those siblings and contacts of cases with a clinically normal scalp that are positive on culture. Those individuals could represent a potential reservoir responsible for contamination (or recontamination) of the patient as well as treatment failure. Opinions remain divided as to whether to use oral antifungal therapy in these carriers or maintain therapy on antifungal shampoos containing ketoconazole or povidone-iodine. Due to the paucity of available data, my experience has shown that it is sufficient to use antifungal shampoos for such carriers. In zoophilic infections, it is important to identify and treat the animal source.^6-9

Final Thoughts

Successful treatment of TC requires accurate identification of the pathogen, which commonly is achieved via fungal culture. Despite its practical value, the conventional identification of dermatophytes based on morphologic features can be highly challenging due to the low positive rate and delayed results. Trichoscopy is a quick, handy, and noninvasive tool that can better indicate the diagnosis and also is helpful for follow-up on treatment progress. Due to better understanding of the immunology and genetic susceptibility associated with TC spread, the current treatment pipeline holds more insight into better control of this condition. Increased surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and early onset of systemic treatment are the key to proper prevention of spread of TC.

Black veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be treated with evidence-based treatments, in a study conducted in 130 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022.

The study involved 12,135 Black veterans and 40,717 White veterans. Most patients hospitalized during period 1 (March-September 2020) were Black veterans and the proportion of White patients increased over time. The latter 3 periods, which included the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, saw the most admissions.

Controlling for the site of treatment, Black patients were equally likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (40% vs 43%). However, they were less likely to receive steroids, remdesivir, or immunomodulatory drugs.

The researchers say their data confirm other findings from 41 US health care systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet), which found lower use of monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID infection for patients who identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple races.

The researchers did not observe consistent differences in clinical outcomes between Black and White patients. After adjusting for demographics, chronic health conditions, severity of acute illness, and receipt of COVID-19–specific treatments, there was no association of Black race with hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Black and White patients had a similar burden of preexisting health conditions. Of 38,782 patients discharged, 14% were readmitted within 30 days; the median time to readmission for both groups was 9 days.

Differences in care were partially explained by within- and between-hospital differences, the researchers say. They also cite research that demonstrated a poorer quality of care for hospitals with higher monthly COVID-19 discharges and hospital size.

The study results contradict the assumptions that differences in inpatient treatment by race and ethnicity may be due to differences in clinical indications for medication use based on age and comorbidities, such as chronic kidney or liver disease, the researchers say. For one thing, the VA issued a systemwide COVID-19 response plan that included specific treatment guidelines and distribution plans. But they also point to recent reports that have suggested that occult hypoxemia not detected by pulse oximetry occurs “far more often in Black patients than White patients,” which could result in delayed or missed opportunities to treat patients with COVID-19.

Black veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be treated with evidence-based treatments, in a study conducted in 130 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022.

The study involved 12,135 Black veterans and 40,717 White veterans. Most patients hospitalized during period 1 (March-September 2020) were Black veterans and the proportion of White patients increased over time. The latter 3 periods, which included the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, saw the most admissions.

Controlling for the site of treatment, Black patients were equally likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (40% vs 43%). However, they were less likely to receive steroids, remdesivir, or immunomodulatory drugs.

The researchers say their data confirm other findings from 41 US health care systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet), which found lower use of monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID infection for patients who identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple races.

The researchers did not observe consistent differences in clinical outcomes between Black and White patients. After adjusting for demographics, chronic health conditions, severity of acute illness, and receipt of COVID-19–specific treatments, there was no association of Black race with hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Black and White patients had a similar burden of preexisting health conditions. Of 38,782 patients discharged, 14% were readmitted within 30 days; the median time to readmission for both groups was 9 days.

Differences in care were partially explained by within- and between-hospital differences, the researchers say. They also cite research that demonstrated a poorer quality of care for hospitals with higher monthly COVID-19 discharges and hospital size.

The study results contradict the assumptions that differences in inpatient treatment by race and ethnicity may be due to differences in clinical indications for medication use based on age and comorbidities, such as chronic kidney or liver disease, the researchers say. For one thing, the VA issued a systemwide COVID-19 response plan that included specific treatment guidelines and distribution plans. But they also point to recent reports that have suggested that occult hypoxemia not detected by pulse oximetry occurs “far more often in Black patients than White patients,” which could result in delayed or missed opportunities to treat patients with COVID-19.

Black veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be treated with evidence-based treatments, in a study conducted in 130 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022.

The study involved 12,135 Black veterans and 40,717 White veterans. Most patients hospitalized during period 1 (March-September 2020) were Black veterans and the proportion of White patients increased over time. The latter 3 periods, which included the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, saw the most admissions.

Controlling for the site of treatment, Black patients were equally likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (40% vs 43%). However, they were less likely to receive steroids, remdesivir, or immunomodulatory drugs.

The researchers say their data confirm other findings from 41 US health care systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet), which found lower use of monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID infection for patients who identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple races.

The researchers did not observe consistent differences in clinical outcomes between Black and White patients. After adjusting for demographics, chronic health conditions, severity of acute illness, and receipt of COVID-19–specific treatments, there was no association of Black race with hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Black and White patients had a similar burden of preexisting health conditions. Of 38,782 patients discharged, 14% were readmitted within 30 days; the median time to readmission for both groups was 9 days.

Differences in care were partially explained by within- and between-hospital differences, the researchers say. They also cite research that demonstrated a poorer quality of care for hospitals with higher monthly COVID-19 discharges and hospital size.

The study results contradict the assumptions that differences in inpatient treatment by race and ethnicity may be due to differences in clinical indications for medication use based on age and comorbidities, such as chronic kidney or liver disease, the researchers say. For one thing, the VA issued a systemwide COVID-19 response plan that included specific treatment guidelines and distribution plans. But they also point to recent reports that have suggested that occult hypoxemia not detected by pulse oximetry occurs “far more often in Black patients than White patients,” which could result in delayed or missed opportunities to treat patients with COVID-19.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is pushing further deployments of the system to June 2023 “to address challenges” and make sure it’s functioning optimally.

Among the challenges: Safety concerns “voluminous enough and prevalent enough” to prompt the VA to disclose to 41,500 veterans enrolled in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Ohio that their care “may have been impacted as a result of the system’s deployment as it is currently configured,” VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said in a news conference.

The plan was to launch in the first quarter of 2023 in Western Washington, Michigan, and Ohio. But in a recent release, the VA said an investigation had found several technical and system issues, such as latency and slowness, and problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders. During this “assess and address” period, the VA says, it will correct outstanding issues—especially those that may have patient safety implications—before restarting deployments at other VA medical centers.

“Right now, the Oracle Cerner [EHR] system is not delivering for veterans or VA health care providers—and we are holding Oracle Cerner and ourselves accountable to get this right,” said VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy, who has oversight over the EHR program. “We are delaying all future deployments of the new EHR while we fully assess performance and address every concern. Veterans and clinicians deserve a seamless, modernized health record system, and we will not rest until they get it.”

The modernized EHR, intended to replace the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), has been plagued by problems from the very first launch in October 2020 at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center and associated clinics in the Northwest. Deputy Inspector David Case, of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reported to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on oversight between 2020 and July 2021. Among other things, the OIG identified problems with the infrastructure and with users’ experiences. Clinical and administrative staff at Mann-Grandstaff and a Columbus clinic shared their frustration with OIG personnel about the “significant system and process limitations that raised concerns about the continuity of and prompt access to quality patient care.”

For example, according to an OIG report from July 2022, the new EHR sent thousands of orders for medical care to an “undetectable location, or unknown queue” instead of the intended location. The mis-delivery caused 149 patient harm events.

On October 11, the VA confirmed to The Spokesman-Review, a Spokane-based newspaper, that a patient had died at the VA clinic in Columbus. The death was attributed to the patient not receiving medication due to incorrect information. The incident is being treated as a potential “sentinel event.”

Elnahal, who met with employees in September at the Columbus clinic where the Oracle Cerner system was launched in April, said he found that the highly complex system made it hard for clinicians to perform routine tasks, such as ordering tests or follow-up appointments. Delays in follow-ups—including a yearlong delay in treatment for a veteran ultimately diagnosed with terminal cancer—were the main cause of the cases of harm cited in the July OIG report.

The veterans who received the letter about the potential impact on their health care “got caught up in this phenomenon of commands not getting where they need to go,” Elnahal said in a news conference in September.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has been consistently pressing the VA to do something about the EHR system’s flaws. “It’s painfully clear,” she said in a statement, “we need to stop this program until the VA can fix these serious issues before they hurt anyone else.”

After finding more than 200 orders in the unknown queue in May 2022, the OIG said, it “has concerns with the effectiveness of Cerner’s plan to mitigate the safety risk.” While executing its “assess and address” plan, the VA will continue to focus on the 5 facilities where the new system has been deployed. “Sometimes, you’re not presented with options to immediately resolve the safety concerns that are in front of you,” Elnahal told reporters. “It is simply the case that the best option in front of us to resolve these patient safety concerns is to work with Oracle Cerner over the next several months to resolve the Cerner system issues at the sites where it exists. We know that this is possible, because other health systems have gone through this journey before, and I think we can do it.”

Veterans who believe their care may have been affected can call a dedicated call center at 800.319.9446. A VA health care team will follow up within 5 days.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is pushing further deployments of the system to June 2023 “to address challenges” and make sure it’s functioning optimally.

Among the challenges: Safety concerns “voluminous enough and prevalent enough” to prompt the VA to disclose to 41,500 veterans enrolled in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Ohio that their care “may have been impacted as a result of the system’s deployment as it is currently configured,” VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said in a news conference.

The plan was to launch in the first quarter of 2023 in Western Washington, Michigan, and Ohio. But in a recent release, the VA said an investigation had found several technical and system issues, such as latency and slowness, and problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders. During this “assess and address” period, the VA says, it will correct outstanding issues—especially those that may have patient safety implications—before restarting deployments at other VA medical centers.

“Right now, the Oracle Cerner [EHR] system is not delivering for veterans or VA health care providers—and we are holding Oracle Cerner and ourselves accountable to get this right,” said VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy, who has oversight over the EHR program. “We are delaying all future deployments of the new EHR while we fully assess performance and address every concern. Veterans and clinicians deserve a seamless, modernized health record system, and we will not rest until they get it.”

The modernized EHR, intended to replace the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), has been plagued by problems from the very first launch in October 2020 at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center and associated clinics in the Northwest. Deputy Inspector David Case, of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reported to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on oversight between 2020 and July 2021. Among other things, the OIG identified problems with the infrastructure and with users’ experiences. Clinical and administrative staff at Mann-Grandstaff and a Columbus clinic shared their frustration with OIG personnel about the “significant system and process limitations that raised concerns about the continuity of and prompt access to quality patient care.”

For example, according to an OIG report from July 2022, the new EHR sent thousands of orders for medical care to an “undetectable location, or unknown queue” instead of the intended location. The mis-delivery caused 149 patient harm events.

On October 11, the VA confirmed to The Spokesman-Review, a Spokane-based newspaper, that a patient had died at the VA clinic in Columbus. The death was attributed to the patient not receiving medication due to incorrect information. The incident is being treated as a potential “sentinel event.”

Elnahal, who met with employees in September at the Columbus clinic where the Oracle Cerner system was launched in April, said he found that the highly complex system made it hard for clinicians to perform routine tasks, such as ordering tests or follow-up appointments. Delays in follow-ups—including a yearlong delay in treatment for a veteran ultimately diagnosed with terminal cancer—were the main cause of the cases of harm cited in the July OIG report.

The veterans who received the letter about the potential impact on their health care “got caught up in this phenomenon of commands not getting where they need to go,” Elnahal said in a news conference in September.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has been consistently pressing the VA to do something about the EHR system’s flaws. “It’s painfully clear,” she said in a statement, “we need to stop this program until the VA can fix these serious issues before they hurt anyone else.”

After finding more than 200 orders in the unknown queue in May 2022, the OIG said, it “has concerns with the effectiveness of Cerner’s plan to mitigate the safety risk.” While executing its “assess and address” plan, the VA will continue to focus on the 5 facilities where the new system has been deployed. “Sometimes, you’re not presented with options to immediately resolve the safety concerns that are in front of you,” Elnahal told reporters. “It is simply the case that the best option in front of us to resolve these patient safety concerns is to work with Oracle Cerner over the next several months to resolve the Cerner system issues at the sites where it exists. We know that this is possible, because other health systems have gone through this journey before, and I think we can do it.”

Veterans who believe their care may have been affected can call a dedicated call center at 800.319.9446. A VA health care team will follow up within 5 days.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is pushing further deployments of the system to June 2023 “to address challenges” and make sure it’s functioning optimally.

Among the challenges: Safety concerns “voluminous enough and prevalent enough” to prompt the VA to disclose to 41,500 veterans enrolled in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Ohio that their care “may have been impacted as a result of the system’s deployment as it is currently configured,” VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said in a news conference.

The plan was to launch in the first quarter of 2023 in Western Washington, Michigan, and Ohio. But in a recent release, the VA said an investigation had found several technical and system issues, such as latency and slowness, and problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders. During this “assess and address” period, the VA says, it will correct outstanding issues—especially those that may have patient safety implications—before restarting deployments at other VA medical centers.

“Right now, the Oracle Cerner [EHR] system is not delivering for veterans or VA health care providers—and we are holding Oracle Cerner and ourselves accountable to get this right,” said VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy, who has oversight over the EHR program. “We are delaying all future deployments of the new EHR while we fully assess performance and address every concern. Veterans and clinicians deserve a seamless, modernized health record system, and we will not rest until they get it.”

The modernized EHR, intended to replace the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), has been plagued by problems from the very first launch in October 2020 at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center and associated clinics in the Northwest. Deputy Inspector David Case, of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reported to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on oversight between 2020 and July 2021. Among other things, the OIG identified problems with the infrastructure and with users’ experiences. Clinical and administrative staff at Mann-Grandstaff and a Columbus clinic shared their frustration with OIG personnel about the “significant system and process limitations that raised concerns about the continuity of and prompt access to quality patient care.”

For example, according to an OIG report from July 2022, the new EHR sent thousands of orders for medical care to an “undetectable location, or unknown queue” instead of the intended location. The mis-delivery caused 149 patient harm events.

On October 11, the VA confirmed to The Spokesman-Review, a Spokane-based newspaper, that a patient had died at the VA clinic in Columbus. The death was attributed to the patient not receiving medication due to incorrect information. The incident is being treated as a potential “sentinel event.”

Elnahal, who met with employees in September at the Columbus clinic where the Oracle Cerner system was launched in April, said he found that the highly complex system made it hard for clinicians to perform routine tasks, such as ordering tests or follow-up appointments. Delays in follow-ups—including a yearlong delay in treatment for a veteran ultimately diagnosed with terminal cancer—were the main cause of the cases of harm cited in the July OIG report.

The veterans who received the letter about the potential impact on their health care “got caught up in this phenomenon of commands not getting where they need to go,” Elnahal said in a news conference in September.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has been consistently pressing the VA to do something about the EHR system’s flaws. “It’s painfully clear,” she said in a statement, “we need to stop this program until the VA can fix these serious issues before they hurt anyone else.”

After finding more than 200 orders in the unknown queue in May 2022, the OIG said, it “has concerns with the effectiveness of Cerner’s plan to mitigate the safety risk.” While executing its “assess and address” plan, the VA will continue to focus on the 5 facilities where the new system has been deployed. “Sometimes, you’re not presented with options to immediately resolve the safety concerns that are in front of you,” Elnahal told reporters. “It is simply the case that the best option in front of us to resolve these patient safety concerns is to work with Oracle Cerner over the next several months to resolve the Cerner system issues at the sites where it exists. We know that this is possible, because other health systems have gone through this journey before, and I think we can do it.”

Veterans who believe their care may have been affected can call a dedicated call center at 800.319.9446. A VA health care team will follow up within 5 days.

To the Editor:

Amiodarone is an oral or intravenous (IV) drug commonly used to treat supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmia as well as atrial fibrillation.¹ Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of amiodarone include pulmonary, gastrointestinal, thyroid, ocular, neurologic, and cutaneous reactions.¹ Long-term use of amiodarone—typically more than 4 months—can lead to slate-gray skin discoloration and photosensitivity, both of which can be reversed with drug withdrawal.^2,3 Phlebitis also has been described in less than 3% of patients who receive peripheral IV administration of amiodarone.⁴

Amiodarone-induced skin necrosis due to extravasation is a rare complication of this antiarrhythmic medication, with only 3 reported cases in the literature according to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms amiodarone and skin and (necrosis or ischemia or extravasation or reaction).^5–7 Although hyaluronidase is a known therapy for extravasation of fluids, including parenteral nutrition and chemotherapy, its use for the treatment of extravasation from amiodarone is not well documented.⁶ We report a case of skin necrosis of the left dorsal forearm and the left dorsal and ventral hand following infusion of amiodarone through a peripheral IV line, which was treated with injections of hyaluronidase.

A 77-year-old man was admitted to the emergency department for sepsis secondary to cholangitis in the setting of an obstructive gallbladder stone. His medical history was notable for multivessel coronary artery disease and atrial flutter treated with ablation. One day after admission, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was attempted and aborted due to atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. A second endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography attempt was made 4 days later, during which the patient underwent cardiac arrest. During this event, amiodarone was administered in a 200-mL solution (1.8 mg/mL) in 5% dextrose through a peripheral IV line in the left forearm. The patient was stabilized and transferred to the intensive care unit.

Twenty-four hours after amiodarone administration, erythema was noted on the left dorsal forearm. Within hours, the digits of the hand became a dark, dusky color, which spread to involve the forearm. Surgical debridement was not deemed necessary; the left arm was elevated, and warm compresses were applied regularly. Within the next week, the skin of the left hand and dorsal forearm had progressively worsened and took on a well-demarcated, dusky blue hue surrounded by an erythematous border involving the proximal forearm and upper arm (Figure 1A). The skin was fragile and had overlying bullae (Figure 1B).

Hyaluronidase (1000 U) was injected into the surrounding areas of erythema, which resolved from the left proximal forearm to the elbow within 2 days after injection (Figure 2). The dusky violaceous patches were persistent, and the necrotic bullae were unchanged. Hyaluronidase (1000 U) was injected into necrotic skin of the left dorsal forearm and dorsal and ventral hand. No improvement was noted on subsequent evaluations of this area. While still an inpatient, he received wound care and twice-daily Doppler ultrasounds in the areas of necrosis. The patient lost sensation in the left hand with increased soft tissue necrosis and developed an eschar on the left dorsal forearm. Due to the progressive loss of function and necrosis, a partial forearm amputation was performed that healed well, and the patient experienced improvement in range of motion of the left upper extremity.

Well-known adverse reactions of amiodarone treatment include pulmonary fibrosis, hepatic dysfunction, hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, peripheral neuropathy, and corneal deposits.¹ Cutaneous adverse reactions include photosensitivity (phototoxic and photoallergic reactions), hyperpigmentation, pseudoporphyria, and linear IgA bullous dermatosis. Less commonly, it also can cause urticaria, pruritus, erythema nodosum, purpura, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.³ Amiodarone-induced skin necrosis is rare, first described by Russell and Saltissi⁵ in 2006 in a 60-year-old man who developed dark discoloration and edema of the forearm 24 hours after initiation of an amiodarone peripheral IV. The patient was treated with hot or cold packs and steroid cream per the pharmaceutical company’s recommendations; however, patient outcomes were not discussed.⁵ A 77-year-old man who received subcutaneous amiodarone due to misplaced vascular access developed edema and bullae of the forearm followed by tissue necrosis, resulting in notably reduced mobility.⁶ Fox et al⁷ described a 60-year-old man who developed atrial fibrillation after emergent spinal fusion and laminectomy. He received intradermal hyaluronidase administration within 24 hours of developing severe pain from extravasation induced by amiodarone with no adverse outcomes and full recovery.⁷

There are numerous properties of amiodarone that may have resulted in the skin necrosis seen in these cases. The acidic pH (3.5–4.5) of amiodarone can contribute to coagulative necrosis, cellular desiccation, eschar formation, and edema.⁸ It also can contain additives such as polysorbate and benzyl alcohol, which may contribute to the drug’s vesicant properties.⁹

Current recommendations for IV administration of amiodarone include delivery through a central vein with high concentrations (>2 mg/mL) because peripheral infusion is slower and may cause phlebitis.⁴ In-line filters also may be a potential method of preventing phlebitis with peripheral IV administration of amiodarone.¹⁰ Extravasation of amiodarone can be treated nonpharmacologically with limb elevation and warm compresses, as these methods may promote vasodilation and enhance drug removal.^5-7 However, when extravasation leads to progressive erythema and skin necrosis or is refractory to these therapies, intradermal injection of hyaluronidase should be considered. Hyaluronidase mediates the degradation of hyaluronic acid in the extracellular matrix, allowing for increased permeability of injected fluids into tissues and diluting the concentration of toxins at the site of exposure.^9,11 It has been used to treat extravasation of fluids such as parenteral nutrition, electrolyte infusion, antibiotics, aminophylline, mannitol, and chemotherapy.¹¹ Although hyaluronidase has been recognized as therapeutic for extravasation, there is no established consistent dosing or proper technique. In the setting of infiltration of chemotherapy, doses of hyaluronidase ranging from 150 to 1500 U/mL can be subcutaneously or intradermally injected into the site within 1 hour of extravasation. Side effects of using hyaluronidase are rare, including local pruritus, allergic reactions, urticaria, and angioedema.¹²

The patient described by Fox et al⁷ who fully recovered from amiodarone extravasation after hyaluronidase injections likely benefited from quick intervention, as he received amiodarone within 24 hours of the care team identifying initial erythema. Although our patient did have improvement of the areas of erythema on the forearm, evidence of skin and subcutaneous tissue necrosis on the left hand and proximal forearm was already apparent and not reversible, most likely caused by late intervention of intradermal hyaluronidase almost a week after the extravasation event. It is important to identify amiodarone as the source of extravasation and administer intradermal hyaluronidase in a timely fashion for extravasation refractory to conventional measurements to prevent progression to severe tissue damage.

Our case draws attention to the risk for skin necrosis with peripheral IV administration of amiodarone. Interventions include limb elevation, warm compresses, and consideration of intradermal hyaluronidase within 24 hours of extravasation, as this may reduce the severity of subsequent tissue damage with minimal side effects.

To the Editor:

Amiodarone is an oral or intravenous (IV) drug commonly used to treat supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmia as well as atrial fibrillation.¹ Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of amiodarone include pulmonary, gastrointestinal, thyroid, ocular, neurologic, and cutaneous reactions.¹ Long-term use of amiodarone—typically more than 4 months—can lead to slate-gray skin discoloration and photosensitivity, both of which can be reversed with drug withdrawal.^2,3 Phlebitis also has been described in less than 3% of patients who receive peripheral IV administration of amiodarone.⁴

Amiodarone-induced skin necrosis due to extravasation is a rare complication of this antiarrhythmic medication, with only 3 reported cases in the literature according to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms amiodarone and skin and (necrosis or ischemia or extravasation or reaction).^5–7 Although hyaluronidase is a known therapy for extravasation of fluids, including parenteral nutrition and chemotherapy, its use for the treatment of extravasation from amiodarone is not well documented.⁶ We report a case of skin necrosis of the left dorsal forearm and the left dorsal and ventral hand following infusion of amiodarone through a peripheral IV line, which was treated with injections of hyaluronidase.

A 77-year-old man was admitted to the emergency department for sepsis secondary to cholangitis in the setting of an obstructive gallbladder stone. His medical history was notable for multivessel coronary artery disease and atrial flutter treated with ablation. One day after admission, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was attempted and aborted due to atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. A second endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography attempt was made 4 days later, during which the patient underwent cardiac arrest. During this event, amiodarone was administered in a 200-mL solution (1.8 mg/mL) in 5% dextrose through a peripheral IV line in the left forearm. The patient was stabilized and transferred to the intensive care unit.

Twenty-four hours after amiodarone administration, erythema was noted on the left dorsal forearm. Within hours, the digits of the hand became a dark, dusky color, which spread to involve the forearm. Surgical debridement was not deemed necessary; the left arm was elevated, and warm compresses were applied regularly. Within the next week, the skin of the left hand and dorsal forearm had progressively worsened and took on a well-demarcated, dusky blue hue surrounded by an erythematous border involving the proximal forearm and upper arm (Figure 1A). The skin was fragile and had overlying bullae (Figure 1B).

Hyaluronidase (1000 U) was injected into the surrounding areas of erythema, which resolved from the left proximal forearm to the elbow within 2 days after injection (Figure 2). The dusky violaceous patches were persistent, and the necrotic bullae were unchanged. Hyaluronidase (1000 U) was injected into necrotic skin of the left dorsal forearm and dorsal and ventral hand. No improvement was noted on subsequent evaluations of this area. While still an inpatient, he received wound care and twice-daily Doppler ultrasounds in the areas of necrosis. The patient lost sensation in the left hand with increased soft tissue necrosis and developed an eschar on the left dorsal forearm. Due to the progressive loss of function and necrosis, a partial forearm amputation was performed that healed well, and the patient experienced improvement in range of motion of the left upper extremity.

Well-known adverse reactions of amiodarone treatment include pulmonary fibrosis, hepatic dysfunction, hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, peripheral neuropathy, and corneal deposits.¹ Cutaneous adverse reactions include photosensitivity (phototoxic and photoallergic reactions), hyperpigmentation, pseudoporphyria, and linear IgA bullous dermatosis. Less commonly, it also can cause urticaria, pruritus, erythema nodosum, purpura, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.³ Amiodarone-induced skin necrosis is rare, first described by Russell and Saltissi⁵ in 2006 in a 60-year-old man who developed dark discoloration and edema of the forearm 24 hours after initiation of an amiodarone peripheral IV. The patient was treated with hot or cold packs and steroid cream per the pharmaceutical company’s recommendations; however, patient outcomes were not discussed.⁵ A 77-year-old man who received subcutaneous amiodarone due to misplaced vascular access developed edema and bullae of the forearm followed by tissue necrosis, resulting in notably reduced mobility.⁶ Fox et al⁷ described a 60-year-old man who developed atrial fibrillation after emergent spinal fusion and laminectomy. He received intradermal hyaluronidase administration within 24 hours of developing severe pain from extravasation induced by amiodarone with no adverse outcomes and full recovery.⁷

There are numerous properties of amiodarone that may have resulted in the skin necrosis seen in these cases. The acidic pH (3.5–4.5) of amiodarone can contribute to coagulative necrosis, cellular desiccation, eschar formation, and edema.⁸ It also can contain additives such as polysorbate and benzyl alcohol, which may contribute to the drug’s vesicant properties.⁹

Current recommendations for IV administration of amiodarone include delivery through a central vein with high concentrations (>2 mg/mL) because peripheral infusion is slower and may cause phlebitis.⁴ In-line filters also may be a potential method of preventing phlebitis with peripheral IV administration of amiodarone.¹⁰ Extravasation of amiodarone can be treated nonpharmacologically with limb elevation and warm compresses, as these methods may promote vasodilation and enhance drug removal.^5-7 However, when extravasation leads to progressive erythema and skin necrosis or is refractory to these therapies, intradermal injection of hyaluronidase should be considered. Hyaluronidase mediates the degradation of hyaluronic acid in the extracellular matrix, allowing for increased permeability of injected fluids into tissues and diluting the concentration of toxins at the site of exposure.^9,11 It has been used to treat extravasation of fluids such as parenteral nutrition, electrolyte infusion, antibiotics, aminophylline, mannitol, and chemotherapy.¹¹ Although hyaluronidase has been recognized as therapeutic for extravasation, there is no established consistent dosing or proper technique. In the setting of infiltration of chemotherapy, doses of hyaluronidase ranging from 150 to 1500 U/mL can be subcutaneously or intradermally injected into the site within 1 hour of extravasation. Side effects of using hyaluronidase are rare, including local pruritus, allergic reactions, urticaria, and angioedema.¹²

The patient described by Fox et al⁷ who fully recovered from amiodarone extravasation after hyaluronidase injections likely benefited from quick intervention, as he received amiodarone within 24 hours of the care team identifying initial erythema. Although our patient did have improvement of the areas of erythema on the forearm, evidence of skin and subcutaneous tissue necrosis on the left hand and proximal forearm was already apparent and not reversible, most likely caused by late intervention of intradermal hyaluronidase almost a week after the extravasation event. It is important to identify amiodarone as the source of extravasation and administer intradermal hyaluronidase in a timely fashion for extravasation refractory to conventional measurements to prevent progression to severe tissue damage.

Our case draws attention to the risk for skin necrosis with peripheral IV administration of amiodarone. Interventions include limb elevation, warm compresses, and consideration of intradermal hyaluronidase within 24 hours of extravasation, as this may reduce the severity of subsequent tissue damage with minimal side effects.

To the Editor:

Amiodarone is an oral or intravenous (IV) drug commonly used to treat supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmia as well as atrial fibrillation.¹ Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of amiodarone include pulmonary, gastrointestinal, thyroid, ocular, neurologic, and cutaneous reactions.¹ Long-term use of amiodarone—typically more than 4 months—can lead to slate-gray skin discoloration and photosensitivity, both of which can be reversed with drug withdrawal.^2,3 Phlebitis also has been described in less than 3% of patients who receive peripheral IV administration of amiodarone.⁴

Amiodarone-induced skin necrosis due to extravasation is a rare complication of this antiarrhythmic medication, with only 3 reported cases in the literature according to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms amiodarone and skin and (necrosis or ischemia or extravasation or reaction).^5–7 Although hyaluronidase is a known therapy for extravasation of fluids, including parenteral nutrition and chemotherapy, its use for the treatment of extravasation from amiodarone is not well documented.⁶ We report a case of skin necrosis of the left dorsal forearm and the left dorsal and ventral hand following infusion of amiodarone through a peripheral IV line, which was treated with injections of hyaluronidase.

A 77-year-old man was admitted to the emergency department for sepsis secondary to cholangitis in the setting of an obstructive gallbladder stone. His medical history was notable for multivessel coronary artery disease and atrial flutter treated with ablation. One day after admission, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was attempted and aborted due to atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. A second endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography attempt was made 4 days later, during which the patient underwent cardiac arrest. During this event, amiodarone was administered in a 200-mL solution (1.8 mg/mL) in 5% dextrose through a peripheral IV line in the left forearm. The patient was stabilized and transferred to the intensive care unit.

Twenty-four hours after amiodarone administration, erythema was noted on the left dorsal forearm. Within hours, the digits of the hand became a dark, dusky color, which spread to involve the forearm. Surgical debridement was not deemed necessary; the left arm was elevated, and warm compresses were applied regularly. Within the next week, the skin of the left hand and dorsal forearm had progressively worsened and took on a well-demarcated, dusky blue hue surrounded by an erythematous border involving the proximal forearm and upper arm (Figure 1A). The skin was fragile and had overlying bullae (Figure 1B).

Hyaluronidase (1000 U) was injected into the surrounding areas of erythema, which resolved from the left proximal forearm to the elbow within 2 days after injection (Figure 2). The dusky violaceous patches were persistent, and the necrotic bullae were unchanged. Hyaluronidase (1000 U) was injected into necrotic skin of the left dorsal forearm and dorsal and ventral hand. No improvement was noted on subsequent evaluations of this area. While still an inpatient, he received wound care and twice-daily Doppler ultrasounds in the areas of necrosis. The patient lost sensation in the left hand with increased soft tissue necrosis and developed an eschar on the left dorsal forearm. Due to the progressive loss of function and necrosis, a partial forearm amputation was performed that healed well, and the patient experienced improvement in range of motion of the left upper extremity.

Well-known adverse reactions of amiodarone treatment include pulmonary fibrosis, hepatic dysfunction, hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, peripheral neuropathy, and corneal deposits.¹ Cutaneous adverse reactions include photosensitivity (phototoxic and photoallergic reactions), hyperpigmentation, pseudoporphyria, and linear IgA bullous dermatosis. Less commonly, it also can cause urticaria, pruritus, erythema nodosum, purpura, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.³ Amiodarone-induced skin necrosis is rare, first described by Russell and Saltissi⁵ in 2006 in a 60-year-old man who developed dark discoloration and edema of the forearm 24 hours after initiation of an amiodarone peripheral IV. The patient was treated with hot or cold packs and steroid cream per the pharmaceutical company’s recommendations; however, patient outcomes were not discussed.⁵ A 77-year-old man who received subcutaneous amiodarone due to misplaced vascular access developed edema and bullae of the forearm followed by tissue necrosis, resulting in notably reduced mobility.⁶ Fox et al⁷ described a 60-year-old man who developed atrial fibrillation after emergent spinal fusion and laminectomy. He received intradermal hyaluronidase administration within 24 hours of developing severe pain from extravasation induced by amiodarone with no adverse outcomes and full recovery.⁷

There are numerous properties of amiodarone that may have resulted in the skin necrosis seen in these cases. The acidic pH (3.5–4.5) of amiodarone can contribute to coagulative necrosis, cellular desiccation, eschar formation, and edema.⁸ It also can contain additives such as polysorbate and benzyl alcohol, which may contribute to the drug’s vesicant properties.⁹

Current recommendations for IV administration of amiodarone include delivery through a central vein with high concentrations (>2 mg/mL) because peripheral infusion is slower and may cause phlebitis.⁴ In-line filters also may be a potential method of preventing phlebitis with peripheral IV administration of amiodarone.¹⁰ Extravasation of amiodarone can be treated nonpharmacologically with limb elevation and warm compresses, as these methods may promote vasodilation and enhance drug removal.^5-7 However, when extravasation leads to progressive erythema and skin necrosis or is refractory to these therapies, intradermal injection of hyaluronidase should be considered. Hyaluronidase mediates the degradation of hyaluronic acid in the extracellular matrix, allowing for increased permeability of injected fluids into tissues and diluting the concentration of toxins at the site of exposure.^9,11 It has been used to treat extravasation of fluids such as parenteral nutrition, electrolyte infusion, antibiotics, aminophylline, mannitol, and chemotherapy.¹¹ Although hyaluronidase has been recognized as therapeutic for extravasation, there is no established consistent dosing or proper technique. In the setting of infiltration of chemotherapy, doses of hyaluronidase ranging from 150 to 1500 U/mL can be subcutaneously or intradermally injected into the site within 1 hour of extravasation. Side effects of using hyaluronidase are rare, including local pruritus, allergic reactions, urticaria, and angioedema.¹²

The patient described by Fox et al⁷ who fully recovered from amiodarone extravasation after hyaluronidase injections likely benefited from quick intervention, as he received amiodarone within 24 hours of the care team identifying initial erythema. Although our patient did have improvement of the areas of erythema on the forearm, evidence of skin and subcutaneous tissue necrosis on the left hand and proximal forearm was already apparent and not reversible, most likely caused by late intervention of intradermal hyaluronidase almost a week after the extravasation event. It is important to identify amiodarone as the source of extravasation and administer intradermal hyaluronidase in a timely fashion for extravasation refractory to conventional measurements to prevent progression to severe tissue damage.

Our case draws attention to the risk for skin necrosis with peripheral IV administration of amiodarone. Interventions include limb elevation, warm compresses, and consideration of intradermal hyaluronidase within 24 hours of extravasation, as this may reduce the severity of subsequent tissue damage with minimal side effects.

To the Editor:

Genital lentiginosis (also known as mucosal melanotic macules, vulvar melanosis, penile melanosis, and penile lentigines) occurs in men and women.¹ Lesions present in adult life as multifocal, asymmetrical, pigmented patches that can have a mottled appearance or exhibit skip areas. The irregular appearance of the pigmented areas often raises concern for melanoma. Biopsy reveals increased pigmentation along the basal layer of the epidermis; the irregular distribution of single melanocytes and pagetoid spread typical of melanoma in situ is not identified.

Genital lentiginosis usually occurs as an isolated finding; however, the condition can be a manifestation of Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, Carney complex, and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome.^1-3 When it occurs as an isolated finding, the patient can be reassured and treatment is unnecessary. Because genital lentiginosis may mimic the appearance of melanoma, it is important for physicians to differentiate the two and make a correct diagnosis. We present a case of genital lentiginosis that mimicked vulvar melanoma.

A 64-year-old woman was referred by her gynecologist to dermatology to rule out vulvar melanoma. The patient had a history of hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia but was otherwise in good health. Genital examination revealed asymptomatic pigmented macules and patches of unknown duration (Figure 1). Specimens were taken from 3 areas by punch biopsy to clarify the diagnosis. All 3 specimens showed identical features including basilar pigmentation, occasional melanophages in the papillary dermis, and no evidence of nests or pagetoid spread of atypical melanocytes (Figures 2 and 3). Histologic findings were diagnostic for genital lentiginosis. The patient was reassured, and no treatment was provided. At 6-month follow-up there was no change in clinical appearance.

Genital lentiginosis is characterized by brown lesions that can have a mottled appearance and often are associated with skip areas.¹ Lesions can be strikingly irregular and darkly pigmented.

Although the lesions of genital lentiginosis most often are isolated findings, they can be a clue to several uncommon syndromes such as autosomal-dominant Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, which is associated with genital lentiginosis, intestinal polyposis, and macrocephaly.³ Vascular malformations, lipomatosis, verrucal keratoses, and acrochordons can occur. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden syndrome may share genetic linkage; mutations in the tumor suppressor PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten) has been implicated in both syndromes.⁴ Underlying Carney complex should be excluded when genital lentiginosis is encountered.

Genital lentiginosis is idiopathic in most instances, but reports of lesions occurring after annular lichen planus suggest a possible mechanism.⁵ The disappearance of lentigines after imatinib therapy suggests a role for c-kit, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in intracellular signaling, in some cases.⁶ At times, lesions can simulate trichrome vitiligo or have a reticulate pattern.⁷

Men and women present at different points in the course of disease. Men often present with penile lesions 14 years after onset, on average; they notice a gradual increase in the size of lesions. Because women can have greater difficulty self-examining the genital region, they tend to present much later in the course but often within a few months after initial inspection.^1,8

Genital lentiginosis can mimic melanoma with nonhomogeneous pigmentation, asymmetry, and unilateral distribution, which makes dermoscopic assessment of colors helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. Melanoma is associated with combinations of gray, red, blue, and white, which are not found in genital lentiginosis.⁹

Biopsy of a genital lentigo is diagnostic, distinguishing the lesion from melanoma—failing to reveal the atypical melanocytes and pagetoid spread characteristic of melanoma in situ. Histologic findings can cause diagnostic difficulties when concurrent lichen sclerosus is associated with genital lentigines or nevi.¹⁰

Lentigines on sun-damaged skin or in the setting of xeroderma pigmentosum have been associated with melanoma,^11-13 but genital lentigines are not considered a form of precancerous melanosis. In women, early diagnosis is important when there is concern for melanoma because the prognosis for vulvar melanoma is improved in thin lesions.¹⁴

Other entities in the differential include secondary syphilis, which commonly presents as macules and scaly papules and can be found on mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity,¹⁵ as well as Kaposi sarcoma, which is characterized by purplish, brown, or black macules, plaques, and nodules, more commonly in immunosuppressed patients.¹⁶

To avoid unwarranted concern and unnecessary surgery, dermatologists should be aware of genital lentigines and their characteristic presentation in adults.

To the Editor:

Genital lentiginosis (also known as mucosal melanotic macules, vulvar melanosis, penile melanosis, and penile lentigines) occurs in men and women.¹ Lesions present in adult life as multifocal, asymmetrical, pigmented patches that can have a mottled appearance or exhibit skip areas. The irregular appearance of the pigmented areas often raises concern for melanoma. Biopsy reveals increased pigmentation along the basal layer of the epidermis; the irregular distribution of single melanocytes and pagetoid spread typical of melanoma in situ is not identified.

Genital lentiginosis usually occurs as an isolated finding; however, the condition can be a manifestation of Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, Carney complex, and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome.^1-3 When it occurs as an isolated finding, the patient can be reassured and treatment is unnecessary. Because genital lentiginosis may mimic the appearance of melanoma, it is important for physicians to differentiate the two and make a correct diagnosis. We present a case of genital lentiginosis that mimicked vulvar melanoma.

A 64-year-old woman was referred by her gynecologist to dermatology to rule out vulvar melanoma. The patient had a history of hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia but was otherwise in good health. Genital examination revealed asymptomatic pigmented macules and patches of unknown duration (Figure 1). Specimens were taken from 3 areas by punch biopsy to clarify the diagnosis. All 3 specimens showed identical features including basilar pigmentation, occasional melanophages in the papillary dermis, and no evidence of nests or pagetoid spread of atypical melanocytes (Figures 2 and 3). Histologic findings were diagnostic for genital lentiginosis. The patient was reassured, and no treatment was provided. At 6-month follow-up there was no change in clinical appearance.

Genital lentiginosis is characterized by brown lesions that can have a mottled appearance and often are associated with skip areas.¹ Lesions can be strikingly irregular and darkly pigmented.

Although the lesions of genital lentiginosis most often are isolated findings, they can be a clue to several uncommon syndromes such as autosomal-dominant Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, which is associated with genital lentiginosis, intestinal polyposis, and macrocephaly.³ Vascular malformations, lipomatosis, verrucal keratoses, and acrochordons can occur. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden syndrome may share genetic linkage; mutations in the tumor suppressor PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten) has been implicated in both syndromes.⁴ Underlying Carney complex should be excluded when genital lentiginosis is encountered.

Genital lentiginosis is idiopathic in most instances, but reports of lesions occurring after annular lichen planus suggest a possible mechanism.⁵ The disappearance of lentigines after imatinib therapy suggests a role for c-kit, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in intracellular signaling, in some cases.⁶ At times, lesions can simulate trichrome vitiligo or have a reticulate pattern.⁷

Men and women present at different points in the course of disease. Men often present with penile lesions 14 years after onset, on average; they notice a gradual increase in the size of lesions. Because women can have greater difficulty self-examining the genital region, they tend to present much later in the course but often within a few months after initial inspection.^1,8

Genital lentiginosis can mimic melanoma with nonhomogeneous pigmentation, asymmetry, and unilateral distribution, which makes dermoscopic assessment of colors helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. Melanoma is associated with combinations of gray, red, blue, and white, which are not found in genital lentiginosis.⁹

Biopsy of a genital lentigo is diagnostic, distinguishing the lesion from melanoma—failing to reveal the atypical melanocytes and pagetoid spread characteristic of melanoma in situ. Histologic findings can cause diagnostic difficulties when concurrent lichen sclerosus is associated with genital lentigines or nevi.¹⁰

Lentigines on sun-damaged skin or in the setting of xeroderma pigmentosum have been associated with melanoma,^11-13 but genital lentigines are not considered a form of precancerous melanosis. In women, early diagnosis is important when there is concern for melanoma because the prognosis for vulvar melanoma is improved in thin lesions.¹⁴

Other entities in the differential include secondary syphilis, which commonly presents as macules and scaly papules and can be found on mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity,¹⁵ as well as Kaposi sarcoma, which is characterized by purplish, brown, or black macules, plaques, and nodules, more commonly in immunosuppressed patients.¹⁶

To avoid unwarranted concern and unnecessary surgery, dermatologists should be aware of genital lentigines and their characteristic presentation in adults.

To the Editor:

Genital lentiginosis (also known as mucosal melanotic macules, vulvar melanosis, penile melanosis, and penile lentigines) occurs in men and women.¹ Lesions present in adult life as multifocal, asymmetrical, pigmented patches that can have a mottled appearance or exhibit skip areas. The irregular appearance of the pigmented areas often raises concern for melanoma. Biopsy reveals increased pigmentation along the basal layer of the epidermis; the irregular distribution of single melanocytes and pagetoid spread typical of melanoma in situ is not identified.

Genital lentiginosis usually occurs as an isolated finding; however, the condition can be a manifestation of Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, Carney complex, and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome.^1-3 When it occurs as an isolated finding, the patient can be reassured and treatment is unnecessary. Because genital lentiginosis may mimic the appearance of melanoma, it is important for physicians to differentiate the two and make a correct diagnosis. We present a case of genital lentiginosis that mimicked vulvar melanoma.

A 64-year-old woman was referred by her gynecologist to dermatology to rule out vulvar melanoma. The patient had a history of hypothyroidism and hypercholesterolemia but was otherwise in good health. Genital examination revealed asymptomatic pigmented macules and patches of unknown duration (Figure 1). Specimens were taken from 3 areas by punch biopsy to clarify the diagnosis. All 3 specimens showed identical features including basilar pigmentation, occasional melanophages in the papillary dermis, and no evidence of nests or pagetoid spread of atypical melanocytes (Figures 2 and 3). Histologic findings were diagnostic for genital lentiginosis. The patient was reassured, and no treatment was provided. At 6-month follow-up there was no change in clinical appearance.

Genital lentiginosis is characterized by brown lesions that can have a mottled appearance and often are associated with skip areas.¹ Lesions can be strikingly irregular and darkly pigmented.

Although the lesions of genital lentiginosis most often are isolated findings, they can be a clue to several uncommon syndromes such as autosomal-dominant Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, which is associated with genital lentiginosis, intestinal polyposis, and macrocephaly.³ Vascular malformations, lipomatosis, verrucal keratoses, and acrochordons can occur. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden syndrome may share genetic linkage; mutations in the tumor suppressor PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten) has been implicated in both syndromes.⁴ Underlying Carney complex should be excluded when genital lentiginosis is encountered.

Genital lentiginosis is idiopathic in most instances, but reports of lesions occurring after annular lichen planus suggest a possible mechanism.⁵ The disappearance of lentigines after imatinib therapy suggests a role for c-kit, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in intracellular signaling, in some cases.⁶ At times, lesions can simulate trichrome vitiligo or have a reticulate pattern.⁷

Men and women present at different points in the course of disease. Men often present with penile lesions 14 years after onset, on average; they notice a gradual increase in the size of lesions. Because women can have greater difficulty self-examining the genital region, they tend to present much later in the course but often within a few months after initial inspection.^1,8

Genital lentiginosis can mimic melanoma with nonhomogeneous pigmentation, asymmetry, and unilateral distribution, which makes dermoscopic assessment of colors helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. Melanoma is associated with combinations of gray, red, blue, and white, which are not found in genital lentiginosis.⁹

Biopsy of a genital lentigo is diagnostic, distinguishing the lesion from melanoma—failing to reveal the atypical melanocytes and pagetoid spread characteristic of melanoma in situ. Histologic findings can cause diagnostic difficulties when concurrent lichen sclerosus is associated with genital lentigines or nevi.¹⁰

Lentigines on sun-damaged skin or in the setting of xeroderma pigmentosum have been associated with melanoma,^11-13 but genital lentigines are not considered a form of precancerous melanosis. In women, early diagnosis is important when there is concern for melanoma because the prognosis for vulvar melanoma is improved in thin lesions.¹⁴

Other entities in the differential include secondary syphilis, which commonly presents as macules and scaly papules and can be found on mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity,¹⁵ as well as Kaposi sarcoma, which is characterized by purplish, brown, or black macules, plaques, and nodules, more commonly in immunosuppressed patients.¹⁶

To avoid unwarranted concern and unnecessary surgery, dermatologists should be aware of genital lentigines and their characteristic presentation in adults.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications are becoming more and more of a mainstay of both migraine prevention and acute treatment. Four CGRP monoclonal antibody medications and three oral CGRP antagonists are now available for prevention and acute treatment of migraine. When this class of medications was developed, many patients and providers were initially concerned regarding any potentially unanticipated long-term adverse events. The first CGRP antagonist medication, erenumab, was associated with constipation, and, although this has not been formally reported with other CGRP medications, there is some anecdotal evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) discomfort with both oral and other monoclonal antibody medications in this class. In 2021, erenumab was also reported to be associated with hypertension and a formal warning was issued for this.

Before CGRP was used for migraine prevention, it had been known to be a potent vasodilator. Although the randomized controlled trials (RCT) for all CGRP medications included a longitudinal review of blood pressure (BP) measures, none of those initial trials revealed an increased risk for hypertension or other cardiovascular events or concerns. Some of the initial trials even included patients at higher cardiovascular risk. Migraine itself is associated with an increased vascular risk; it is therefore extremely important to determine whether a potential treatment may be increasing this risk further.

In the study by de Vries and colleagues, all patients were started on either erenumab or fremanezumab and were included if they had a follow-up blood pressure measurement within 6 months. All patients had at least8 migraine days per month and had used four or more preventive medications. Patients taking erenumab were first started at 70 mg monthly and were optionally increased to 140 mg after 3 months. Fremanezumab was always given at a dose of 225 mg monthly (as opposed to 675 mg every 3 months). BP data were collected at baseline and followed up at every visit, with a maximum of 12 months of review. Patients were excluded if their baseline BP was measured while they were undergoing tapering an antihypertensive medication at the same time that they were starting the CGRP antagonist. Patients already treated for hypertension were included only if there were no changes to their hypertensive regimen.

Patients were also compared with a control group with a similar distribution in sex, age, and diagnosis, and who were not taking any migraine preventive medication that would affect their BP. Control group BP was also measured at least two different time points 1-3 months from baseline.

A total of 211 patients were enrolled: 109 in the erenumab group and 87 in the fremanezumab group. The erenumab group was also associated with an increase in both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (SBP ≤ 9 mm Hg; DBP ≤ 6.3 mm Hg). The fremanezumab group had a lower increase in SBP (1 mm Hg) and no increase in DBP. Nine patients were started on antihypertensive medications, five of them after the baseline BP recording only. There was no change over time in the control group.

As noted, CGRP has a potent vasodilatory effect. Although not proven, a theory has been posited that CGRP receptor antagonist medications are somewhat more likely to lead to systemic adverse effects than are ligand-blocking medications. This may, at least in part, explain why erenumab appears to have more associated GI discomfort and constipation as well as a vascular effect with hypertension. In light of these findings, it is absolutely necessary for the additional CGRP medications to also be studied for these potential risk factors.

With the advent of novel acute treatments for migraine, many providers ask themselves what the potential risks and benefits are for each new class of drugs developed and approved over the past few years. Johnston and colleagues reviewed five recently published RCT to compare risk-benefit profiles for lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Lasmiditan is the only medication in the ditan class, a serotonin (5HT-1F) receptor agonist medication approved for the acute treatment of migraine. Rimegepant and ubrogepant are oral CGRP antagonists.

Lasmiditan does have a potential risk for impairment while driving due to excessive sedation and dizziness; it is also more likely than the CGRP medications to lead to the development of medication overuse headache. The CGRP medications, however, are associated with a smaller responder rate for headache freedom at 2 hours. The investigators reviewed the data published in five RCT to develop a statistically based decision-making process that correlates with the number needed to treat vs the number needed to harm for all three of these medications. The number needed to treat is a statistically defined parameter that characterizes the number of patients that need to be treated with an intervention to achieve a positive event. The number needed to harm refers to an additional negative event relative to the reference treatment (placebo in the case of an RCT).

The reviewed studies compared multiple dosages of these medications. Efficacy outcomes were pain relief and pain freedom at 2 hours, sustained pain relief from 2 to 24 hours, and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours. Safety outcomes were dizziness and nausea.

The number needed to treat was the lowest for 200 mg lasmiditan (twice the highest recommended acute dose), followed by 75 mg rimegepant. The number needed to harm was highest for 25 mg ubrogepant (half of the lowest recommended acute dose). Nausea was lowest for 75 mg rimegepant.

An individualized approach is always recommended when considering both preventive and acute treatments for migraine. It is definitely worth keeping these results in mind when discussing potential acute treatment options with patients. This is especially true when considering patients who may be more likely to experience either dizziness or nausea with other acute treatments. It is also worth individualizing a potential acute treatment when a patient experiences rapid-onset migraine symptoms. Further investigations into both acute and preventive treatments would enlighten and further individualize our clinical approaches.

Erenumab currently carries a prescriber warning for constipation. Although there has been some anecdotal evidence for constipation with other CGRP antagonists, this has never fully been investigated. Currently, the other CGRP medication options have fewer side effects and not all  are associated with constipation. Kudrow and colleagues sought to review the incidence of constipation, and GI motility in general, with both erenumab and galcanezumab. Their hypothesis was that a single dose of erenumab would be associated with delayed GI motility and a single dose of galcanezumab would not be.

This study was conducted as a multicenter trial with single-blinding. A total of 65 patients were enrolled and given either 140 mg erenumab or 240 mg galcanezumab (the loading dose). GI motility was measured via a wireless motility capsule at baseline before treatment and repeated at 2 weeks. This test is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for evaluation of gastric transit time in patients with suspected gastroparesis and for evaluation of colonic transit time in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. Patients with prior GI symptoms were excluded, as were patients taking a tricyclic antidepressant or a calcium-channel blocker, owing to known constipation with these agents.

The primary endpoint in this study was change from a baseline colonic transit time 2 weeks after injection with the CGRP monoclonal antibody. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in whole-gut transit time, gastric emptying time, small-bowel transfer time, and combined small- and large-bowel transfer time. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) was also used, evaluating abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, constipation, and diarrhea based on a 7-point response, ranging from no discomfort to very severe discomfort.

The primary endpoint of baseline change in colonic transit time was not statistically significant between the groups: A mean change of 5.8 hours was noted for erenumab and 5.4 hours for galcanezumab. Most secondary endpoints were also not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Small-bowel transit time was  decreased in the galcanezumab group. When the patient-reported scales were reviewed, spontaneous bowel movements decreased significantly in the erenumab group, a finding that was not seen in the galcanezumab group and was statistically significant. The GSRS also showed a small but statistically significant change in the erenumab group.

This study does appear to show a significant difference in the two CGRP antagonist medications. The full side-effect profiles of the four CGRP monoclonal antibodies and three oral CGRP blocking medications available remain unknown. Further head-to-head comparisons will allow better differentiation of these options and better individualization of patient care.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications are becoming more and more of a mainstay of both migraine prevention and acute treatment. Four CGRP monoclonal antibody medications and three oral CGRP antagonists are now available for prevention and acute treatment of migraine. When this class of medications was developed, many patients and providers were initially concerned regarding any potentially unanticipated long-term adverse events. The first CGRP antagonist medication, erenumab, was associated with constipation, and, although this has not been formally reported with other CGRP medications, there is some anecdotal evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) discomfort with both oral and other monoclonal antibody medications in this class. In 2021, erenumab was also reported to be associated with hypertension and a formal warning was issued for this.

Before CGRP was used for migraine prevention, it had been known to be a potent vasodilator. Although the randomized controlled trials (RCT) for all CGRP medications included a longitudinal review of blood pressure (BP) measures, none of those initial trials revealed an increased risk for hypertension or other cardiovascular events or concerns. Some of the initial trials even included patients at higher cardiovascular risk. Migraine itself is associated with an increased vascular risk; it is therefore extremely important to determine whether a potential treatment may be increasing this risk further.

In the study by de Vries and colleagues, all patients were started on either erenumab or fremanezumab and were included if they had a follow-up blood pressure measurement within 6 months. All patients had at least8 migraine days per month and had used four or more preventive medications. Patients taking erenumab were first started at 70 mg monthly and were optionally increased to 140 mg after 3 months. Fremanezumab was always given at a dose of 225 mg monthly (as opposed to 675 mg every 3 months). BP data were collected at baseline and followed up at every visit, with a maximum of 12 months of review. Patients were excluded if their baseline BP was measured while they were undergoing tapering an antihypertensive medication at the same time that they were starting the CGRP antagonist. Patients already treated for hypertension were included only if there were no changes to their hypertensive regimen.

Patients were also compared with a control group with a similar distribution in sex, age, and diagnosis, and who were not taking any migraine preventive medication that would affect their BP. Control group BP was also measured at least two different time points 1-3 months from baseline.

A total of 211 patients were enrolled: 109 in the erenumab group and 87 in the fremanezumab group. The erenumab group was also associated with an increase in both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (SBP ≤ 9 mm Hg; DBP ≤ 6.3 mm Hg). The fremanezumab group had a lower increase in SBP (1 mm Hg) and no increase in DBP. Nine patients were started on antihypertensive medications, five of them after the baseline BP recording only. There was no change over time in the control group.

As noted, CGRP has a potent vasodilatory effect. Although not proven, a theory has been posited that CGRP receptor antagonist medications are somewhat more likely to lead to systemic adverse effects than are ligand-blocking medications. This may, at least in part, explain why erenumab appears to have more associated GI discomfort and constipation as well as a vascular effect with hypertension. In light of these findings, it is absolutely necessary for the additional CGRP medications to also be studied for these potential risk factors.

With the advent of novel acute treatments for migraine, many providers ask themselves what the potential risks and benefits are for each new class of drugs developed and approved over the past few years. Johnston and colleagues reviewed five recently published RCT to compare risk-benefit profiles for lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Lasmiditan is the only medication in the ditan class, a serotonin (5HT-1F) receptor agonist medication approved for the acute treatment of migraine. Rimegepant and ubrogepant are oral CGRP antagonists.

Lasmiditan does have a potential risk for impairment while driving due to excessive sedation and dizziness; it is also more likely than the CGRP medications to lead to the development of medication overuse headache. The CGRP medications, however, are associated with a smaller responder rate for headache freedom at 2 hours. The investigators reviewed the data published in five RCT to develop a statistically based decision-making process that correlates with the number needed to treat vs the number needed to harm for all three of these medications. The number needed to treat is a statistically defined parameter that characterizes the number of patients that need to be treated with an intervention to achieve a positive event. The number needed to harm refers to an additional negative event relative to the reference treatment (placebo in the case of an RCT).

The reviewed studies compared multiple dosages of these medications. Efficacy outcomes were pain relief and pain freedom at 2 hours, sustained pain relief from 2 to 24 hours, and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours. Safety outcomes were dizziness and nausea.

The number needed to treat was the lowest for 200 mg lasmiditan (twice the highest recommended acute dose), followed by 75 mg rimegepant. The number needed to harm was highest for 25 mg ubrogepant (half of the lowest recommended acute dose). Nausea was lowest for 75 mg rimegepant.

An individualized approach is always recommended when considering both preventive and acute treatments for migraine. It is definitely worth keeping these results in mind when discussing potential acute treatment options with patients. This is especially true when considering patients who may be more likely to experience either dizziness or nausea with other acute treatments. It is also worth individualizing a potential acute treatment when a patient experiences rapid-onset migraine symptoms. Further investigations into both acute and preventive treatments would enlighten and further individualize our clinical approaches.

Erenumab currently carries a prescriber warning for constipation. Although there has been some anecdotal evidence for constipation with other CGRP antagonists, this has never fully been investigated. Currently, the other CGRP medication options have fewer side effects and not all  are associated with constipation. Kudrow and colleagues sought to review the incidence of constipation, and GI motility in general, with both erenumab and galcanezumab. Their hypothesis was that a single dose of erenumab would be associated with delayed GI motility and a single dose of galcanezumab would not be.

This study was conducted as a multicenter trial with single-blinding. A total of 65 patients were enrolled and given either 140 mg erenumab or 240 mg galcanezumab (the loading dose). GI motility was measured via a wireless motility capsule at baseline before treatment and repeated at 2 weeks. This test is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for evaluation of gastric transit time in patients with suspected gastroparesis and for evaluation of colonic transit time in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. Patients with prior GI symptoms were excluded, as were patients taking a tricyclic antidepressant or a calcium-channel blocker, owing to known constipation with these agents.

The primary endpoint in this study was change from a baseline colonic transit time 2 weeks after injection with the CGRP monoclonal antibody. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in whole-gut transit time, gastric emptying time, small-bowel transfer time, and combined small- and large-bowel transfer time. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) was also used, evaluating abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, constipation, and diarrhea based on a 7-point response, ranging from no discomfort to very severe discomfort.

The primary endpoint of baseline change in colonic transit time was not statistically significant between the groups: A mean change of 5.8 hours was noted for erenumab and 5.4 hours for galcanezumab. Most secondary endpoints were also not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Small-bowel transit time was  decreased in the galcanezumab group. When the patient-reported scales were reviewed, spontaneous bowel movements decreased significantly in the erenumab group, a finding that was not seen in the galcanezumab group and was statistically significant. The GSRS also showed a small but statistically significant change in the erenumab group.

This study does appear to show a significant difference in the two CGRP antagonist medications. The full side-effect profiles of the four CGRP monoclonal antibodies and three oral CGRP blocking medications available remain unknown. Further head-to-head comparisons will allow better differentiation of these options and better individualization of patient care.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications are becoming more and more of a mainstay of both migraine prevention and acute treatment. Four CGRP monoclonal antibody medications and three oral CGRP antagonists are now available for prevention and acute treatment of migraine. When this class of medications was developed, many patients and providers were initially concerned regarding any potentially unanticipated long-term adverse events. The first CGRP antagonist medication, erenumab, was associated with constipation, and, although this has not been formally reported with other CGRP medications, there is some anecdotal evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) discomfort with both oral and other monoclonal antibody medications in this class. In 2021, erenumab was also reported to be associated with hypertension and a formal warning was issued for this.

Before CGRP was used for migraine prevention, it had been known to be a potent vasodilator. Although the randomized controlled trials (RCT) for all CGRP medications included a longitudinal review of blood pressure (BP) measures, none of those initial trials revealed an increased risk for hypertension or other cardiovascular events or concerns. Some of the initial trials even included patients at higher cardiovascular risk. Migraine itself is associated with an increased vascular risk; it is therefore extremely important to determine whether a potential treatment may be increasing this risk further.

In the study by de Vries and colleagues, all patients were started on either erenumab or fremanezumab and were included if they had a follow-up blood pressure measurement within 6 months. All patients had at least8 migraine days per month and had used four or more preventive medications. Patients taking erenumab were first started at 70 mg monthly and were optionally increased to 140 mg after 3 months. Fremanezumab was always given at a dose of 225 mg monthly (as opposed to 675 mg every 3 months). BP data were collected at baseline and followed up at every visit, with a maximum of 12 months of review. Patients were excluded if their baseline BP was measured while they were undergoing tapering an antihypertensive medication at the same time that they were starting the CGRP antagonist. Patients already treated for hypertension were included only if there were no changes to their hypertensive regimen.

Patients were also compared with a control group with a similar distribution in sex, age, and diagnosis, and who were not taking any migraine preventive medication that would affect their BP. Control group BP was also measured at least two different time points 1-3 months from baseline.

A total of 211 patients were enrolled: 109 in the erenumab group and 87 in the fremanezumab group. The erenumab group was also associated with an increase in both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (SBP ≤ 9 mm Hg; DBP ≤ 6.3 mm Hg). The fremanezumab group had a lower increase in SBP (1 mm Hg) and no increase in DBP. Nine patients were started on antihypertensive medications, five of them after the baseline BP recording only. There was no change over time in the control group.

As noted, CGRP has a potent vasodilatory effect. Although not proven, a theory has been posited that CGRP receptor antagonist medications are somewhat more likely to lead to systemic adverse effects than are ligand-blocking medications. This may, at least in part, explain why erenumab appears to have more associated GI discomfort and constipation as well as a vascular effect with hypertension. In light of these findings, it is absolutely necessary for the additional CGRP medications to also be studied for these potential risk factors.

With the advent of novel acute treatments for migraine, many providers ask themselves what the potential risks and benefits are for each new class of drugs developed and approved over the past few years. Johnston and colleagues reviewed five recently published RCT to compare risk-benefit profiles for lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Lasmiditan is the only medication in the ditan class, a serotonin (5HT-1F) receptor agonist medication approved for the acute treatment of migraine. Rimegepant and ubrogepant are oral CGRP antagonists.

Lasmiditan does have a potential risk for impairment while driving due to excessive sedation and dizziness; it is also more likely than the CGRP medications to lead to the development of medication overuse headache. The CGRP medications, however, are associated with a smaller responder rate for headache freedom at 2 hours. The investigators reviewed the data published in five RCT to develop a statistically based decision-making process that correlates with the number needed to treat vs the number needed to harm for all three of these medications. The number needed to treat is a statistically defined parameter that characterizes the number of patients that need to be treated with an intervention to achieve a positive event. The number needed to harm refers to an additional negative event relative to the reference treatment (placebo in the case of an RCT).

The reviewed studies compared multiple dosages of these medications. Efficacy outcomes were pain relief and pain freedom at 2 hours, sustained pain relief from 2 to 24 hours, and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours. Safety outcomes were dizziness and nausea.

The number needed to treat was the lowest for 200 mg lasmiditan (twice the highest recommended acute dose), followed by 75 mg rimegepant. The number needed to harm was highest for 25 mg ubrogepant (half of the lowest recommended acute dose). Nausea was lowest for 75 mg rimegepant.

An individualized approach is always recommended when considering both preventive and acute treatments for migraine. It is definitely worth keeping these results in mind when discussing potential acute treatment options with patients. This is especially true when considering patients who may be more likely to experience either dizziness or nausea with other acute treatments. It is also worth individualizing a potential acute treatment when a patient experiences rapid-onset migraine symptoms. Further investigations into both acute and preventive treatments would enlighten and further individualize our clinical approaches.

Erenumab currently carries a prescriber warning for constipation. Although there has been some anecdotal evidence for constipation with other CGRP antagonists, this has never fully been investigated. Currently, the other CGRP medication options have fewer side effects and not all  are associated with constipation. Kudrow and colleagues sought to review the incidence of constipation, and GI motility in general, with both erenumab and galcanezumab. Their hypothesis was that a single dose of erenumab would be associated with delayed GI motility and a single dose of galcanezumab would not be.

This study was conducted as a multicenter trial with single-blinding. A total of 65 patients were enrolled and given either 140 mg erenumab or 240 mg galcanezumab (the loading dose). GI motility was measured via a wireless motility capsule at baseline before treatment and repeated at 2 weeks. This test is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for evaluation of gastric transit time in patients with suspected gastroparesis and for evaluation of colonic transit time in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. Patients with prior GI symptoms were excluded, as were patients taking a tricyclic antidepressant or a calcium-channel blocker, owing to known constipation with these agents.

The primary endpoint in this study was change from a baseline colonic transit time 2 weeks after injection with the CGRP monoclonal antibody. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in whole-gut transit time, gastric emptying time, small-bowel transfer time, and combined small- and large-bowel transfer time. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) was also used, evaluating abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, constipation, and diarrhea based on a 7-point response, ranging from no discomfort to very severe discomfort.

The primary endpoint of baseline change in colonic transit time was not statistically significant between the groups: A mean change of 5.8 hours was noted for erenumab and 5.4 hours for galcanezumab. Most secondary endpoints were also not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Small-bowel transit time was  decreased in the galcanezumab group. When the patient-reported scales were reviewed, spontaneous bowel movements decreased significantly in the erenumab group, a finding that was not seen in the galcanezumab group and was statistically significant. The GSRS also showed a small but statistically significant change in the erenumab group.

This study does appear to show a significant difference in the two CGRP antagonist medications. The full side-effect profiles of the four CGRP monoclonal antibodies and three oral CGRP blocking medications available remain unknown. Further head-to-head comparisons will allow better differentiation of these options and better individualization of patient care.

Courtesy of Jon Karnes, MD

The physician used a curette to perform a shave biopsy; pathology results indicated this was a poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Cutaneous SCC is the second most common skin cancer in the United States (after basal cell carcinoma) and increases in frequency with age and cumulative sun damage. It is the most common skin cancer in patients who are Black.

SCC is frequently found on the head and neck, including the ear, but is less commonly found within the conchal bowl (as seen here). Often, SCC manifests as a rough plaque or dome-shaped papule in a sun damaged location, but it may occasionally manifest as an ulcer. While most patients are cured with outpatient surgery, an estimated 8000 patients will develop nodal metastasis and 3000 patients will die from the disease in the United States annually.¹ Chronically immunosuppressed patients, such as organ transplant recipients, are at high risk.

This patient underwent Mohs microsurgery (MMS) and clear margins were achieved after 2 stages. The resulting defect was repaired with a full-thickness graft from the postauricular fold. MMS is an excellent technique for keratinocyte carcinomas (SCC and basal cell carcinomas) of the head and neck, recurrent skin cancers on the trunk and extremities, high-risk cancer subtypes, and tumors with indistinct clinical borders. Follow-up for patients with SCCs includes full skin exams every 6 months for 2 years.

The American Academy of Dermatology offers a complimentary Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria App that assists in determining when Mohs surgery is appropriate, based on multiple tumor characteristics.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Courtesy of Jon Karnes, MD

The physician used a curette to perform a shave biopsy; pathology results indicated this was a poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Cutaneous SCC is the second most common skin cancer in the United States (after basal cell carcinoma) and increases in frequency with age and cumulative sun damage. It is the most common skin cancer in patients who are Black.

SCC is frequently found on the head and neck, including the ear, but is less commonly found within the conchal bowl (as seen here). Often, SCC manifests as a rough plaque or dome-shaped papule in a sun damaged location, but it may occasionally manifest as an ulcer. While most patients are cured with outpatient surgery, an estimated 8000 patients will develop nodal metastasis and 3000 patients will die from the disease in the United States annually.¹ Chronically immunosuppressed patients, such as organ transplant recipients, are at high risk.

This patient underwent Mohs microsurgery (MMS) and clear margins were achieved after 2 stages. The resulting defect was repaired with a full-thickness graft from the postauricular fold. MMS is an excellent technique for keratinocyte carcinomas (SCC and basal cell carcinomas) of the head and neck, recurrent skin cancers on the trunk and extremities, high-risk cancer subtypes, and tumors with indistinct clinical borders. Follow-up for patients with SCCs includes full skin exams every 6 months for 2 years.

The American Academy of Dermatology offers a complimentary Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria App that assists in determining when Mohs surgery is appropriate, based on multiple tumor characteristics.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Courtesy of Jon Karnes, MD

The physician used a curette to perform a shave biopsy; pathology results indicated this was a poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Cutaneous SCC is the second most common skin cancer in the United States (after basal cell carcinoma) and increases in frequency with age and cumulative sun damage. It is the most common skin cancer in patients who are Black.

SCC is frequently found on the head and neck, including the ear, but is less commonly found within the conchal bowl (as seen here). Often, SCC manifests as a rough plaque or dome-shaped papule in a sun damaged location, but it may occasionally manifest as an ulcer. While most patients are cured with outpatient surgery, an estimated 8000 patients will develop nodal metastasis and 3000 patients will die from the disease in the United States annually.¹ Chronically immunosuppressed patients, such as organ transplant recipients, are at high risk.

This patient underwent Mohs microsurgery (MMS) and clear margins were achieved after 2 stages. The resulting defect was repaired with a full-thickness graft from the postauricular fold. MMS is an excellent technique for keratinocyte carcinomas (SCC and basal cell carcinomas) of the head and neck, recurrent skin cancers on the trunk and extremities, high-risk cancer subtypes, and tumors with indistinct clinical borders. Follow-up for patients with SCCs includes full skin exams every 6 months for 2 years.

The American Academy of Dermatology offers a complimentary Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria App that assists in determining when Mohs surgery is appropriate, based on multiple tumor characteristics.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Mycetoma is a chronic subcutaneous infection due to fungal (eumycetoma) or aerobic actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) organisms. Clinical lesions develop from a granulomatous infiltrate organizing around the infectious organism. Patients can present with extensive subcutaneous nodularity and draining sinuses that can lead to deformation of the affected extremity. These infections are rare in developed countries, and the prevalence and incidence remain unknown. It has been reported that actinomycetes represent 60% of mycetoma cases worldwide, with the majority of cases in Central America from Nocardia (86%) and Actinomadura madurae (10%). ¹Gordonia species are aerobic, partially acid-fast, gram-positive actinobacteria that may comprise a notable minority of actinomycete isolates. ² The species Gordonia bronchialis is of particular interest as a human pathogen because of increasing reports of nosocomial infections. ^3,4 We describe a case of a mycetomalike infection due to G bronchialis in an immunocompetent patient with complete resolution after 3 months of antibiotics.

Case Report

An 86-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a pruritic rash on the right forearm. He had a history of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and inverse psoriasis complicated by steroid atrophy. He reported trauma to the right antecubital fossa approximately 1 to 2 months prior from a car door; he received wound care over several weeks at an outside hospital. The initial wound healed completely, but he subsequently noticed erythema spreading down the forearm. At the current presentation, he was empirically treated with mid-potency topical steroids and cefuroxime for 7 days. Initial laboratory results were notable for a white blood cell count of 5.7×10³ cells/μL (reference range,3.7–8.4×10³ cells/μL) and a creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL (reference range, 0.57–1.25 mg/dL). The patient returned to the emergency department 2 weeks later with spreading of the initial rash and worsening pruritus. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the patient was afebrile and had violaceous papules and nodules that coalesced into plaques on the right arm, with the largest measuring approximately 15 cm. Areas of superficial erosion and crusting were noted (Figure 1A). The patient denied constitutional symptoms and had no axillary or cervical lymphadenopathy. The differential initially included an atypical infection vs a neoplasm. Two 5-mm punch biopsies were performed, which demonstrated a suppurative granulomatous infiltrate in the dermis with extension into the subcutis (Figure 2A). Focal vacuolations within the dermis demonstrated aggregates of gram-positive pseudofilamentous organisms (Figures 2B and 2C). Aerobic tissue cultures grew G bronchialis that was susceptible to all antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Fungal and mycobacterial cultures were negative. The patient was placed on amoxicillin 875 mg–clavulanate 125 mg twice daily for 3 weeks. However, he demonstrated progression of the rash, with increased induration and confluence of plaques on the forearm (Figure 1B). A repeat excisional biopsy was performed, and a tissue sample was sent for 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing identification. However, neither conventional cultures nor sequencing demonstrated evidence of G bronchialis or any other pathogen. Additionally, bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial blood cultures were negative. Amoxicillin-clavulanate was stopped, and he was placed on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 2 weeks, then changed to linezolid (600 mg twice daily) due to continued lack of improvement of the rash. After 2 weeks of linezolid, the rash was slightly improved, but the patient had notable side effects (eg, nausea, mucositis). Therefore, he was switched back to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for another 6 weeks. Antibiotic therapy was discontinued after there was notable regression of indurated plaques (Figure 1C); he received more than 3 months of antibiotics in all. At 1 month after completion of antibiotic therapy, the patient had no evidence of recurrence.

Comment

Microbiology of Gordonia Species—Gordonia bronchialis originally was isolated in 1971 by Tsukamura et al⁵ from the sputum of patients with cavitary tuberculosis and bronchiectasis in Japan. Other Gordonia species (formerly Rhodococcus or Gordona) later were identified in soil, seawater, sediment, and wastewater. Gordonia bronchialis is a gram-positive aerobic actinomycete short rod that organizes in cordlike compact groups. It is weakly acid fast, nonmotile, and nonsporulating. Colonies exhibit pinkish-brown pigmentation. Our understanding of the clinical significance of this organism continues to evolve, and it is not always clearly pathogenic. Because Gordonia isolates may be dismissed as commensals or misidentified as Nocardia or Rhodococcus by routine biochemical tests, it is possible that infections may go undetected. Speciation requires gene sequencing; as our utilization of molecular methods has increased, the identification of clinically relevant aerobic actinomycetes, including Gordonia, has improved,⁶ and the following species have been recognized as pathogens: Gordonia araii, G bronchialis, Gordonia effusa, Gordonia otitidis, Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Gordonia rubirpertincta, Gordonia sputi, and Gordonia terrae.⁷

Cases Reported in the Literature—A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term Gordonia bronchialis yielded 35 previously reported human cases of G bronchialis infection, most often associated with medical devices or procedures.^8-31 Eighteen of these cases were sternal surgical site infections in patients with a history of cardiac surgery,^3,4,12-16,30 including 2 outbreaks following coronary artery bypass grafting that were thought to be related to intraoperative transmission from a nurse.^3,4 Of the remaining cases, 12 were linked to a procedure or an indwelling catheter: 4 cases of peritonitis in the setting of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis^17,18,26,27; 3 cases of skin and soft tissue infection (1 at the site of a prior needle injection,¹⁰ 1 after acupuncture,¹¹ and 1 after breast reduction surgery²⁹); 1 case of ventriculitis in a premature neonate with an underlying intraventricular shunt¹⁹; 2 cases of pacemaker-induced endocarditis^20,28; 1 case of tibial osteomyelitis related to a bioresorbable polymer screw²¹; and 1 case of chronic endophthalmitis with underlying intraocular lens implants.²² The Table lists all cases of G bronchialis skin or surgical site infections encountered in our literature search as well as the treatment provided in each case.

Only 4 of these 35 cases of G bronchialis infections were skin and soft tissue infections. All 4 occurred in immunocompetent hosts, and 3 were associated with needle punctures or surgery. The fourth case involved a recurrent breast abscess that occurred in a patient without known risk factors or recent procedures.²³ Other Gordonia species have been associated with cutaneous infections, including Gordonia amicalis, G terrae, and recently Gordonia westfalica, with the latter 2 demonstrating actinomycetoma formation.^32-34 Our case is remarkable in that it represents actinomycetoma due to G bronchialis. Of note, our patient was immunocompetent and did not have any radiation or chronic lymphedema involving the affected extremity. However, his history of steroid-induced skin atrophy may have predisposed him to this rare infection.

Clinical Presentation—Classic mycetoma demonstrate organismal granules within the dermis, surrounded by a neutrophilic infiltrate, which is in turn surrounded by histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Periodic acid–Schiff and silver stains can identify fungal organisms, while Gram stain helps to elucidate bacterial etiologies.¹ In our patient, a biopsy revealed several dermal aggregates of pseudofilamentous gram-positive organisms surrounded by a neutrophilic and histiocytic infiltrate.⁸ Because this case presented over weeks to months rather than months to years, it progressed more rapidly than a classic mycetoma. However, the dermatologic and histologic features were consistent with mycetoma.

Management—General treatment of actinomycetoma requires identification of the causative organism and prolonged administration of antibiotics, typically in combination.^35-37 Most G bronchialis infections associated with surgical intervention or implants in the literature required surgical debridement and removal of contaminated material for clinical cure, with the exception of 3 cases of sternal wound infection and 1 case of peritonitis that recovered with antimicrobial therapy alone.^3,17 Combination therapy often was used, but monotherapy, particularly with a fluoroquinolone, has been reported. Susceptibility data are limited, but in general, Gordonia species appear susceptible to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and linezolid, with variable susceptibility to vancomycin (89% of isolates), third-generation cephalosporins (80%–90% of isolates), tetracyclines (≤85% of isolates), penicillin (≤70% of isolates), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤65% of isolates).^{7,10,19,38-40} Although there are no standardized recommendations for the treatment of these infections, the most commonly used drugs to treat Gordonia are carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, with or without an aminoglycoside, followed by third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin, depending on susceptibilities. Additional antibiotics (alone or in combination) that have previously been used with favorable outcomes include amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, doxycycline, and daptomycin.

Our patient received amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid. We considered combination therapy but decided against it due to concern for toxicity, given his age and poor renal function. The antibiotic that was most important to his recovery was unclear; the patient insisted that his body, not antibiotics, deserved most of the credit for healing his arm. Although cultures and polymerase chain reaction assays were negative after 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, the patient did not show clinical improvement—reasons could be because the antibiotic reduced but did not eliminate the bacterial burden, sampling error of the biopsy, or it takes much longer for the body to heal than it takes to kill the bacteria. Most likely a combination of factors was at play.

Conclusion

Gordonia bronchialis is an emerging cause of human infections typically occurring after trauma, inoculation, or surgery. Most infections are localized; however, the present case highlights the ability of this species to form a massive cutaneous infection. Treatment should be tailored to susceptibility, with close follow-up to ensure improvement and resolution. For clinicians encountering a similar case, we encourage biopsy prior to empiric antibiotics, as antibiotic therapy can decrease the yield of subsequent testing. Treatment should be guided by the clinical course and may need to last weeks to months. Combination therapy for Gordonia infections should be considered in severe cases, in cases presenting as actinomycetoma, in those not responding to therapy, or when the susceptibility profile is unknown or unreliable.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank this veteran for allowing us to participate in his care and to learn from his experience. He gave his consent for us to share his story and the photographs of the arm.

Mycetoma is a chronic subcutaneous infection due to fungal (eumycetoma) or aerobic actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) organisms. Clinical lesions develop from a granulomatous infiltrate organizing around the infectious organism. Patients can present with extensive subcutaneous nodularity and draining sinuses that can lead to deformation of the affected extremity. These infections are rare in developed countries, and the prevalence and incidence remain unknown. It has been reported that actinomycetes represent 60% of mycetoma cases worldwide, with the majority of cases in Central America from Nocardia (86%) and Actinomadura madurae (10%). ¹Gordonia species are aerobic, partially acid-fast, gram-positive actinobacteria that may comprise a notable minority of actinomycete isolates. ² The species Gordonia bronchialis is of particular interest as a human pathogen because of increasing reports of nosocomial infections. ^3,4 We describe a case of a mycetomalike infection due to G bronchialis in an immunocompetent patient with complete resolution after 3 months of antibiotics.

Case Report

An 86-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a pruritic rash on the right forearm. He had a history of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and inverse psoriasis complicated by steroid atrophy. He reported trauma to the right antecubital fossa approximately 1 to 2 months prior from a car door; he received wound care over several weeks at an outside hospital. The initial wound healed completely, but he subsequently noticed erythema spreading down the forearm. At the current presentation, he was empirically treated with mid-potency topical steroids and cefuroxime for 7 days. Initial laboratory results were notable for a white blood cell count of 5.7×10³ cells/μL (reference range,3.7–8.4×10³ cells/μL) and a creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL (reference range, 0.57–1.25 mg/dL). The patient returned to the emergency department 2 weeks later with spreading of the initial rash and worsening pruritus. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the patient was afebrile and had violaceous papules and nodules that coalesced into plaques on the right arm, with the largest measuring approximately 15 cm. Areas of superficial erosion and crusting were noted (Figure 1A). The patient denied constitutional symptoms and had no axillary or cervical lymphadenopathy. The differential initially included an atypical infection vs a neoplasm. Two 5-mm punch biopsies were performed, which demonstrated a suppurative granulomatous infiltrate in the dermis with extension into the subcutis (Figure 2A). Focal vacuolations within the dermis demonstrated aggregates of gram-positive pseudofilamentous organisms (Figures 2B and 2C). Aerobic tissue cultures grew G bronchialis that was susceptible to all antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Fungal and mycobacterial cultures were negative. The patient was placed on amoxicillin 875 mg–clavulanate 125 mg twice daily for 3 weeks. However, he demonstrated progression of the rash, with increased induration and confluence of plaques on the forearm (Figure 1B). A repeat excisional biopsy was performed, and a tissue sample was sent for 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing identification. However, neither conventional cultures nor sequencing demonstrated evidence of G bronchialis or any other pathogen. Additionally, bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial blood cultures were negative. Amoxicillin-clavulanate was stopped, and he was placed on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 2 weeks, then changed to linezolid (600 mg twice daily) due to continued lack of improvement of the rash. After 2 weeks of linezolid, the rash was slightly improved, but the patient had notable side effects (eg, nausea, mucositis). Therefore, he was switched back to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for another 6 weeks. Antibiotic therapy was discontinued after there was notable regression of indurated plaques (Figure 1C); he received more than 3 months of antibiotics in all. At 1 month after completion of antibiotic therapy, the patient had no evidence of recurrence.

Comment

Microbiology of Gordonia Species—Gordonia bronchialis originally was isolated in 1971 by Tsukamura et al⁵ from the sputum of patients with cavitary tuberculosis and bronchiectasis in Japan. Other Gordonia species (formerly Rhodococcus or Gordona) later were identified in soil, seawater, sediment, and wastewater. Gordonia bronchialis is a gram-positive aerobic actinomycete short rod that organizes in cordlike compact groups. It is weakly acid fast, nonmotile, and nonsporulating. Colonies exhibit pinkish-brown pigmentation. Our understanding of the clinical significance of this organism continues to evolve, and it is not always clearly pathogenic. Because Gordonia isolates may be dismissed as commensals or misidentified as Nocardia or Rhodococcus by routine biochemical tests, it is possible that infections may go undetected. Speciation requires gene sequencing; as our utilization of molecular methods has increased, the identification of clinically relevant aerobic actinomycetes, including Gordonia, has improved,⁶ and the following species have been recognized as pathogens: Gordonia araii, G bronchialis, Gordonia effusa, Gordonia otitidis, Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Gordonia rubirpertincta, Gordonia sputi, and Gordonia terrae.⁷

Cases Reported in the Literature—A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term Gordonia bronchialis yielded 35 previously reported human cases of G bronchialis infection, most often associated with medical devices or procedures.^8-31 Eighteen of these cases were sternal surgical site infections in patients with a history of cardiac surgery,^3,4,12-16,30 including 2 outbreaks following coronary artery bypass grafting that were thought to be related to intraoperative transmission from a nurse.^3,4 Of the remaining cases, 12 were linked to a procedure or an indwelling catheter: 4 cases of peritonitis in the setting of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis^17,18,26,27; 3 cases of skin and soft tissue infection (1 at the site of a prior needle injection,¹⁰ 1 after acupuncture,¹¹ and 1 after breast reduction surgery²⁹); 1 case of ventriculitis in a premature neonate with an underlying intraventricular shunt¹⁹; 2 cases of pacemaker-induced endocarditis^20,28; 1 case of tibial osteomyelitis related to a bioresorbable polymer screw²¹; and 1 case of chronic endophthalmitis with underlying intraocular lens implants.²² The Table lists all cases of G bronchialis skin or surgical site infections encountered in our literature search as well as the treatment provided in each case.

Only 4 of these 35 cases of G bronchialis infections were skin and soft tissue infections. All 4 occurred in immunocompetent hosts, and 3 were associated with needle punctures or surgery. The fourth case involved a recurrent breast abscess that occurred in a patient without known risk factors or recent procedures.²³ Other Gordonia species have been associated with cutaneous infections, including Gordonia amicalis, G terrae, and recently Gordonia westfalica, with the latter 2 demonstrating actinomycetoma formation.^32-34 Our case is remarkable in that it represents actinomycetoma due to G bronchialis. Of note, our patient was immunocompetent and did not have any radiation or chronic lymphedema involving the affected extremity. However, his history of steroid-induced skin atrophy may have predisposed him to this rare infection.

Clinical Presentation—Classic mycetoma demonstrate organismal granules within the dermis, surrounded by a neutrophilic infiltrate, which is in turn surrounded by histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Periodic acid–Schiff and silver stains can identify fungal organisms, while Gram stain helps to elucidate bacterial etiologies.¹ In our patient, a biopsy revealed several dermal aggregates of pseudofilamentous gram-positive organisms surrounded by a neutrophilic and histiocytic infiltrate.⁸ Because this case presented over weeks to months rather than months to years, it progressed more rapidly than a classic mycetoma. However, the dermatologic and histologic features were consistent with mycetoma.

Management—General treatment of actinomycetoma requires identification of the causative organism and prolonged administration of antibiotics, typically in combination.^35-37 Most G bronchialis infections associated with surgical intervention or implants in the literature required surgical debridement and removal of contaminated material for clinical cure, with the exception of 3 cases of sternal wound infection and 1 case of peritonitis that recovered with antimicrobial therapy alone.^3,17 Combination therapy often was used, but monotherapy, particularly with a fluoroquinolone, has been reported. Susceptibility data are limited, but in general, Gordonia species appear susceptible to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and linezolid, with variable susceptibility to vancomycin (89% of isolates), third-generation cephalosporins (80%–90% of isolates), tetracyclines (≤85% of isolates), penicillin (≤70% of isolates), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤65% of isolates).^{7,10,19,38-40} Although there are no standardized recommendations for the treatment of these infections, the most commonly used drugs to treat Gordonia are carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, with or without an aminoglycoside, followed by third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin, depending on susceptibilities. Additional antibiotics (alone or in combination) that have previously been used with favorable outcomes include amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, doxycycline, and daptomycin.

Our patient received amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid. We considered combination therapy but decided against it due to concern for toxicity, given his age and poor renal function. The antibiotic that was most important to his recovery was unclear; the patient insisted that his body, not antibiotics, deserved most of the credit for healing his arm. Although cultures and polymerase chain reaction assays were negative after 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, the patient did not show clinical improvement—reasons could be because the antibiotic reduced but did not eliminate the bacterial burden, sampling error of the biopsy, or it takes much longer for the body to heal than it takes to kill the bacteria. Most likely a combination of factors was at play.

Conclusion

Gordonia bronchialis is an emerging cause of human infections typically occurring after trauma, inoculation, or surgery. Most infections are localized; however, the present case highlights the ability of this species to form a massive cutaneous infection. Treatment should be tailored to susceptibility, with close follow-up to ensure improvement and resolution. For clinicians encountering a similar case, we encourage biopsy prior to empiric antibiotics, as antibiotic therapy can decrease the yield of subsequent testing. Treatment should be guided by the clinical course and may need to last weeks to months. Combination therapy for Gordonia infections should be considered in severe cases, in cases presenting as actinomycetoma, in those not responding to therapy, or when the susceptibility profile is unknown or unreliable.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank this veteran for allowing us to participate in his care and to learn from his experience. He gave his consent for us to share his story and the photographs of the arm.

Mycetoma is a chronic subcutaneous infection due to fungal (eumycetoma) or aerobic actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) organisms. Clinical lesions develop from a granulomatous infiltrate organizing around the infectious organism. Patients can present with extensive subcutaneous nodularity and draining sinuses that can lead to deformation of the affected extremity. These infections are rare in developed countries, and the prevalence and incidence remain unknown. It has been reported that actinomycetes represent 60% of mycetoma cases worldwide, with the majority of cases in Central America from Nocardia (86%) and Actinomadura madurae (10%). ¹Gordonia species are aerobic, partially acid-fast, gram-positive actinobacteria that may comprise a notable minority of actinomycete isolates. ² The species Gordonia bronchialis is of particular interest as a human pathogen because of increasing reports of nosocomial infections. ^3,4 We describe a case of a mycetomalike infection due to G bronchialis in an immunocompetent patient with complete resolution after 3 months of antibiotics.

Case Report

An 86-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a pruritic rash on the right forearm. He had a history of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and inverse psoriasis complicated by steroid atrophy. He reported trauma to the right antecubital fossa approximately 1 to 2 months prior from a car door; he received wound care over several weeks at an outside hospital. The initial wound healed completely, but he subsequently noticed erythema spreading down the forearm. At the current presentation, he was empirically treated with mid-potency topical steroids and cefuroxime for 7 days. Initial laboratory results were notable for a white blood cell count of 5.7×10³ cells/μL (reference range,3.7–8.4×10³ cells/μL) and a creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL (reference range, 0.57–1.25 mg/dL). The patient returned to the emergency department 2 weeks later with spreading of the initial rash and worsening pruritus. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the patient was afebrile and had violaceous papules and nodules that coalesced into plaques on the right arm, with the largest measuring approximately 15 cm. Areas of superficial erosion and crusting were noted (Figure 1A). The patient denied constitutional symptoms and had no axillary or cervical lymphadenopathy. The differential initially included an atypical infection vs a neoplasm. Two 5-mm punch biopsies were performed, which demonstrated a suppurative granulomatous infiltrate in the dermis with extension into the subcutis (Figure 2A). Focal vacuolations within the dermis demonstrated aggregates of gram-positive pseudofilamentous organisms (Figures 2B and 2C). Aerobic tissue cultures grew G bronchialis that was susceptible to all antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Fungal and mycobacterial cultures were negative. The patient was placed on amoxicillin 875 mg–clavulanate 125 mg twice daily for 3 weeks. However, he demonstrated progression of the rash, with increased induration and confluence of plaques on the forearm (Figure 1B). A repeat excisional biopsy was performed, and a tissue sample was sent for 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing identification. However, neither conventional cultures nor sequencing demonstrated evidence of G bronchialis or any other pathogen. Additionally, bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial blood cultures were negative. Amoxicillin-clavulanate was stopped, and he was placed on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 2 weeks, then changed to linezolid (600 mg twice daily) due to continued lack of improvement of the rash. After 2 weeks of linezolid, the rash was slightly improved, but the patient had notable side effects (eg, nausea, mucositis). Therefore, he was switched back to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for another 6 weeks. Antibiotic therapy was discontinued after there was notable regression of indurated plaques (Figure 1C); he received more than 3 months of antibiotics in all. At 1 month after completion of antibiotic therapy, the patient had no evidence of recurrence.

Comment

Microbiology of Gordonia Species—Gordonia bronchialis originally was isolated in 1971 by Tsukamura et al⁵ from the sputum of patients with cavitary tuberculosis and bronchiectasis in Japan. Other Gordonia species (formerly Rhodococcus or Gordona) later were identified in soil, seawater, sediment, and wastewater. Gordonia bronchialis is a gram-positive aerobic actinomycete short rod that organizes in cordlike compact groups. It is weakly acid fast, nonmotile, and nonsporulating. Colonies exhibit pinkish-brown pigmentation. Our understanding of the clinical significance of this organism continues to evolve, and it is not always clearly pathogenic. Because Gordonia isolates may be dismissed as commensals or misidentified as Nocardia or Rhodococcus by routine biochemical tests, it is possible that infections may go undetected. Speciation requires gene sequencing; as our utilization of molecular methods has increased, the identification of clinically relevant aerobic actinomycetes, including Gordonia, has improved,⁶ and the following species have been recognized as pathogens: Gordonia araii, G bronchialis, Gordonia effusa, Gordonia otitidis, Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Gordonia rubirpertincta, Gordonia sputi, and Gordonia terrae.⁷

Cases Reported in the Literature—A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term Gordonia bronchialis yielded 35 previously reported human cases of G bronchialis infection, most often associated with medical devices or procedures.^8-31 Eighteen of these cases were sternal surgical site infections in patients with a history of cardiac surgery,^3,4,12-16,30 including 2 outbreaks following coronary artery bypass grafting that were thought to be related to intraoperative transmission from a nurse.^3,4 Of the remaining cases, 12 were linked to a procedure or an indwelling catheter: 4 cases of peritonitis in the setting of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis^17,18,26,27; 3 cases of skin and soft tissue infection (1 at the site of a prior needle injection,¹⁰ 1 after acupuncture,¹¹ and 1 after breast reduction surgery²⁹); 1 case of ventriculitis in a premature neonate with an underlying intraventricular shunt¹⁹; 2 cases of pacemaker-induced endocarditis^20,28; 1 case of tibial osteomyelitis related to a bioresorbable polymer screw²¹; and 1 case of chronic endophthalmitis with underlying intraocular lens implants.²² The Table lists all cases of G bronchialis skin or surgical site infections encountered in our literature search as well as the treatment provided in each case.

Only 4 of these 35 cases of G bronchialis infections were skin and soft tissue infections. All 4 occurred in immunocompetent hosts, and 3 were associated with needle punctures or surgery. The fourth case involved a recurrent breast abscess that occurred in a patient without known risk factors or recent procedures.²³ Other Gordonia species have been associated with cutaneous infections, including Gordonia amicalis, G terrae, and recently Gordonia westfalica, with the latter 2 demonstrating actinomycetoma formation.^32-34 Our case is remarkable in that it represents actinomycetoma due to G bronchialis. Of note, our patient was immunocompetent and did not have any radiation or chronic lymphedema involving the affected extremity. However, his history of steroid-induced skin atrophy may have predisposed him to this rare infection.

Clinical Presentation—Classic mycetoma demonstrate organismal granules within the dermis, surrounded by a neutrophilic infiltrate, which is in turn surrounded by histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Periodic acid–Schiff and silver stains can identify fungal organisms, while Gram stain helps to elucidate bacterial etiologies.¹ In our patient, a biopsy revealed several dermal aggregates of pseudofilamentous gram-positive organisms surrounded by a neutrophilic and histiocytic infiltrate.⁸ Because this case presented over weeks to months rather than months to years, it progressed more rapidly than a classic mycetoma. However, the dermatologic and histologic features were consistent with mycetoma.

Management—General treatment of actinomycetoma requires identification of the causative organism and prolonged administration of antibiotics, typically in combination.^35-37 Most G bronchialis infections associated with surgical intervention or implants in the literature required surgical debridement and removal of contaminated material for clinical cure, with the exception of 3 cases of sternal wound infection and 1 case of peritonitis that recovered with antimicrobial therapy alone.^3,17 Combination therapy often was used, but monotherapy, particularly with a fluoroquinolone, has been reported. Susceptibility data are limited, but in general, Gordonia species appear susceptible to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and linezolid, with variable susceptibility to vancomycin (89% of isolates), third-generation cephalosporins (80%–90% of isolates), tetracyclines (≤85% of isolates), penicillin (≤70% of isolates), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤65% of isolates).^{7,10,19,38-40} Although there are no standardized recommendations for the treatment of these infections, the most commonly used drugs to treat Gordonia are carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, with or without an aminoglycoside, followed by third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin, depending on susceptibilities. Additional antibiotics (alone or in combination) that have previously been used with favorable outcomes include amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, doxycycline, and daptomycin.

Our patient received amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid. We considered combination therapy but decided against it due to concern for toxicity, given his age and poor renal function. The antibiotic that was most important to his recovery was unclear; the patient insisted that his body, not antibiotics, deserved most of the credit for healing his arm. Although cultures and polymerase chain reaction assays were negative after 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, the patient did not show clinical improvement—reasons could be because the antibiotic reduced but did not eliminate the bacterial burden, sampling error of the biopsy, or it takes much longer for the body to heal than it takes to kill the bacteria. Most likely a combination of factors was at play.

Conclusion

Gordonia bronchialis is an emerging cause of human infections typically occurring after trauma, inoculation, or surgery. Most infections are localized; however, the present case highlights the ability of this species to form a massive cutaneous infection. Treatment should be tailored to susceptibility, with close follow-up to ensure improvement and resolution. For clinicians encountering a similar case, we encourage biopsy prior to empiric antibiotics, as antibiotic therapy can decrease the yield of subsequent testing. Treatment should be guided by the clinical course and may need to last weeks to months. Combination therapy for Gordonia infections should be considered in severe cases, in cases presenting as actinomycetoma, in those not responding to therapy, or when the susceptibility profile is unknown or unreliable.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank this veteran for allowing us to participate in his care and to learn from his experience. He gave his consent for us to share his story and the photographs of the arm.