Cutis

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?  

All patients, regardless of race, gender, or age, are afraid of an alopecia diagnosis. Often, the first thing a patient may say when I enter the examination room is, "Please don't tell me I have alopecia."  

The first step to a successful initial visit for hair loss is addressing the angst around the word alopecia, which helps to manage the patient's hair-induced anxiety. The next priority is setting expectations for the journey including what to expect during the diagnosis process, treatment, and beyond.  

Next is data collection. An extensive hair care practice investigation can begin with a survey that the patient fills out before the visit. Dive into and expand on hair loss history questions, including medical history as well as hair care practices (eg, history of use, frequency, number of years, maintenance for that particular hairstyle) such as braids (eg, individual braids, cornrow braids, with or without added synthetic or human hair), locs (eg, length of locs), chemical relaxers (eg, number of years, frequency, professionally applied or applied at home), hair color, weaves (eg, glued in, sewn in, combination), and more.¹ Include a family history of hair loss, both maternal and paternal.  

The hair loss investigation almost always includes a scalp biopsy, hair-pull test, dermoscopy, photographs, and even blood work, if applicable. Scalp biopsies may reveal more than one type of alopecia diagnosis, which may impact the treatment plan.² Sending the scalp biopsy specimen to a dermatopathologist specializing in alopecia along with clinical information about the patient is preferred. 

What are your go-to treatments?  

My go-to treatments for patients with skin of color (SOC) and hair loss really depend on the specific diagnosis. Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials focusing on treatment are lacking in central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia and traction alopecia, which holds true for many other types of alopecia.  

For black patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, I often address the inflammatory component of the disease with oral doxycycline and either a topical corticosteroid, such as clobetasol, or intralesional triamcinolone. Adding minoxidil-containing products later in the treatment process can be helpful. Various treatment protocols exist but are mainly based on anecdotal evidence.¹ 

For those with traction alopecia, modification of offending hairstyle practices is a must.³ Also, treatment of inflammation is key. Typically, I gravitate to topical or intralesional corticosteroids, followed by minoxidil-containing products. However, a challenge of treating traction alopecia is changing the hair care practices that cause tight pulling, friction, or pressure on the scalp, such as from the band of a tightly fitted wig.  

It is important to discuss potential side effects of any treatment with the patient. For the most common side effects, discuss how to best prevent them. For example, because of the photosensitivity potential of doxycycline, I ask patients to wear sunscreen daily. To prevent nausea, I recommend that they avoid taking doxycycline on an empty stomach, drink plenty of fluids, and avoid laying down within a few hours after taking the medication.  

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment? 

Dermatologists should try to understand their patients' hair. A study of 200 black women demonstrated that 68% of the patients did not think their physician understood their hair,⁴ which likely impacts patients' perceptions of their physician, confidence in the treatment plan, and even compliance with the plan. Attempting to understand the nuances of tightly coiled hair in those of African descent is the first step in the journey of diagnosing and treating hair loss in partnership with the patient.  

Setting the goal is a crucial step toward patient compliance. It may be going out in public without a wig or weave and feeling confident, providing more coverage so affected areas do not show as much, improving scalp tenderness, and/or preventing further progression of the condition. These are all reasonable outcomes and each goal is uniquely tailored to each patient.  

Familiarize yourself with various hair types, hairstyles, and preferred medication vehicles by attending continuing medical education lectures on alopecia in patients with SOC and on nuances to diagnosis and treatment, reading textbooks focusing on SOC, or seeking out mentorship from a dermatologist who is a hair expert in the types of alopecia most commonly affecting patients with SOC.  

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information 

For patients with scarring alopecia, the Cicatricial Alopecia Research Foundation (http://www.carfintl.org/) is a great resource for medical information and support groups. Also, the Skin of Color Society has dermatology patient education information (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/).  

For patients who are extremely distressed by hair loss, I encourage them to see a mental health professional. The mental health impact of alopecia, despite the extent of disease, is likely underestimated. Patients sometimes need our permission to seek help, especially in many SOC communities where even seeking mental health care often is frowned upon.  

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?  

All patients, regardless of race, gender, or age, are afraid of an alopecia diagnosis. Often, the first thing a patient may say when I enter the examination room is, "Please don't tell me I have alopecia."  

The first step to a successful initial visit for hair loss is addressing the angst around the word alopecia, which helps to manage the patient's hair-induced anxiety. The next priority is setting expectations for the journey including what to expect during the diagnosis process, treatment, and beyond.  

Next is data collection. An extensive hair care practice investigation can begin with a survey that the patient fills out before the visit. Dive into and expand on hair loss history questions, including medical history as well as hair care practices (eg, history of use, frequency, number of years, maintenance for that particular hairstyle) such as braids (eg, individual braids, cornrow braids, with or without added synthetic or human hair), locs (eg, length of locs), chemical relaxers (eg, number of years, frequency, professionally applied or applied at home), hair color, weaves (eg, glued in, sewn in, combination), and more.¹ Include a family history of hair loss, both maternal and paternal.  

The hair loss investigation almost always includes a scalp biopsy, hair-pull test, dermoscopy, photographs, and even blood work, if applicable. Scalp biopsies may reveal more than one type of alopecia diagnosis, which may impact the treatment plan.² Sending the scalp biopsy specimen to a dermatopathologist specializing in alopecia along with clinical information about the patient is preferred. 

What are your go-to treatments?  

My go-to treatments for patients with skin of color (SOC) and hair loss really depend on the specific diagnosis. Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials focusing on treatment are lacking in central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia and traction alopecia, which holds true for many other types of alopecia.  

For black patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, I often address the inflammatory component of the disease with oral doxycycline and either a topical corticosteroid, such as clobetasol, or intralesional triamcinolone. Adding minoxidil-containing products later in the treatment process can be helpful. Various treatment protocols exist but are mainly based on anecdotal evidence.¹ 

For those with traction alopecia, modification of offending hairstyle practices is a must.³ Also, treatment of inflammation is key. Typically, I gravitate to topical or intralesional corticosteroids, followed by minoxidil-containing products. However, a challenge of treating traction alopecia is changing the hair care practices that cause tight pulling, friction, or pressure on the scalp, such as from the band of a tightly fitted wig.  

It is important to discuss potential side effects of any treatment with the patient. For the most common side effects, discuss how to best prevent them. For example, because of the photosensitivity potential of doxycycline, I ask patients to wear sunscreen daily. To prevent nausea, I recommend that they avoid taking doxycycline on an empty stomach, drink plenty of fluids, and avoid laying down within a few hours after taking the medication.  

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment? 

Dermatologists should try to understand their patients' hair. A study of 200 black women demonstrated that 68% of the patients did not think their physician understood their hair,⁴ which likely impacts patients' perceptions of their physician, confidence in the treatment plan, and even compliance with the plan. Attempting to understand the nuances of tightly coiled hair in those of African descent is the first step in the journey of diagnosing and treating hair loss in partnership with the patient.  

Setting the goal is a crucial step toward patient compliance. It may be going out in public without a wig or weave and feeling confident, providing more coverage so affected areas do not show as much, improving scalp tenderness, and/or preventing further progression of the condition. These are all reasonable outcomes and each goal is uniquely tailored to each patient.  

Familiarize yourself with various hair types, hairstyles, and preferred medication vehicles by attending continuing medical education lectures on alopecia in patients with SOC and on nuances to diagnosis and treatment, reading textbooks focusing on SOC, or seeking out mentorship from a dermatologist who is a hair expert in the types of alopecia most commonly affecting patients with SOC.  

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information 

For patients with scarring alopecia, the Cicatricial Alopecia Research Foundation (http://www.carfintl.org/) is a great resource for medical information and support groups. Also, the Skin of Color Society has dermatology patient education information (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/).  

For patients who are extremely distressed by hair loss, I encourage them to see a mental health professional. The mental health impact of alopecia, despite the extent of disease, is likely underestimated. Patients sometimes need our permission to seek help, especially in many SOC communities where even seeking mental health care often is frowned upon.  

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?  

All patients, regardless of race, gender, or age, are afraid of an alopecia diagnosis. Often, the first thing a patient may say when I enter the examination room is, "Please don't tell me I have alopecia."  

The first step to a successful initial visit for hair loss is addressing the angst around the word alopecia, which helps to manage the patient's hair-induced anxiety. The next priority is setting expectations for the journey including what to expect during the diagnosis process, treatment, and beyond.  

Next is data collection. An extensive hair care practice investigation can begin with a survey that the patient fills out before the visit. Dive into and expand on hair loss history questions, including medical history as well as hair care practices (eg, history of use, frequency, number of years, maintenance for that particular hairstyle) such as braids (eg, individual braids, cornrow braids, with or without added synthetic or human hair), locs (eg, length of locs), chemical relaxers (eg, number of years, frequency, professionally applied or applied at home), hair color, weaves (eg, glued in, sewn in, combination), and more.¹ Include a family history of hair loss, both maternal and paternal.  

The hair loss investigation almost always includes a scalp biopsy, hair-pull test, dermoscopy, photographs, and even blood work, if applicable. Scalp biopsies may reveal more than one type of alopecia diagnosis, which may impact the treatment plan.² Sending the scalp biopsy specimen to a dermatopathologist specializing in alopecia along with clinical information about the patient is preferred. 

What are your go-to treatments?  

My go-to treatments for patients with skin of color (SOC) and hair loss really depend on the specific diagnosis. Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials focusing on treatment are lacking in central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia and traction alopecia, which holds true for many other types of alopecia.  

For black patients with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, I often address the inflammatory component of the disease with oral doxycycline and either a topical corticosteroid, such as clobetasol, or intralesional triamcinolone. Adding minoxidil-containing products later in the treatment process can be helpful. Various treatment protocols exist but are mainly based on anecdotal evidence.¹ 

For those with traction alopecia, modification of offending hairstyle practices is a must.³ Also, treatment of inflammation is key. Typically, I gravitate to topical or intralesional corticosteroids, followed by minoxidil-containing products. However, a challenge of treating traction alopecia is changing the hair care practices that cause tight pulling, friction, or pressure on the scalp, such as from the band of a tightly fitted wig.  

It is important to discuss potential side effects of any treatment with the patient. For the most common side effects, discuss how to best prevent them. For example, because of the photosensitivity potential of doxycycline, I ask patients to wear sunscreen daily. To prevent nausea, I recommend that they avoid taking doxycycline on an empty stomach, drink plenty of fluids, and avoid laying down within a few hours after taking the medication.  

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment? 

Dermatologists should try to understand their patients' hair. A study of 200 black women demonstrated that 68% of the patients did not think their physician understood their hair,⁴ which likely impacts patients' perceptions of their physician, confidence in the treatment plan, and even compliance with the plan. Attempting to understand the nuances of tightly coiled hair in those of African descent is the first step in the journey of diagnosing and treating hair loss in partnership with the patient.  

Setting the goal is a crucial step toward patient compliance. It may be going out in public without a wig or weave and feeling confident, providing more coverage so affected areas do not show as much, improving scalp tenderness, and/or preventing further progression of the condition. These are all reasonable outcomes and each goal is uniquely tailored to each patient.  

Familiarize yourself with various hair types, hairstyles, and preferred medication vehicles by attending continuing medical education lectures on alopecia in patients with SOC and on nuances to diagnosis and treatment, reading textbooks focusing on SOC, or seeking out mentorship from a dermatologist who is a hair expert in the types of alopecia most commonly affecting patients with SOC.  

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information 

For patients with scarring alopecia, the Cicatricial Alopecia Research Foundation (http://www.carfintl.org/) is a great resource for medical information and support groups. Also, the Skin of Color Society has dermatology patient education information (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/).  

For patients who are extremely distressed by hair loss, I encourage them to see a mental health professional. The mental health impact of alopecia, despite the extent of disease, is likely underestimated. Patients sometimes need our permission to seek help, especially in many SOC communities where even seeking mental health care often is frowned upon.  

Vidyard Video

Click here to read the articles published in the April 2019 issue.

Vidyard Video

Click here to read the articles published in the April 2019 issue.

Vidyard Video

Click here to read the articles published in the April 2019 issue.

Click here to download this supplement. 

Click here to download this supplement. 

Click here to download this supplement. 

To the Editor:

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) was first described in 1886, with the first classification scheme proposed in 1962 utilizing transmission electron microscopy (TEM) findings to delineate categories: epidermolytic (EB simplex [EBS]), lucidolytic (junctional EB), and dermolytic (dystrophic EB).¹ Localized EBS (EBS-loc) is an autosomal-dominant disorder caused by negative mutations in keratin-5 and keratin-14, proteins expressed in the intermediate filaments of basal keratinocytes, which result in fragility of the skin in response to minor trauma.² The incidence of EBS-loc is approximately 10 to 30 cases per million live births, with the age of presentation typically between the first and third decades of life.^3,4 Because EBS-loc is the most common and often mildest form of EB, not all patients present for medical evaluation and true prevalence may be underestimated.⁴ We report a case of EBS-loc.

A 26-year-old woman with no notable medical history presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of skin blisters that had been intermittently present since infancy. The blisters primarily occurred on the feet, but she did occasionally develop blisters on the hands, knees, and elbows and at sites of friction or trauma (eg, bra line, medial thighs) following exercise. The blisters were worsened by heat and tight-fitting shoes. Because of the painful nature of the blisters, she would lance them with a needle. On the medial thighs, she utilized nonstick and gauze bandage roll dressings to minimize friction. A review of systems was positive for hyperhidrosis. Her family history revealed multiple family members with blisters involving the feet and areas of friction or trauma for 4 generations with no known diagnosis.

Physical examination revealed multiple tense bullae and calluses scattered over the bilateral plantar and distal dorsal feet with a few healing, superficially eroded, erythematous papules and plaques on the bilateral medial thighs (Figure 1). A biopsy from an induced blister on the right dorsal second toe was performed and sent in glutaraldehyde to the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinic at Stanford University (Redwood City, California) for electron microscopy, which revealed lysis within the basal keratinocytes through the tonofilaments with continuous and intact lamina densa and lamina lucida (Figure 2). In this clinical context with the relevant family history, the findings were consistent with the diagnosis of EBS-loc (formerly Weber-Cockayne syndrome).²

Light microscopy does not have a notable role in diagnosis of classic forms of inherited EB unless another autoimmune blistering disorder is suspected.^2,5 Both TEM and immunofluorescence mapping are used to diagnose EB.¹ DNA mutational analysis is not considered a first-line diagnostic test for EB given it is a costly labor-intensive technique with limited access at present, but it may be considered in settings of prenatal diagnosis or in vitro fertilization.¹ Biopsy of a freshly induced blister should be performed, as early reepithelialization of an existing blister makes it difficult to establish the level of cleavage.⁵ Applying firm pressure using a pencil eraser and rotating it on intact skin induces a subclinical blister. Two punch biopsies (4 mm) at the edge of the blister with one-third lesional and two-thirds perilesional skin should be obtained, with one biopsy sent for immunofluorescence mapping in Michel fixative and the other for TEM in glutaraldehyde.^3,5 Transmission electron microscopy of an induced blister in EBS-loc shows cleavage within the most inferior portion of the basilar keratinocyte.² Immunofluorescence mapping with anti–epidermal basement membrane monoclonal antibodies can distinguish between EB subtypes and assess expression of specific skin-associated proteins on both a qualitative or semiquantitative basis, providing insight on which structural protein is mutated.^1,5

No specific treatments are available for EBS-loc. Mainstays of treatment include prevention of mechanical trauma and secondary infection. Hyperhidrosis of thepalms and soles may be treated with topical aluminum chloride hexahydrate or injections of botulinum toxin type A.^2,6 Patients have normal life expectancy, though some cases may have complications with substantial morbidity.¹ Awareness of this disease, its clinical course, and therapeutic options will allow physicians to more appropriately counsel patients on the disease process.

Localized EBS may be more common than previously thought, as not all patients seek medical care. Given its impact on patient quality of life, it is important for clinicians to recognize EBS-loc. Although no specific treatments are available, wound care counseling and explanation of the genetics of the disease should be provided to patients.

To the Editor:

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) was first described in 1886, with the first classification scheme proposed in 1962 utilizing transmission electron microscopy (TEM) findings to delineate categories: epidermolytic (EB simplex [EBS]), lucidolytic (junctional EB), and dermolytic (dystrophic EB).¹ Localized EBS (EBS-loc) is an autosomal-dominant disorder caused by negative mutations in keratin-5 and keratin-14, proteins expressed in the intermediate filaments of basal keratinocytes, which result in fragility of the skin in response to minor trauma.² The incidence of EBS-loc is approximately 10 to 30 cases per million live births, with the age of presentation typically between the first and third decades of life.^3,4 Because EBS-loc is the most common and often mildest form of EB, not all patients present for medical evaluation and true prevalence may be underestimated.⁴ We report a case of EBS-loc.

A 26-year-old woman with no notable medical history presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of skin blisters that had been intermittently present since infancy. The blisters primarily occurred on the feet, but she did occasionally develop blisters on the hands, knees, and elbows and at sites of friction or trauma (eg, bra line, medial thighs) following exercise. The blisters were worsened by heat and tight-fitting shoes. Because of the painful nature of the blisters, she would lance them with a needle. On the medial thighs, she utilized nonstick and gauze bandage roll dressings to minimize friction. A review of systems was positive for hyperhidrosis. Her family history revealed multiple family members with blisters involving the feet and areas of friction or trauma for 4 generations with no known diagnosis.

Physical examination revealed multiple tense bullae and calluses scattered over the bilateral plantar and distal dorsal feet with a few healing, superficially eroded, erythematous papules and plaques on the bilateral medial thighs (Figure 1). A biopsy from an induced blister on the right dorsal second toe was performed and sent in glutaraldehyde to the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinic at Stanford University (Redwood City, California) for electron microscopy, which revealed lysis within the basal keratinocytes through the tonofilaments with continuous and intact lamina densa and lamina lucida (Figure 2). In this clinical context with the relevant family history, the findings were consistent with the diagnosis of EBS-loc (formerly Weber-Cockayne syndrome).²

Light microscopy does not have a notable role in diagnosis of classic forms of inherited EB unless another autoimmune blistering disorder is suspected.^2,5 Both TEM and immunofluorescence mapping are used to diagnose EB.¹ DNA mutational analysis is not considered a first-line diagnostic test for EB given it is a costly labor-intensive technique with limited access at present, but it may be considered in settings of prenatal diagnosis or in vitro fertilization.¹ Biopsy of a freshly induced blister should be performed, as early reepithelialization of an existing blister makes it difficult to establish the level of cleavage.⁵ Applying firm pressure using a pencil eraser and rotating it on intact skin induces a subclinical blister. Two punch biopsies (4 mm) at the edge of the blister with one-third lesional and two-thirds perilesional skin should be obtained, with one biopsy sent for immunofluorescence mapping in Michel fixative and the other for TEM in glutaraldehyde.^3,5 Transmission electron microscopy of an induced blister in EBS-loc shows cleavage within the most inferior portion of the basilar keratinocyte.² Immunofluorescence mapping with anti–epidermal basement membrane monoclonal antibodies can distinguish between EB subtypes and assess expression of specific skin-associated proteins on both a qualitative or semiquantitative basis, providing insight on which structural protein is mutated.^1,5

No specific treatments are available for EBS-loc. Mainstays of treatment include prevention of mechanical trauma and secondary infection. Hyperhidrosis of thepalms and soles may be treated with topical aluminum chloride hexahydrate or injections of botulinum toxin type A.^2,6 Patients have normal life expectancy, though some cases may have complications with substantial morbidity.¹ Awareness of this disease, its clinical course, and therapeutic options will allow physicians to more appropriately counsel patients on the disease process.

Localized EBS may be more common than previously thought, as not all patients seek medical care. Given its impact on patient quality of life, it is important for clinicians to recognize EBS-loc. Although no specific treatments are available, wound care counseling and explanation of the genetics of the disease should be provided to patients.

To the Editor:

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) was first described in 1886, with the first classification scheme proposed in 1962 utilizing transmission electron microscopy (TEM) findings to delineate categories: epidermolytic (EB simplex [EBS]), lucidolytic (junctional EB), and dermolytic (dystrophic EB).¹ Localized EBS (EBS-loc) is an autosomal-dominant disorder caused by negative mutations in keratin-5 and keratin-14, proteins expressed in the intermediate filaments of basal keratinocytes, which result in fragility of the skin in response to minor trauma.² The incidence of EBS-loc is approximately 10 to 30 cases per million live births, with the age of presentation typically between the first and third decades of life.^3,4 Because EBS-loc is the most common and often mildest form of EB, not all patients present for medical evaluation and true prevalence may be underestimated.⁴ We report a case of EBS-loc.

A 26-year-old woman with no notable medical history presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of skin blisters that had been intermittently present since infancy. The blisters primarily occurred on the feet, but she did occasionally develop blisters on the hands, knees, and elbows and at sites of friction or trauma (eg, bra line, medial thighs) following exercise. The blisters were worsened by heat and tight-fitting shoes. Because of the painful nature of the blisters, she would lance them with a needle. On the medial thighs, she utilized nonstick and gauze bandage roll dressings to minimize friction. A review of systems was positive for hyperhidrosis. Her family history revealed multiple family members with blisters involving the feet and areas of friction or trauma for 4 generations with no known diagnosis.

Physical examination revealed multiple tense bullae and calluses scattered over the bilateral plantar and distal dorsal feet with a few healing, superficially eroded, erythematous papules and plaques on the bilateral medial thighs (Figure 1). A biopsy from an induced blister on the right dorsal second toe was performed and sent in glutaraldehyde to the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinic at Stanford University (Redwood City, California) for electron microscopy, which revealed lysis within the basal keratinocytes through the tonofilaments with continuous and intact lamina densa and lamina lucida (Figure 2). In this clinical context with the relevant family history, the findings were consistent with the diagnosis of EBS-loc (formerly Weber-Cockayne syndrome).²

Light microscopy does not have a notable role in diagnosis of classic forms of inherited EB unless another autoimmune blistering disorder is suspected.^2,5 Both TEM and immunofluorescence mapping are used to diagnose EB.¹ DNA mutational analysis is not considered a first-line diagnostic test for EB given it is a costly labor-intensive technique with limited access at present, but it may be considered in settings of prenatal diagnosis or in vitro fertilization.¹ Biopsy of a freshly induced blister should be performed, as early reepithelialization of an existing blister makes it difficult to establish the level of cleavage.⁵ Applying firm pressure using a pencil eraser and rotating it on intact skin induces a subclinical blister. Two punch biopsies (4 mm) at the edge of the blister with one-third lesional and two-thirds perilesional skin should be obtained, with one biopsy sent for immunofluorescence mapping in Michel fixative and the other for TEM in glutaraldehyde.^3,5 Transmission electron microscopy of an induced blister in EBS-loc shows cleavage within the most inferior portion of the basilar keratinocyte.² Immunofluorescence mapping with anti–epidermal basement membrane monoclonal antibodies can distinguish between EB subtypes and assess expression of specific skin-associated proteins on both a qualitative or semiquantitative basis, providing insight on which structural protein is mutated.^1,5

No specific treatments are available for EBS-loc. Mainstays of treatment include prevention of mechanical trauma and secondary infection. Hyperhidrosis of thepalms and soles may be treated with topical aluminum chloride hexahydrate or injections of botulinum toxin type A.^2,6 Patients have normal life expectancy, though some cases may have complications with substantial morbidity.¹ Awareness of this disease, its clinical course, and therapeutic options will allow physicians to more appropriately counsel patients on the disease process.

Localized EBS may be more common than previously thought, as not all patients seek medical care. Given its impact on patient quality of life, it is important for clinicians to recognize EBS-loc. Although no specific treatments are available, wound care counseling and explanation of the genetics of the disease should be provided to patients.

Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint modulator, acts by binding to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor on T cells, which blocks the inhibition of T cells. Nivolumab ultimately leads to stimulation of the T-cell response¹ and overcomes evasive adaptations of certain cancers. Cutaneous adverse events (AEs) have been reported in approximately 20% to 40% of patients treated with the anti–PD-1 class of drugs, including nivolumab.^2-4 The most common cutaneous AEs include pruritus; vitiligo; and various forms of rash, such as lichenoid dermatitis, psoriasiform eruptions, and bullous pemphigoid.^1-3,5-7 We report a patient with non–small cell lung cancer being treated with nivolumab who developed a bullous lichenoid eruption consistent with the diagnosis of lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP).

Case Report

An 87-year-old woman presented with a pruritic rash on the trunk and extremities of 3 weeks’ duration. Her medical history included stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension. Her long-term medications were ipratropium-albuterol, alendronate, amlodipine, aspirin, carvedilol, colesevelam, probiotic granules, and bumetanide. She was previously treated with carboplatin and docetaxel, which were discontinued secondary to fatigue, diarrhea, poor appetite, loss of taste, and a nonspecific rash. Six months later (approximately 3 months prior to the onset of cutaneous symptoms), she was started on nivolumab monotherapy every 14 days for a total of 9 infusions.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed erythematous crusted erosions on the trunk and extremities and 1 flaccid bulla on the back. A punch biopsy revealed lichenoid dermatitis. The patient returned 2 weeks later with worsening of cutaneous manifestations, including more blisters and erosions. Figure 1 shows the clinical appearance of the eruption on the patient’s leg. At this time, additional biopsies revealed a subepidermal bullous lichenoid eruption with eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was negative; however, indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) revealed weak linear staining for IgG antibodies along the basement membrane zone on monkey esophagus substrate. Examination of salt-split skin was noncontributory. The patient improved with a 2-week oral prednisone taper (starting at 40 mg daily). The dose was decreased incrementally over the course of 2 weeks from 40 mg to 20 mg to 0 mg. Because of the presumed grade 3 (severe) cutaneous drug eruption linked to nivolumab and further discussion with the medical oncology team, the patient decided to cease therapy. Since cessation of therapy, she has been seen twice for follow-up. At 2-month follow-up, she presented with drastic improvement of the eruption, and at 1 year she has continued to forego any further treatment for the stable and nonprogressing malignancy.

Comment

Immunotherapy
The interaction between the PD-1 receptor and its ligands, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death ligand 2, is an immune checkpoint.^8,9 Under normal physiologic conditions, this checkpoint serves to prevent autoimmunity.¹⁰ When the PD-1 receptor is left unbound, T cells are more inclined to mount an immune response. If the receptor is ligand bound, the response of T cells is suppressed via mechanisms such as anergy or apoptosis.⁸ Tumor cells are known to produce PD-L1 as an adaptive resistance mechanism to evade immunity.⁸ Nivolumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets the PD-1 receptor, thereby preventing the interaction with its ligand and allowing for unsuppressed activity of T cells.¹⁰ This therapy ultimately blocks the tumor’s local immune suppression mechanisms, which allows T cells to recognize cancer antigens.¹⁰

Adverse Events
Dermatologic AEs are among the most common with nivolumab treatment. In a pooled retrospective analysis of melanoma patients, Weber et al⁹ found that 34% of 576 patients experience cutaneous any-grade AEs associated with nivolumab treatment, most commonly pruritus. It has been well documented that anti–PD-1 therapy AEs of the skin as well as other organ systems have a delayed onset of at least 1 month.⁹ The average time of onset for bullous eruptions associated with anti–PD-1 therapy has been reported to be approximately 12 weeks, with a range of 7 to 16.1 weeks.¹¹ Our patient had a bullous eruption with an onset of 12 weeks following initiation of treatment.

Although lichenoid reactions appear to be relatively common AEs of anti–PD-1 therapy,^2,5,6 only a small number of cases of bullous pemphigoid eruptions have been reported.⁷ It has been hypothesized that blockade of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway increases production of hemidesmosomal protein BP180 autoantibody, which is involved in the pathogenesis of LPP.⁷ Bullous eruptions have not been reported in the use of anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 agents, which could indicate that such eruptions are specific to the anti–PD-1 class of drugs.⁷

Diagnosis
Our patient represents a rare drug reaction involving both lichenoid and bullous components. Our differential diagnosis included drug-induced bullous lichen planus (BLP) and drug-induced LPP. Differentiation of these diagnoses can be difficult. In fact, in 2017 Fujii et al¹² found reason to reprise the hypothesis that BLP is a transitional step toward LPP. The histologic evaluation of LPP differs depending on the type of lesion biopsied and can be indistinguishable from BLP as well as bullous pemphigoid. Therefore, clinical history and immunofluorescence should be used to make a diagnosis. Lichen planus pemphigoides typically will have linear IgG deposition along the basement membrane zone on both DIF and IIF, findings that will be negative in patients with BLP.¹³ Direct immunofluorescence findings in BLP include shaggy deposits of fibrin along the basement membrane zone. In this patient, DIF was negative, which may have been caused by variability among lesions in LPP, but IIF was positive. Given the clinicopathologic correlation, the diagnosis of LPP was made. Further studies, such as immunoblot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, also can be used to aid diagnosis.

A similar presentation has been documented in a patient with metastatic melanoma.¹⁴ The diagnosis in this patient was LPP induced by pembrolizumab, which is another agent within the anti–PD-1 class. The Naranjo probability scale scored our patient’s eruption as a possible adverse drug reaction.¹⁵ Thus, other etiologies, such as a paraneoplastic process, cannot be completely ruled out. However, our patient has not had recurrence after 1 year, and the timing of the eruption appeared to be related to drug therapy, making alternative etiologies less likely.

Management
Cessation of nivolumab therapy and a short course of oral corticosteroid therapy led to marked improvement of symptoms. Given the emergent treatment of our patient, the resolution of her symptoms cannot be solely attributed to the cessation of nivolumab or to treatment with prednisone. Oral rather than topical corticosteroids were chosen because of the severity of the eruption. Topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can provide relief in less severe cases of bullous reactions to anti–PD-1 therapy.^7,11 This regimen also has proven to be effective in lichenoid dermatitis induced by anti–PD-1.²

Conclusion

We hope this case report will contribute to the growing body of evidence regarding recognition and management of unique reactions to cancer immunotherapies.

Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint modulator, acts by binding to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor on T cells, which blocks the inhibition of T cells. Nivolumab ultimately leads to stimulation of the T-cell response¹ and overcomes evasive adaptations of certain cancers. Cutaneous adverse events (AEs) have been reported in approximately 20% to 40% of patients treated with the anti–PD-1 class of drugs, including nivolumab.^2-4 The most common cutaneous AEs include pruritus; vitiligo; and various forms of rash, such as lichenoid dermatitis, psoriasiform eruptions, and bullous pemphigoid.^1-3,5-7 We report a patient with non–small cell lung cancer being treated with nivolumab who developed a bullous lichenoid eruption consistent with the diagnosis of lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP).

Case Report

An 87-year-old woman presented with a pruritic rash on the trunk and extremities of 3 weeks’ duration. Her medical history included stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension. Her long-term medications were ipratropium-albuterol, alendronate, amlodipine, aspirin, carvedilol, colesevelam, probiotic granules, and bumetanide. She was previously treated with carboplatin and docetaxel, which were discontinued secondary to fatigue, diarrhea, poor appetite, loss of taste, and a nonspecific rash. Six months later (approximately 3 months prior to the onset of cutaneous symptoms), she was started on nivolumab monotherapy every 14 days for a total of 9 infusions.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed erythematous crusted erosions on the trunk and extremities and 1 flaccid bulla on the back. A punch biopsy revealed lichenoid dermatitis. The patient returned 2 weeks later with worsening of cutaneous manifestations, including more blisters and erosions. Figure 1 shows the clinical appearance of the eruption on the patient’s leg. At this time, additional biopsies revealed a subepidermal bullous lichenoid eruption with eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was negative; however, indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) revealed weak linear staining for IgG antibodies along the basement membrane zone on monkey esophagus substrate. Examination of salt-split skin was noncontributory. The patient improved with a 2-week oral prednisone taper (starting at 40 mg daily). The dose was decreased incrementally over the course of 2 weeks from 40 mg to 20 mg to 0 mg. Because of the presumed grade 3 (severe) cutaneous drug eruption linked to nivolumab and further discussion with the medical oncology team, the patient decided to cease therapy. Since cessation of therapy, she has been seen twice for follow-up. At 2-month follow-up, she presented with drastic improvement of the eruption, and at 1 year she has continued to forego any further treatment for the stable and nonprogressing malignancy.

Comment

Immunotherapy
The interaction between the PD-1 receptor and its ligands, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death ligand 2, is an immune checkpoint.^8,9 Under normal physiologic conditions, this checkpoint serves to prevent autoimmunity.¹⁰ When the PD-1 receptor is left unbound, T cells are more inclined to mount an immune response. If the receptor is ligand bound, the response of T cells is suppressed via mechanisms such as anergy or apoptosis.⁸ Tumor cells are known to produce PD-L1 as an adaptive resistance mechanism to evade immunity.⁸ Nivolumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets the PD-1 receptor, thereby preventing the interaction with its ligand and allowing for unsuppressed activity of T cells.¹⁰ This therapy ultimately blocks the tumor’s local immune suppression mechanisms, which allows T cells to recognize cancer antigens.¹⁰

Adverse Events
Dermatologic AEs are among the most common with nivolumab treatment. In a pooled retrospective analysis of melanoma patients, Weber et al⁹ found that 34% of 576 patients experience cutaneous any-grade AEs associated with nivolumab treatment, most commonly pruritus. It has been well documented that anti–PD-1 therapy AEs of the skin as well as other organ systems have a delayed onset of at least 1 month.⁹ The average time of onset for bullous eruptions associated with anti–PD-1 therapy has been reported to be approximately 12 weeks, with a range of 7 to 16.1 weeks.¹¹ Our patient had a bullous eruption with an onset of 12 weeks following initiation of treatment.

Although lichenoid reactions appear to be relatively common AEs of anti–PD-1 therapy,^2,5,6 only a small number of cases of bullous pemphigoid eruptions have been reported.⁷ It has been hypothesized that blockade of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway increases production of hemidesmosomal protein BP180 autoantibody, which is involved in the pathogenesis of LPP.⁷ Bullous eruptions have not been reported in the use of anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 agents, which could indicate that such eruptions are specific to the anti–PD-1 class of drugs.⁷

Diagnosis
Our patient represents a rare drug reaction involving both lichenoid and bullous components. Our differential diagnosis included drug-induced bullous lichen planus (BLP) and drug-induced LPP. Differentiation of these diagnoses can be difficult. In fact, in 2017 Fujii et al¹² found reason to reprise the hypothesis that BLP is a transitional step toward LPP. The histologic evaluation of LPP differs depending on the type of lesion biopsied and can be indistinguishable from BLP as well as bullous pemphigoid. Therefore, clinical history and immunofluorescence should be used to make a diagnosis. Lichen planus pemphigoides typically will have linear IgG deposition along the basement membrane zone on both DIF and IIF, findings that will be negative in patients with BLP.¹³ Direct immunofluorescence findings in BLP include shaggy deposits of fibrin along the basement membrane zone. In this patient, DIF was negative, which may have been caused by variability among lesions in LPP, but IIF was positive. Given the clinicopathologic correlation, the diagnosis of LPP was made. Further studies, such as immunoblot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, also can be used to aid diagnosis.

A similar presentation has been documented in a patient with metastatic melanoma.¹⁴ The diagnosis in this patient was LPP induced by pembrolizumab, which is another agent within the anti–PD-1 class. The Naranjo probability scale scored our patient’s eruption as a possible adverse drug reaction.¹⁵ Thus, other etiologies, such as a paraneoplastic process, cannot be completely ruled out. However, our patient has not had recurrence after 1 year, and the timing of the eruption appeared to be related to drug therapy, making alternative etiologies less likely.

Management
Cessation of nivolumab therapy and a short course of oral corticosteroid therapy led to marked improvement of symptoms. Given the emergent treatment of our patient, the resolution of her symptoms cannot be solely attributed to the cessation of nivolumab or to treatment with prednisone. Oral rather than topical corticosteroids were chosen because of the severity of the eruption. Topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can provide relief in less severe cases of bullous reactions to anti–PD-1 therapy.^7,11 This regimen also has proven to be effective in lichenoid dermatitis induced by anti–PD-1.²

Conclusion

We hope this case report will contribute to the growing body of evidence regarding recognition and management of unique reactions to cancer immunotherapies.

Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint modulator, acts by binding to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor on T cells, which blocks the inhibition of T cells. Nivolumab ultimately leads to stimulation of the T-cell response¹ and overcomes evasive adaptations of certain cancers. Cutaneous adverse events (AEs) have been reported in approximately 20% to 40% of patients treated with the anti–PD-1 class of drugs, including nivolumab.^2-4 The most common cutaneous AEs include pruritus; vitiligo; and various forms of rash, such as lichenoid dermatitis, psoriasiform eruptions, and bullous pemphigoid.^1-3,5-7 We report a patient with non–small cell lung cancer being treated with nivolumab who developed a bullous lichenoid eruption consistent with the diagnosis of lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP).

Case Report

An 87-year-old woman presented with a pruritic rash on the trunk and extremities of 3 weeks’ duration. Her medical history included stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension. Her long-term medications were ipratropium-albuterol, alendronate, amlodipine, aspirin, carvedilol, colesevelam, probiotic granules, and bumetanide. She was previously treated with carboplatin and docetaxel, which were discontinued secondary to fatigue, diarrhea, poor appetite, loss of taste, and a nonspecific rash. Six months later (approximately 3 months prior to the onset of cutaneous symptoms), she was started on nivolumab monotherapy every 14 days for a total of 9 infusions.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed erythematous crusted erosions on the trunk and extremities and 1 flaccid bulla on the back. A punch biopsy revealed lichenoid dermatitis. The patient returned 2 weeks later with worsening of cutaneous manifestations, including more blisters and erosions. Figure 1 shows the clinical appearance of the eruption on the patient’s leg. At this time, additional biopsies revealed a subepidermal bullous lichenoid eruption with eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was negative; however, indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) revealed weak linear staining for IgG antibodies along the basement membrane zone on monkey esophagus substrate. Examination of salt-split skin was noncontributory. The patient improved with a 2-week oral prednisone taper (starting at 40 mg daily). The dose was decreased incrementally over the course of 2 weeks from 40 mg to 20 mg to 0 mg. Because of the presumed grade 3 (severe) cutaneous drug eruption linked to nivolumab and further discussion with the medical oncology team, the patient decided to cease therapy. Since cessation of therapy, she has been seen twice for follow-up. At 2-month follow-up, she presented with drastic improvement of the eruption, and at 1 year she has continued to forego any further treatment for the stable and nonprogressing malignancy.

Comment

Immunotherapy
The interaction between the PD-1 receptor and its ligands, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death ligand 2, is an immune checkpoint.^8,9 Under normal physiologic conditions, this checkpoint serves to prevent autoimmunity.¹⁰ When the PD-1 receptor is left unbound, T cells are more inclined to mount an immune response. If the receptor is ligand bound, the response of T cells is suppressed via mechanisms such as anergy or apoptosis.⁸ Tumor cells are known to produce PD-L1 as an adaptive resistance mechanism to evade immunity.⁸ Nivolumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets the PD-1 receptor, thereby preventing the interaction with its ligand and allowing for unsuppressed activity of T cells.¹⁰ This therapy ultimately blocks the tumor’s local immune suppression mechanisms, which allows T cells to recognize cancer antigens.¹⁰

Adverse Events
Dermatologic AEs are among the most common with nivolumab treatment. In a pooled retrospective analysis of melanoma patients, Weber et al⁹ found that 34% of 576 patients experience cutaneous any-grade AEs associated with nivolumab treatment, most commonly pruritus. It has been well documented that anti–PD-1 therapy AEs of the skin as well as other organ systems have a delayed onset of at least 1 month.⁹ The average time of onset for bullous eruptions associated with anti–PD-1 therapy has been reported to be approximately 12 weeks, with a range of 7 to 16.1 weeks.¹¹ Our patient had a bullous eruption with an onset of 12 weeks following initiation of treatment.

Although lichenoid reactions appear to be relatively common AEs of anti–PD-1 therapy,^2,5,6 only a small number of cases of bullous pemphigoid eruptions have been reported.⁷ It has been hypothesized that blockade of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway increases production of hemidesmosomal protein BP180 autoantibody, which is involved in the pathogenesis of LPP.⁷ Bullous eruptions have not been reported in the use of anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 agents, which could indicate that such eruptions are specific to the anti–PD-1 class of drugs.⁷

Diagnosis
Our patient represents a rare drug reaction involving both lichenoid and bullous components. Our differential diagnosis included drug-induced bullous lichen planus (BLP) and drug-induced LPP. Differentiation of these diagnoses can be difficult. In fact, in 2017 Fujii et al¹² found reason to reprise the hypothesis that BLP is a transitional step toward LPP. The histologic evaluation of LPP differs depending on the type of lesion biopsied and can be indistinguishable from BLP as well as bullous pemphigoid. Therefore, clinical history and immunofluorescence should be used to make a diagnosis. Lichen planus pemphigoides typically will have linear IgG deposition along the basement membrane zone on both DIF and IIF, findings that will be negative in patients with BLP.¹³ Direct immunofluorescence findings in BLP include shaggy deposits of fibrin along the basement membrane zone. In this patient, DIF was negative, which may have been caused by variability among lesions in LPP, but IIF was positive. Given the clinicopathologic correlation, the diagnosis of LPP was made. Further studies, such as immunoblot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, also can be used to aid diagnosis.

A similar presentation has been documented in a patient with metastatic melanoma.¹⁴ The diagnosis in this patient was LPP induced by pembrolizumab, which is another agent within the anti–PD-1 class. The Naranjo probability scale scored our patient’s eruption as a possible adverse drug reaction.¹⁵ Thus, other etiologies, such as a paraneoplastic process, cannot be completely ruled out. However, our patient has not had recurrence after 1 year, and the timing of the eruption appeared to be related to drug therapy, making alternative etiologies less likely.

Management
Cessation of nivolumab therapy and a short course of oral corticosteroid therapy led to marked improvement of symptoms. Given the emergent treatment of our patient, the resolution of her symptoms cannot be solely attributed to the cessation of nivolumab or to treatment with prednisone. Oral rather than topical corticosteroids were chosen because of the severity of the eruption. Topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can provide relief in less severe cases of bullous reactions to anti–PD-1 therapy.^7,11 This regimen also has proven to be effective in lichenoid dermatitis induced by anti–PD-1.²

Conclusion

We hope this case report will contribute to the growing body of evidence regarding recognition and management of unique reactions to cancer immunotherapies.

Relapsing polychondritis (RP) is a recurrent inflammatory condition involving primarily cartilaginous structures. The disease, first described as a clinical entity in 1960 by Pearson et al,¹ is rare with an estimated incidence of 3.5 cases per 1 million individuals.² The pathogenesis of RP is widely accepted as being autoimmune in nature, largely due to the identification of circulating autoantibodies seen in the sera of patients with similar clinical pictures.³

Although in most patients the primary process involves inflammation of cartilage, a subset of patients experience involvement of noncartilaginous sites.⁴ The degree of systemic involvement varies from none to notable, affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and potentially leading to life-threatening complications, including cardiac valve compromise and airway collapse. Relapsing polychondritis is considered to be a progressive disease with the ultimate potential to be life-threatening.⁵

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection leads to a profound state of immune dysregulation, affecting innate, adaptive, and natural killer components of the immune system.⁶ There is variability in the development of autoimmune disease in HIV patients depending on the stage of infection. The frequency of rheumatologic disease in HIV patients might be as high as 60%.⁶ Relapsing polychondritis is rare in patients with HIV.^7-9 Of 4 reported cases, 2 patients had other coexisting autoimmune disease—sarcoidosis and Behçet disease.^8,9

Case Report

A 36-year-old man presented to the clinic with a concern of recurrent ear pain and swelling of approximately 2 years’ duration. Onset was sudden without inciting event. Symptoms initially involved the right ear with eventual progression to both ears. Additional symptoms included an auditory perception of underwater submersion, intermittent vertigo, and 3 episodes of throat closure sensation.

The patient’s medical history was notable for asthma; gastritis; depression; and HIV infection, which was diagnosed 4 years earlier and adequately managed with highly active antiretroviral therapy. His family history was notable for systemic lupus erythematosus in his mother, maternal aunt, and maternal cousin.

At presentation, the patient’s CD4 count was 799 cells/mm³ with an undetectable viral load. Medications included abacavir-dolutegravir-lamivudine, hydroxyzine, meclizine, mometasone, and quetiapine. Physical examination showed erythema, swelling, and tenderness of the left and right auricles with sparing of the earlobe that was more noticeable on the left ear (Figure 1). Bacterial culture from the external auditory meatus was positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Biopsy revealed chronic inflammatory perichondritis with mild to moderate fibrosis and chronic lymphocytic inflammation at the dermal cartilaginous junction (Figure 2). A direct immunofluorescent biopsy was unremarkable, but subsequent type II collagen antibodies were positive (35.5 endotoxin units/mL [reference range, <20 endotoxin units/mL]).

Comment

Relapsing polychondritis is an uncommon progressive disease characterized by recurrent inflammatory insults to cartilaginous and proteoglycan-rich structures.⁴ The most consistent clinical features of RP are ear inflammation that involves the auricle and spares the lobe, nasal chondritis, and arthralgia.¹⁰ Laryngotracheal compromise may occur from tracheal cartilage inflammation. The involvement of these specific structures is due to commonality between their component collagens.⁵ Although any organ system can be affected, as many as 50% of patients have respiratory tract involvement, which may affect any portion of the respiratory tree.¹¹ If involving the larynx, this inflammation can lead to severe edema warranting intubation. Cardiovascular involvement is present in 24% to 52% of patients,¹⁰ which most commonly manifests as valvular impairment affecting the aortic valve more frequently than the mitral valve.⁵

Pathogenesis
Although the etiology of RP remains undetermined, multiple hypotheses have been proposed. One is that a certain subset of patients is predisposed to autoimmunity, and a secondary triggering event in the form of infection, malignancy, or medication catalyzes development of RP. A second hypothesis is that mechanical trauma to cartilage exposes the immune system to certain antigens that would have otherwise remained hidden, prompting autosensitization.^12,13

Regardless of cause, an autoimmune pathogenesis is favored based on the following observations: RP is frequently associated with other autoimmune diseases in the same patient, glucocorticosteroids and other immunosuppressive therapies are effective for treatment, and histopathologic findings include an infiltrate of CD4⁺ T lymphocytes with detection of immunoglobulins and plasma cells in different lesions.⁵ The detection of autoantibodies against collagen in the serum of patients with RP further supports an autoimmune pathogenesis.³ The earliest identified autoantibodies in patients with RP were against type II collagen. Subsequent studies have identified autoantibodies against type IV and type XI collagens as well as other cartilage-related proteins such as matrilin 1¹⁴ and cartilage oligomeric matrix proteins.¹⁵ Although circulating antibodies to type II collagen are present in a variable number of patients with the disease (30%–70%), levels likely correlate with disease activity and are highest at times of acute inflammation.³ Additionally, titers of type II collagen antibodies have been shown to decrease upon institution of immunosuppressive therapy.¹⁶

Although a humoral response dominates the picture of RP, there also is an associated T cell–mediated response.¹³ Histopathologically, biopsy of an active lesion of auricular cartilage shows a mixed inflammatory infiltrate composed primarily of lymphocytes, with variable numbers of polymorphonuclear cells, monocytes, and plasma cells. Loss of basophilia of the cartilage matrix can be observed, thought to be the result of proteoglycan depletion.¹³ Later, lesions classically display apoptosis of chondrocytes, focal calcification, or fibrosis.⁵

Diagnosis
Relapsing polychondritis acts classically as an autoimmune disease with a variable presentation, making diagnosis a challenge. Many sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The most referenced remains the original criteria described by McAdam et al.¹⁷ In 2012, the Relapsing Polychondritis Disease Activity Index modified criteria set forth by Michet et al¹⁸ and might serve as the standard for diagnosis going forward.¹⁹

McAdam et al¹⁷ proposed that 3 of 6 clinical features are necessary for diagnosis: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation, respiratory tract chondritis, and audiovestibular damage. Michet et al¹⁸ proposed that 1 of 2 conditions are necessary for diagnosis of RP: (1) proven inflammation in 2 of 3 of the auricular, nasal, or laryngotracheal cartilages; or (2) proven inflammation in 1 of 3 of the auricular, nasal, or laryngotracheal cartilages, plus 2 other signs, including ocular inflammation, vestibular dysfunction, seronegative inflammatory arthritis, and hearing loss.

These criteria were proposed originally in 1976¹⁷ and modified in 1986.¹⁸ No further updates have been offered since then. As such, serologic findings, such as antibodies against type II collagen, are not included in the diagnostic criteria. Additionally, these antibodies are not specific for RP and can be seen in other conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.²⁰

More recently, imaging analysis has been employed in conjunction with clinical and serologic data to diagnose the disease and evaluate its severity. The use of imaging modalities for these purposes is most beneficial in patients with notable disease and respiratory involvement.²¹

Although the clinical picture is typified by the classic findings described above, the clinician must be aware of more subtle clues to diagnosis,¹¹ which is of particular importance to the dermatologist because 35% of patients with RP alone will have skin manifestations that can precede onset of chondritis.¹⁰ Most commonly, dermatologic manifestations are nonspecific and can include nodules on the limbs, purpura, and urticarial lesions.²² Individual case reports have noted the coexistence of RP with erythema multiforme,¹⁸ erythema annulare centrifugum,²³ pyoderma gangrenosum,²⁴ and panniculitis,¹⁸ among other disorders.

Severe systemic involvement leads to increased mortality and warrants more aggressive treatment.²² Commonly used agents include the immunosuppressants cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been the most widely utilized immunomodulatory agent for treatment of RP.^25,26 Abatacept and rituximab also have been used with variable efficacy in patients with severe disease. Recently, the IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab has been used with some success.²⁷

Prognosis
The prognosis for patients with RP largely depends on the severity of disease and degree of internal involvement. With improved management, largely due to awareness and recognition of disease, the survival rate among RP patients has increased from 55% at 10 years to 94% at the end of 8 years.¹⁸ The main cause of death in RP patients is airway complications related to laryngotracheal involvement.¹⁰ The second most common cause of death is cardiovascular complications in which valvular disease predominates.⁵

Concomitant Illness
Thirty-five percent of RP patients have coexisting autoimmune disease, the most common being antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis.^5,28 Although this association with autoimmune disease is well described, reports of RP occurring in other states of immune dysfunction are sparse. One case of RP has been reported in a child with common variable immunodeficiency thought to be related to underlying abnormal immune regulation and immunodeficiency.²⁹ Relapsing polychondritis has been described in 4 patients with HIV, 2 of whom had concomitant autoimmune disease.^7-9

Human immunodeficiency virus infection is a well-established cause of immune dysregulation and has variable association with autoimmunity. This variability depends largely on the stage of infection. When divided into stages, autoimmune diseases develop predominantly in stage I, during acute infection with an intact immune system; in stage III, with immunosuppression, a low CD4 count, and development of AIDS; and in stage IV, when the immune system is restored with the institution of highly active antiretroviral therapy.⁶ The interplay between HIV infection and development of autoimmune disease is complex, and pathogenesis remains speculative.

Conclusion

Our patient represents a case of RP in an HIV-positive patient. Additionally, our patient had no other identifiable autoimmune conditions but did have a strong family history of them. It is important for providers to be aware of the potential for development of RP as well as other autoimmune disease in the setting of HIV infection. The implications of a missed diagnosis could be dire because the disease course of RP is progressive and has the potential to decrease survival.

Relapsing polychondritis (RP) is a recurrent inflammatory condition involving primarily cartilaginous structures. The disease, first described as a clinical entity in 1960 by Pearson et al,¹ is rare with an estimated incidence of 3.5 cases per 1 million individuals.² The pathogenesis of RP is widely accepted as being autoimmune in nature, largely due to the identification of circulating autoantibodies seen in the sera of patients with similar clinical pictures.³

Although in most patients the primary process involves inflammation of cartilage, a subset of patients experience involvement of noncartilaginous sites.⁴ The degree of systemic involvement varies from none to notable, affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and potentially leading to life-threatening complications, including cardiac valve compromise and airway collapse. Relapsing polychondritis is considered to be a progressive disease with the ultimate potential to be life-threatening.⁵

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection leads to a profound state of immune dysregulation, affecting innate, adaptive, and natural killer components of the immune system.⁶ There is variability in the development of autoimmune disease in HIV patients depending on the stage of infection. The frequency of rheumatologic disease in HIV patients might be as high as 60%.⁶ Relapsing polychondritis is rare in patients with HIV.^7-9 Of 4 reported cases, 2 patients had other coexisting autoimmune disease—sarcoidosis and Behçet disease.^8,9

Case Report

A 36-year-old man presented to the clinic with a concern of recurrent ear pain and swelling of approximately 2 years’ duration. Onset was sudden without inciting event. Symptoms initially involved the right ear with eventual progression to both ears. Additional symptoms included an auditory perception of underwater submersion, intermittent vertigo, and 3 episodes of throat closure sensation.

The patient’s medical history was notable for asthma; gastritis; depression; and HIV infection, which was diagnosed 4 years earlier and adequately managed with highly active antiretroviral therapy. His family history was notable for systemic lupus erythematosus in his mother, maternal aunt, and maternal cousin.

At presentation, the patient’s CD4 count was 799 cells/mm³ with an undetectable viral load. Medications included abacavir-dolutegravir-lamivudine, hydroxyzine, meclizine, mometasone, and quetiapine. Physical examination showed erythema, swelling, and tenderness of the left and right auricles with sparing of the earlobe that was more noticeable on the left ear (Figure 1). Bacterial culture from the external auditory meatus was positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Biopsy revealed chronic inflammatory perichondritis with mild to moderate fibrosis and chronic lymphocytic inflammation at the dermal cartilaginous junction (Figure 2). A direct immunofluorescent biopsy was unremarkable, but subsequent type II collagen antibodies were positive (35.5 endotoxin units/mL [reference range, <20 endotoxin units/mL]).

Comment

Relapsing polychondritis is an uncommon progressive disease characterized by recurrent inflammatory insults to cartilaginous and proteoglycan-rich structures.⁴ The most consistent clinical features of RP are ear inflammation that involves the auricle and spares the lobe, nasal chondritis, and arthralgia.¹⁰ Laryngotracheal compromise may occur from tracheal cartilage inflammation. The involvement of these specific structures is due to commonality between their component collagens.⁵ Although any organ system can be affected, as many as 50% of patients have respiratory tract involvement, which may affect any portion of the respiratory tree.¹¹ If involving the larynx, this inflammation can lead to severe edema warranting intubation. Cardiovascular involvement is present in 24% to 52% of patients,¹⁰ which most commonly manifests as valvular impairment affecting the aortic valve more frequently than the mitral valve.⁵

Pathogenesis
Although the etiology of RP remains undetermined, multiple hypotheses have been proposed. One is that a certain subset of patients is predisposed to autoimmunity, and a secondary triggering event in the form of infection, malignancy, or medication catalyzes development of RP. A second hypothesis is that mechanical trauma to cartilage exposes the immune system to certain antigens that would have otherwise remained hidden, prompting autosensitization.^12,13

Regardless of cause, an autoimmune pathogenesis is favored based on the following observations: RP is frequently associated with other autoimmune diseases in the same patient, glucocorticosteroids and other immunosuppressive therapies are effective for treatment, and histopathologic findings include an infiltrate of CD4⁺ T lymphocytes with detection of immunoglobulins and plasma cells in different lesions.⁵ The detection of autoantibodies against collagen in the serum of patients with RP further supports an autoimmune pathogenesis.³ The earliest identified autoantibodies in patients with RP were against type II collagen. Subsequent studies have identified autoantibodies against type IV and type XI collagens as well as other cartilage-related proteins such as matrilin 1¹⁴ and cartilage oligomeric matrix proteins.¹⁵ Although circulating antibodies to type II collagen are present in a variable number of patients with the disease (30%–70%), levels likely correlate with disease activity and are highest at times of acute inflammation.³ Additionally, titers of type II collagen antibodies have been shown to decrease upon institution of immunosuppressive therapy.¹⁶

Although a humoral response dominates the picture of RP, there also is an associated T cell–mediated response.¹³ Histopathologically, biopsy of an active lesion of auricular cartilage shows a mixed inflammatory infiltrate composed primarily of lymphocytes, with variable numbers of polymorphonuclear cells, monocytes, and plasma cells. Loss of basophilia of the cartilage matrix can be observed, thought to be the result of proteoglycan depletion.¹³ Later, lesions classically display apoptosis of chondrocytes, focal calcification, or fibrosis.⁵

Diagnosis
Relapsing polychondritis acts classically as an autoimmune disease with a variable presentation, making diagnosis a challenge. Many sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The most referenced remains the original criteria described by McAdam et al.¹⁷ In 2012, the Relapsing Polychondritis Disease Activity Index modified criteria set forth by Michet et al¹⁸ and might serve as the standard for diagnosis going forward.¹⁹

McAdam et al¹⁷ proposed that 3 of 6 clinical features are necessary for diagnosis: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation, respiratory tract chondritis, and audiovestibular damage. Michet et al¹⁸ proposed that 1 of 2 conditions are necessary for diagnosis of RP: (1) proven inflammation in 2 of 3 of the auricular, nasal, or laryngotracheal cartilages; or (2) proven inflammation in 1 of 3 of the auricular, nasal, or laryngotracheal cartilages, plus 2 other signs, including ocular inflammation, vestibular dysfunction, seronegative inflammatory arthritis, and hearing loss.

These criteria were proposed originally in 1976¹⁷ and modified in 1986.¹⁸ No further updates have been offered since then. As such, serologic findings, such as antibodies against type II collagen, are not included in the diagnostic criteria. Additionally, these antibodies are not specific for RP and can be seen in other conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.²⁰

More recently, imaging analysis has been employed in conjunction with clinical and serologic data to diagnose the disease and evaluate its severity. The use of imaging modalities for these purposes is most beneficial in patients with notable disease and respiratory involvement.²¹

Although the clinical picture is typified by the classic findings described above, the clinician must be aware of more subtle clues to diagnosis,¹¹ which is of particular importance to the dermatologist because 35% of patients with RP alone will have skin manifestations that can precede onset of chondritis.¹⁰ Most commonly, dermatologic manifestations are nonspecific and can include nodules on the limbs, purpura, and urticarial lesions.²² Individual case reports have noted the coexistence of RP with erythema multiforme,¹⁸ erythema annulare centrifugum,²³ pyoderma gangrenosum,²⁴ and panniculitis,¹⁸ among other disorders.

Severe systemic involvement leads to increased mortality and warrants more aggressive treatment.²² Commonly used agents include the immunosuppressants cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been the most widely utilized immunomodulatory agent for treatment of RP.^25,26 Abatacept and rituximab also have been used with variable efficacy in patients with severe disease. Recently, the IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab has been used with some success.²⁷

Prognosis
The prognosis for patients with RP largely depends on the severity of disease and degree of internal involvement. With improved management, largely due to awareness and recognition of disease, the survival rate among RP patients has increased from 55% at 10 years to 94% at the end of 8 years.¹⁸ The main cause of death in RP patients is airway complications related to laryngotracheal involvement.¹⁰ The second most common cause of death is cardiovascular complications in which valvular disease predominates.⁵

Concomitant Illness
Thirty-five percent of RP patients have coexisting autoimmune disease, the most common being antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis.^5,28 Although this association with autoimmune disease is well described, reports of RP occurring in other states of immune dysfunction are sparse. One case of RP has been reported in a child with common variable immunodeficiency thought to be related to underlying abnormal immune regulation and immunodeficiency.²⁹ Relapsing polychondritis has been described in 4 patients with HIV, 2 of whom had concomitant autoimmune disease.^7-9

Human immunodeficiency virus infection is a well-established cause of immune dysregulation and has variable association with autoimmunity. This variability depends largely on the stage of infection. When divided into stages, autoimmune diseases develop predominantly in stage I, during acute infection with an intact immune system; in stage III, with immunosuppression, a low CD4 count, and development of AIDS; and in stage IV, when the immune system is restored with the institution of highly active antiretroviral therapy.⁶ The interplay between HIV infection and development of autoimmune disease is complex, and pathogenesis remains speculative.

Conclusion

Our patient represents a case of RP in an HIV-positive patient. Additionally, our patient had no other identifiable autoimmune conditions but did have a strong family history of them. It is important for providers to be aware of the potential for development of RP as well as other autoimmune disease in the setting of HIV infection. The implications of a missed diagnosis could be dire because the disease course of RP is progressive and has the potential to decrease survival.

Relapsing polychondritis (RP) is a recurrent inflammatory condition involving primarily cartilaginous structures. The disease, first described as a clinical entity in 1960 by Pearson et al,¹ is rare with an estimated incidence of 3.5 cases per 1 million individuals.² The pathogenesis of RP is widely accepted as being autoimmune in nature, largely due to the identification of circulating autoantibodies seen in the sera of patients with similar clinical pictures.³

Although in most patients the primary process involves inflammation of cartilage, a subset of patients experience involvement of noncartilaginous sites.⁴ The degree of systemic involvement varies from none to notable, affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and potentially leading to life-threatening complications, including cardiac valve compromise and airway collapse. Relapsing polychondritis is considered to be a progressive disease with the ultimate potential to be life-threatening.⁵

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection leads to a profound state of immune dysregulation, affecting innate, adaptive, and natural killer components of the immune system.⁶ There is variability in the development of autoimmune disease in HIV patients depending on the stage of infection. The frequency of rheumatologic disease in HIV patients might be as high as 60%.⁶ Relapsing polychondritis is rare in patients with HIV.^7-9 Of 4 reported cases, 2 patients had other coexisting autoimmune disease—sarcoidosis and Behçet disease.^8,9

Case Report

A 36-year-old man presented to the clinic with a concern of recurrent ear pain and swelling of approximately 2 years’ duration. Onset was sudden without inciting event. Symptoms initially involved the right ear with eventual progression to both ears. Additional symptoms included an auditory perception of underwater submersion, intermittent vertigo, and 3 episodes of throat closure sensation.

The patient’s medical history was notable for asthma; gastritis; depression; and HIV infection, which was diagnosed 4 years earlier and adequately managed with highly active antiretroviral therapy. His family history was notable for systemic lupus erythematosus in his mother, maternal aunt, and maternal cousin.

At presentation, the patient’s CD4 count was 799 cells/mm³ with an undetectable viral load. Medications included abacavir-dolutegravir-lamivudine, hydroxyzine, meclizine, mometasone, and quetiapine. Physical examination showed erythema, swelling, and tenderness of the left and right auricles with sparing of the earlobe that was more noticeable on the left ear (Figure 1). Bacterial culture from the external auditory meatus was positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Biopsy revealed chronic inflammatory perichondritis with mild to moderate fibrosis and chronic lymphocytic inflammation at the dermal cartilaginous junction (Figure 2). A direct immunofluorescent biopsy was unremarkable, but subsequent type II collagen antibodies were positive (35.5 endotoxin units/mL [reference range, <20 endotoxin units/mL]).

Comment

Relapsing polychondritis is an uncommon progressive disease characterized by recurrent inflammatory insults to cartilaginous and proteoglycan-rich structures.⁴ The most consistent clinical features of RP are ear inflammation that involves the auricle and spares the lobe, nasal chondritis, and arthralgia.¹⁰ Laryngotracheal compromise may occur from tracheal cartilage inflammation. The involvement of these specific structures is due to commonality between their component collagens.⁵ Although any organ system can be affected, as many as 50% of patients have respiratory tract involvement, which may affect any portion of the respiratory tree.¹¹ If involving the larynx, this inflammation can lead to severe edema warranting intubation. Cardiovascular involvement is present in 24% to 52% of patients,¹⁰ which most commonly manifests as valvular impairment affecting the aortic valve more frequently than the mitral valve.⁵

Pathogenesis
Although the etiology of RP remains undetermined, multiple hypotheses have been proposed. One is that a certain subset of patients is predisposed to autoimmunity, and a secondary triggering event in the form of infection, malignancy, or medication catalyzes development of RP. A second hypothesis is that mechanical trauma to cartilage exposes the immune system to certain antigens that would have otherwise remained hidden, prompting autosensitization.^12,13

Regardless of cause, an autoimmune pathogenesis is favored based on the following observations: RP is frequently associated with other autoimmune diseases in the same patient, glucocorticosteroids and other immunosuppressive therapies are effective for treatment, and histopathologic findings include an infiltrate of CD4⁺ T lymphocytes with detection of immunoglobulins and plasma cells in different lesions.⁵ The detection of autoantibodies against collagen in the serum of patients with RP further supports an autoimmune pathogenesis.³ The earliest identified autoantibodies in patients with RP were against type II collagen. Subsequent studies have identified autoantibodies against type IV and type XI collagens as well as other cartilage-related proteins such as matrilin 1¹⁴ and cartilage oligomeric matrix proteins.¹⁵ Although circulating antibodies to type II collagen are present in a variable number of patients with the disease (30%–70%), levels likely correlate with disease activity and are highest at times of acute inflammation.³ Additionally, titers of type II collagen antibodies have been shown to decrease upon institution of immunosuppressive therapy.¹⁶

Although a humoral response dominates the picture of RP, there also is an associated T cell–mediated response.¹³ Histopathologically, biopsy of an active lesion of auricular cartilage shows a mixed inflammatory infiltrate composed primarily of lymphocytes, with variable numbers of polymorphonuclear cells, monocytes, and plasma cells. Loss of basophilia of the cartilage matrix can be observed, thought to be the result of proteoglycan depletion.¹³ Later, lesions classically display apoptosis of chondrocytes, focal calcification, or fibrosis.⁵

Diagnosis
Relapsing polychondritis acts classically as an autoimmune disease with a variable presentation, making diagnosis a challenge. Many sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The most referenced remains the original criteria described by McAdam et al.¹⁷ In 2012, the Relapsing Polychondritis Disease Activity Index modified criteria set forth by Michet et al¹⁸ and might serve as the standard for diagnosis going forward.¹⁹

McAdam et al¹⁷ proposed that 3 of 6 clinical features are necessary for diagnosis: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation, respiratory tract chondritis, and audiovestibular damage. Michet et al¹⁸ proposed that 1 of 2 conditions are necessary for diagnosis of RP: (1) proven inflammation in 2 of 3 of the auricular, nasal, or laryngotracheal cartilages; or (2) proven inflammation in 1 of 3 of the auricular, nasal, or laryngotracheal cartilages, plus 2 other signs, including ocular inflammation, vestibular dysfunction, seronegative inflammatory arthritis, and hearing loss.

These criteria were proposed originally in 1976¹⁷ and modified in 1986.¹⁸ No further updates have been offered since then. As such, serologic findings, such as antibodies against type II collagen, are not included in the diagnostic criteria. Additionally, these antibodies are not specific for RP and can be seen in other conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.²⁰

More recently, imaging analysis has been employed in conjunction with clinical and serologic data to diagnose the disease and evaluate its severity. The use of imaging modalities for these purposes is most beneficial in patients with notable disease and respiratory involvement.²¹

Although the clinical picture is typified by the classic findings described above, the clinician must be aware of more subtle clues to diagnosis,¹¹ which is of particular importance to the dermatologist because 35% of patients with RP alone will have skin manifestations that can precede onset of chondritis.¹⁰ Most commonly, dermatologic manifestations are nonspecific and can include nodules on the limbs, purpura, and urticarial lesions.²² Individual case reports have noted the coexistence of RP with erythema multiforme,¹⁸ erythema annulare centrifugum,²³ pyoderma gangrenosum,²⁴ and panniculitis,¹⁸ among other disorders.

Severe systemic involvement leads to increased mortality and warrants more aggressive treatment.²² Commonly used agents include the immunosuppressants cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been the most widely utilized immunomodulatory agent for treatment of RP.^25,26 Abatacept and rituximab also have been used with variable efficacy in patients with severe disease. Recently, the IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab has been used with some success.²⁷

Prognosis
The prognosis for patients with RP largely depends on the severity of disease and degree of internal involvement. With improved management, largely due to awareness and recognition of disease, the survival rate among RP patients has increased from 55% at 10 years to 94% at the end of 8 years.¹⁸ The main cause of death in RP patients is airway complications related to laryngotracheal involvement.¹⁰ The second most common cause of death is cardiovascular complications in which valvular disease predominates.⁵

Concomitant Illness
Thirty-five percent of RP patients have coexisting autoimmune disease, the most common being antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis.^5,28 Although this association with autoimmune disease is well described, reports of RP occurring in other states of immune dysfunction are sparse. One case of RP has been reported in a child with common variable immunodeficiency thought to be related to underlying abnormal immune regulation and immunodeficiency.²⁹ Relapsing polychondritis has been described in 4 patients with HIV, 2 of whom had concomitant autoimmune disease.^7-9

Human immunodeficiency virus infection is a well-established cause of immune dysregulation and has variable association with autoimmunity. This variability depends largely on the stage of infection. When divided into stages, autoimmune diseases develop predominantly in stage I, during acute infection with an intact immune system; in stage III, with immunosuppression, a low CD4 count, and development of AIDS; and in stage IV, when the immune system is restored with the institution of highly active antiretroviral therapy.⁶ The interplay between HIV infection and development of autoimmune disease is complex, and pathogenesis remains speculative.

Conclusion

Our patient represents a case of RP in an HIV-positive patient. Additionally, our patient had no other identifiable autoimmune conditions but did have a strong family history of them. It is important for providers to be aware of the potential for development of RP as well as other autoimmune disease in the setting of HIV infection. The implications of a missed diagnosis could be dire because the disease course of RP is progressive and has the potential to decrease survival.

Patients seek healthy skin that conveys overall health and well-being. Cosmeceuticals claim to therapeutically affect the structure and function of the skin, and it is rational to hold them to scientific standards that substantiate efficacy claims.¹ Notably, it is increasingly important to consider nature-based products in helping patients and consumers to achieve healthier skin. Despite the availability of sophisticated efficacy testing, explanations of the underlying physiologic and pharmacologic principles of nature-based products lag behind those of conventional formulations. In many instances, simple form and function information cannot adequately support their desired use and expected benefits. In addition, cosmetic regulations do not even permit structure-function claims that are allowed for dietary supplements.

Physicians whose patients want recommendations for nature-based products often do not know where to turn for definitive product and use information. Unlike prescription medications or even beauty-from-within dietary supplement products, natural cosmetics and cosmeceuticals are barred from communicating scientific evidence and experience of use to form proper opinions for recommendations. Without the benefit of full product labeling, physicians are left to mine sparse, confusing, and often contradictory literature in an effort to self-educate. Here, we share our experiences with patients, our operating knowledge base, and our recommendations for investigation to improve the available information and ensure practicing physicians have the information they need to appropriately recommend nature-based products.

General Observations Pertaining to Patients and Nature-Based Products

Ethnic and cultural customs and traditions have accepted and employed nature-based products for skin health for millennia (eTables 1–3).^2-20 African and the derived Caribbean cultures frequently use shea butter, black soap, or coconut oil. East Asian ethnobotanical practices include the use of ginseng, green tea, almond, and angelica root in skin care. Indian culture employs Ayurvedic medicine principles that include herbal remedies comprised of ground chickpeas, rice, turmeric, neem, ashwagandha, moringa, and kutki. These cultural traditions continue into modern times, and patients regularly use these products. Modern social trends that focus on a healthy lifestyle also create demand for nature-based products for skin health. In our opinion, the current growing interest in nature-based products implies continued growth in their use as patients become more familiar and comfortable with them.

For beauty and skin health, a new trend has evolved in which the first source of advice is rarely a dermatologist. Social media, nonphysician influencers, and pseudoscience have created an authority previously reserved for dermatologists among patients and consumers. Bloggers and social media influencers, posting their individual real-world experiences, shape the perceptions of consumers and patients.^21,22 Nonphysician influencers leverage their celebrity to provide guidance and advice on beauty and cosmetic tips.²³ Much of the evidence supporting cosmetic and especially nature-based products for skin care and health often is believed to be less rigorous and of lower quality than that typically supporting physician recommendations.^24-26

Nature-Based Products in Skin Health and Dermatologic Conditions

Patients turn to nature-based products for skin care and health for many reasons. The simplest reason is that they grew up with such products and continue their use. Many patients find nature-based products themselves, have favorable experiences, and seek advice on their efficacy and safety for continued use. Patients also use these products as part of a holistic approach to health in which diet and exercise coincide with the idea of ministering to the whole self instead of preventing or treating an illness. These nature-based treatment options fit their natural lifestyles. Patients sometimes express concerns about synthetic products that lead them to seek out nature-based products. Chemicals and preservatives (eg, parabens, sunscreens, nanoparticles) may evoke concerns about negative health consequences, which can be a cause of great anxiety to patients.

Nature-based products, when recommended by physicians, can fulfill important roles. As healthier alternatives, they can address health concerns in the belief that plant-based ingredients may be more compatible with overall health than synthetic ingredients. This compatibility may have resulted from the human species coevolving with plant species containing therapeutic utility, leading to the development of specific receptors for many natural products, such as digoxin from foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), opioids from poppies (Papaver somniferum), and cannabinoids (Cannabis sativa and hybrids). Natural products can become alternatives to synthetic products or adjuncts to prescription medications. Often, inclusion of nature-based products into a treatment plan enables patients to feel that they are a more integral part of the care team treating their conditions. By virtue of physician recommendations, patients may have expectations on product efficacy being as robust as prescription products with the safety profile of plant-based products. Patients should be advised to accept a realistic view of the efficacy and tolerability profiles. In the end, patients consider physician recommendations based on the assumption that they are credible and derived from experience and knowledge.

Physician Perceptions of Nature-Based Products

Physicians recommend nature-based products based on several factors. Central to the recommendation is an understanding, through appropriate documentation, that the product will be reasonably efficacious. Critical to this point, physicians must understand what ingredients are in nature-based products, their concentrations or amounts, and why they are present. However, our experience with nature-based products suggests that many of these factors are not met. Limited or unclear information on the efficacy of nature-based products fails to satisfy a physician’s need for adequate information to support recommendations. Although natural ingredients are listed on product labels, their intended benefit and efficacy characteristics often are unclear or poorly stated, in some cases resulting from improper labeling and in other cases due to claim restrictions imposed on cosmetics. In addition, insufficient details on formulation, such as type and percentages of oils, antioxidants, and vitamins, hinder the physician’s ability to identify and explain mechanisms that bring benefit to the patient. Universal benchmarks do not exist for amounts or concentrations of ingredients that are required for a stated benefit.²⁷ Currently, no standards exist for assurances that product quality, control, and efficacy are consistently reproducible. For example, angel dusting is a practice that discloses that an active ingredient is present, yet these ingredients may be present in quantities that are insufficient to provide measurable benefit. Sourcing of ingredients also can be concerning, as they may not always meet manufacturer, physician, or patient expectations for characterization or efficacy.^28,29 Dry testing, which is when a manufacturer contracts a laboratory to certify their ingredients without performing assays, has been increasingly reported in lay and botanical literature over the last few years.³⁰

It is unknown if many nature-based products clinically exhibit their stated efficacy. Empirical evidence or well-conducted clinical studies on which to base recommendations of these products are limited. Individual natural ingredients, however, do have some supporting evidence of efficacy: shea butter moisturizes³¹; coconut oil exhibits anti-inflammatory properties^32,33; and vinegar, yogurt, and diluted tea tree oil exhibit antibacterial properties in postprocedure care and fungal infections, and as adjuvants to prescription antibiotics in atopic dermatitis, acne, and rosacea.^34-41 Honey also has been shown to improve wound healing and is even available as a medical device for wounds.^42,43 Although nature-based products are an interesting alternative to synthetic products, they require a fulsome understanding of characteristics and efficacy properties to support physician recommendations.

Physician Recommendations

Physicians must be educated to understand when and how to recommend nature-based products. Although we recommend increased product information to guide physicians, current laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, are satisfactory from a regulatory standpoint.⁴⁴ Here, we discuss the information physicians could use to support an informed recommendation of nature-based products.

A clear specific explanation of natural ingredient sources, their intended efficacy, and rigorous scientific clinical evidence supporting their use should be given. Manufacturers are needed to document and report the structure and function of natural ingredients, leading to a common understanding by practicing dermatologists.⁴⁵ For this reason, manufacturers must provide nonambiguous and standardized methods and measures to demonstrate the mechanism of ingredient efficacy and the limits of safety and tolerability.

We recommend that manufacturers provide standardized transparency into the composition of nature-based formulations, including amounts and concentrations of ingredients; geographic sources; parts of plants used; and if extracted, what agent(s) this standard is based on (eg, hypericin in Saint-John’s-wort or kavalactones in kava kava). Most natural products contain an aqueous phase and therefore will likely require preservatives such as synthetic parabens or alcohols to avoid degradation. Unnecessary ingredients, including fragrances, fillers, and support chemicals, should be absent since inert agents may exhibit biologic effects, obscuring the boundary between active and inert. A clear explanation of the origins of these nature-based ingredients and the concentration, purity, and activity assessment should be provided. In the context of an authoritative review with standardized measures, labels that provide the common name, plant name, part used, how it was obtained, concentrations and/or amounts, and standardized activity measures can be helpful to the recommending physician, who will then know the efficacy patients should expect from the ingredients. They also can assess the expected tolerability based on the concentrations and their own experience managing a particular disorder, tempered by the patient’s experiences with prior therapies. Transparent and standardized labeling describing the formulation, quantities of ingredients, and intended activity will help inform expectations of efficacy.

We recommend clear preclinical and clinical demonstrations of the efficacy and benefits that are claimed by nature-based formulations. Properly designed placebo- or active-controlled, blinded, randomized studies with standardized measures and end points are recommended to determine efficacy and safety. These demonstrations of efficacy can provide physicians with credible evidence on which to base their recommendations and guide the use of products for the patient’s best experience. Given sufficient involvement from manufacturers and publication of the information in peer-reviewed journals, the relative benefits for each nature-based product can be cataloged as a resource for physicians.

Conclusion

Patients turn to nature-based products for many reasons. They have high expectations but also harbor concerns as to the efficacy of these products for skin and health care. Physicians seek to recommend nature-based products for these patients but often find themselves disadvantaged by limited published evidence and insufficient labeling information on composition and efficacy, which should support recommendations for use. To remedy this situation, we suggest research to allow a clear explanation of the activity of natural ingredients, clear demonstrations of the efficacy of nature-based formulas using clinical standardized measures and end points, and clear education and disclosure of ingredients contained within nature-based products.



Acknowledgments—Burt’s Bees (Durham, North Carolina) provided funding for editorial support by Medical Dynamics, Inc (New York, New York).

Patients seek healthy skin that conveys overall health and well-being. Cosmeceuticals claim to therapeutically affect the structure and function of the skin, and it is rational to hold them to scientific standards that substantiate efficacy claims.¹ Notably, it is increasingly important to consider nature-based products in helping patients and consumers to achieve healthier skin. Despite the availability of sophisticated efficacy testing, explanations of the underlying physiologic and pharmacologic principles of nature-based products lag behind those of conventional formulations. In many instances, simple form and function information cannot adequately support their desired use and expected benefits. In addition, cosmetic regulations do not even permit structure-function claims that are allowed for dietary supplements.

Physicians whose patients want recommendations for nature-based products often do not know where to turn for definitive product and use information. Unlike prescription medications or even beauty-from-within dietary supplement products, natural cosmetics and cosmeceuticals are barred from communicating scientific evidence and experience of use to form proper opinions for recommendations. Without the benefit of full product labeling, physicians are left to mine sparse, confusing, and often contradictory literature in an effort to self-educate. Here, we share our experiences with patients, our operating knowledge base, and our recommendations for investigation to improve the available information and ensure practicing physicians have the information they need to appropriately recommend nature-based products.

General Observations Pertaining to Patients and Nature-Based Products

Ethnic and cultural customs and traditions have accepted and employed nature-based products for skin health for millennia (eTables 1–3).^2-20 African and the derived Caribbean cultures frequently use shea butter, black soap, or coconut oil. East Asian ethnobotanical practices include the use of ginseng, green tea, almond, and angelica root in skin care. Indian culture employs Ayurvedic medicine principles that include herbal remedies comprised of ground chickpeas, rice, turmeric, neem, ashwagandha, moringa, and kutki. These cultural traditions continue into modern times, and patients regularly use these products. Modern social trends that focus on a healthy lifestyle also create demand for nature-based products for skin health. In our opinion, the current growing interest in nature-based products implies continued growth in their use as patients become more familiar and comfortable with them.

For beauty and skin health, a new trend has evolved in which the first source of advice is rarely a dermatologist. Social media, nonphysician influencers, and pseudoscience have created an authority previously reserved for dermatologists among patients and consumers. Bloggers and social media influencers, posting their individual real-world experiences, shape the perceptions of consumers and patients.^21,22 Nonphysician influencers leverage their celebrity to provide guidance and advice on beauty and cosmetic tips.²³ Much of the evidence supporting cosmetic and especially nature-based products for skin care and health often is believed to be less rigorous and of lower quality than that typically supporting physician recommendations.^24-26

Nature-Based Products in Skin Health and Dermatologic Conditions

Patients turn to nature-based products for skin care and health for many reasons. The simplest reason is that they grew up with such products and continue their use. Many patients find nature-based products themselves, have favorable experiences, and seek advice on their efficacy and safety for continued use. Patients also use these products as part of a holistic approach to health in which diet and exercise coincide with the idea of ministering to the whole self instead of preventing or treating an illness. These nature-based treatment options fit their natural lifestyles. Patients sometimes express concerns about synthetic products that lead them to seek out nature-based products. Chemicals and preservatives (eg, parabens, sunscreens, nanoparticles) may evoke concerns about negative health consequences, which can be a cause of great anxiety to patients.

Nature-based products, when recommended by physicians, can fulfill important roles. As healthier alternatives, they can address health concerns in the belief that plant-based ingredients may be more compatible with overall health than synthetic ingredients. This compatibility may have resulted from the human species coevolving with plant species containing therapeutic utility, leading to the development of specific receptors for many natural products, such as digoxin from foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), opioids from poppies (Papaver somniferum), and cannabinoids (Cannabis sativa and hybrids). Natural products can become alternatives to synthetic products or adjuncts to prescription medications. Often, inclusion of nature-based products into a treatment plan enables patients to feel that they are a more integral part of the care team treating their conditions. By virtue of physician recommendations, patients may have expectations on product efficacy being as robust as prescription products with the safety profile of plant-based products. Patients should be advised to accept a realistic view of the efficacy and tolerability profiles. In the end, patients consider physician recommendations based on the assumption that they are credible and derived from experience and knowledge.

Physician Perceptions of Nature-Based Products

Physicians recommend nature-based products based on several factors. Central to the recommendation is an understanding, through appropriate documentation, that the product will be reasonably efficacious. Critical to this point, physicians must understand what ingredients are in nature-based products, their concentrations or amounts, and why they are present. However, our experience with nature-based products suggests that many of these factors are not met. Limited or unclear information on the efficacy of nature-based products fails to satisfy a physician’s need for adequate information to support recommendations. Although natural ingredients are listed on product labels, their intended benefit and efficacy characteristics often are unclear or poorly stated, in some cases resulting from improper labeling and in other cases due to claim restrictions imposed on cosmetics. In addition, insufficient details on formulation, such as type and percentages of oils, antioxidants, and vitamins, hinder the physician’s ability to identify and explain mechanisms that bring benefit to the patient. Universal benchmarks do not exist for amounts or concentrations of ingredients that are required for a stated benefit.²⁷ Currently, no standards exist for assurances that product quality, control, and efficacy are consistently reproducible. For example, angel dusting is a practice that discloses that an active ingredient is present, yet these ingredients may be present in quantities that are insufficient to provide measurable benefit. Sourcing of ingredients also can be concerning, as they may not always meet manufacturer, physician, or patient expectations for characterization or efficacy.^28,29 Dry testing, which is when a manufacturer contracts a laboratory to certify their ingredients without performing assays, has been increasingly reported in lay and botanical literature over the last few years.³⁰

It is unknown if many nature-based products clinically exhibit their stated efficacy. Empirical evidence or well-conducted clinical studies on which to base recommendations of these products are limited. Individual natural ingredients, however, do have some supporting evidence of efficacy: shea butter moisturizes³¹; coconut oil exhibits anti-inflammatory properties^32,33; and vinegar, yogurt, and diluted tea tree oil exhibit antibacterial properties in postprocedure care and fungal infections, and as adjuvants to prescription antibiotics in atopic dermatitis, acne, and rosacea.^34-41 Honey also has been shown to improve wound healing and is even available as a medical device for wounds.^42,43 Although nature-based products are an interesting alternative to synthetic products, they require a fulsome understanding of characteristics and efficacy properties to support physician recommendations.

Physician Recommendations

Physicians must be educated to understand when and how to recommend nature-based products. Although we recommend increased product information to guide physicians, current laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, are satisfactory from a regulatory standpoint.⁴⁴ Here, we discuss the information physicians could use to support an informed recommendation of nature-based products.

A clear specific explanation of natural ingredient sources, their intended efficacy, and rigorous scientific clinical evidence supporting their use should be given. Manufacturers are needed to document and report the structure and function of natural ingredients, leading to a common understanding by practicing dermatologists.⁴⁵ For this reason, manufacturers must provide nonambiguous and standardized methods and measures to demonstrate the mechanism of ingredient efficacy and the limits of safety and tolerability.

We recommend that manufacturers provide standardized transparency into the composition of nature-based formulations, including amounts and concentrations of ingredients; geographic sources; parts of plants used; and if extracted, what agent(s) this standard is based on (eg, hypericin in Saint-John’s-wort or kavalactones in kava kava). Most natural products contain an aqueous phase and therefore will likely require preservatives such as synthetic parabens or alcohols to avoid degradation. Unnecessary ingredients, including fragrances, fillers, and support chemicals, should be absent since inert agents may exhibit biologic effects, obscuring the boundary between active and inert. A clear explanation of the origins of these nature-based ingredients and the concentration, purity, and activity assessment should be provided. In the context of an authoritative review with standardized measures, labels that provide the common name, plant name, part used, how it was obtained, concentrations and/or amounts, and standardized activity measures can be helpful to the recommending physician, who will then know the efficacy patients should expect from the ingredients. They also can assess the expected tolerability based on the concentrations and their own experience managing a particular disorder, tempered by the patient’s experiences with prior therapies. Transparent and standardized labeling describing the formulation, quantities of ingredients, and intended activity will help inform expectations of efficacy.

We recommend clear preclinical and clinical demonstrations of the efficacy and benefits that are claimed by nature-based formulations. Properly designed placebo- or active-controlled, blinded, randomized studies with standardized measures and end points are recommended to determine efficacy and safety. These demonstrations of efficacy can provide physicians with credible evidence on which to base their recommendations and guide the use of products for the patient’s best experience. Given sufficient involvement from manufacturers and publication of the information in peer-reviewed journals, the relative benefits for each nature-based product can be cataloged as a resource for physicians.

Conclusion

Patients turn to nature-based products for many reasons. They have high expectations but also harbor concerns as to the efficacy of these products for skin and health care. Physicians seek to recommend nature-based products for these patients but often find themselves disadvantaged by limited published evidence and insufficient labeling information on composition and efficacy, which should support recommendations for use. To remedy this situation, we suggest research to allow a clear explanation of the activity of natural ingredients, clear demonstrations of the efficacy of nature-based formulas using clinical standardized measures and end points, and clear education and disclosure of ingredients contained within nature-based products.



Acknowledgments—Burt’s Bees (Durham, North Carolina) provided funding for editorial support by Medical Dynamics, Inc (New York, New York).

Patients seek healthy skin that conveys overall health and well-being. Cosmeceuticals claim to therapeutically affect the structure and function of the skin, and it is rational to hold them to scientific standards that substantiate efficacy claims.¹ Notably, it is increasingly important to consider nature-based products in helping patients and consumers to achieve healthier skin. Despite the availability of sophisticated efficacy testing, explanations of the underlying physiologic and pharmacologic principles of nature-based products lag behind those of conventional formulations. In many instances, simple form and function information cannot adequately support their desired use and expected benefits. In addition, cosmetic regulations do not even permit structure-function claims that are allowed for dietary supplements.

Physicians whose patients want recommendations for nature-based products often do not know where to turn for definitive product and use information. Unlike prescription medications or even beauty-from-within dietary supplement products, natural cosmetics and cosmeceuticals are barred from communicating scientific evidence and experience of use to form proper opinions for recommendations. Without the benefit of full product labeling, physicians are left to mine sparse, confusing, and often contradictory literature in an effort to self-educate. Here, we share our experiences with patients, our operating knowledge base, and our recommendations for investigation to improve the available information and ensure practicing physicians have the information they need to appropriately recommend nature-based products.

General Observations Pertaining to Patients and Nature-Based Products

Ethnic and cultural customs and traditions have accepted and employed nature-based products for skin health for millennia (eTables 1–3).^2-20 African and the derived Caribbean cultures frequently use shea butter, black soap, or coconut oil. East Asian ethnobotanical practices include the use of ginseng, green tea, almond, and angelica root in skin care. Indian culture employs Ayurvedic medicine principles that include herbal remedies comprised of ground chickpeas, rice, turmeric, neem, ashwagandha, moringa, and kutki. These cultural traditions continue into modern times, and patients regularly use these products. Modern social trends that focus on a healthy lifestyle also create demand for nature-based products for skin health. In our opinion, the current growing interest in nature-based products implies continued growth in their use as patients become more familiar and comfortable with them.

For beauty and skin health, a new trend has evolved in which the first source of advice is rarely a dermatologist. Social media, nonphysician influencers, and pseudoscience have created an authority previously reserved for dermatologists among patients and consumers. Bloggers and social media influencers, posting their individual real-world experiences, shape the perceptions of consumers and patients.^21,22 Nonphysician influencers leverage their celebrity to provide guidance and advice on beauty and cosmetic tips.²³ Much of the evidence supporting cosmetic and especially nature-based products for skin care and health often is believed to be less rigorous and of lower quality than that typically supporting physician recommendations.^24-26

Nature-Based Products in Skin Health and Dermatologic Conditions

Patients turn to nature-based products for skin care and health for many reasons. The simplest reason is that they grew up with such products and continue their use. Many patients find nature-based products themselves, have favorable experiences, and seek advice on their efficacy and safety for continued use. Patients also use these products as part of a holistic approach to health in which diet and exercise coincide with the idea of ministering to the whole self instead of preventing or treating an illness. These nature-based treatment options fit their natural lifestyles. Patients sometimes express concerns about synthetic products that lead them to seek out nature-based products. Chemicals and preservatives (eg, parabens, sunscreens, nanoparticles) may evoke concerns about negative health consequences, which can be a cause of great anxiety to patients.

Nature-based products, when recommended by physicians, can fulfill important roles. As healthier alternatives, they can address health concerns in the belief that plant-based ingredients may be more compatible with overall health than synthetic ingredients. This compatibility may have resulted from the human species coevolving with plant species containing therapeutic utility, leading to the development of specific receptors for many natural products, such as digoxin from foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), opioids from poppies (Papaver somniferum), and cannabinoids (Cannabis sativa and hybrids). Natural products can become alternatives to synthetic products or adjuncts to prescription medications. Often, inclusion of nature-based products into a treatment plan enables patients to feel that they are a more integral part of the care team treating their conditions. By virtue of physician recommendations, patients may have expectations on product efficacy being as robust as prescription products with the safety profile of plant-based products. Patients should be advised to accept a realistic view of the efficacy and tolerability profiles. In the end, patients consider physician recommendations based on the assumption that they are credible and derived from experience and knowledge.

Physician Perceptions of Nature-Based Products

Physicians recommend nature-based products based on several factors. Central to the recommendation is an understanding, through appropriate documentation, that the product will be reasonably efficacious. Critical to this point, physicians must understand what ingredients are in nature-based products, their concentrations or amounts, and why they are present. However, our experience with nature-based products suggests that many of these factors are not met. Limited or unclear information on the efficacy of nature-based products fails to satisfy a physician’s need for adequate information to support recommendations. Although natural ingredients are listed on product labels, their intended benefit and efficacy characteristics often are unclear or poorly stated, in some cases resulting from improper labeling and in other cases due to claim restrictions imposed on cosmetics. In addition, insufficient details on formulation, such as type and percentages of oils, antioxidants, and vitamins, hinder the physician’s ability to identify and explain mechanisms that bring benefit to the patient. Universal benchmarks do not exist for amounts or concentrations of ingredients that are required for a stated benefit.²⁷ Currently, no standards exist for assurances that product quality, control, and efficacy are consistently reproducible. For example, angel dusting is a practice that discloses that an active ingredient is present, yet these ingredients may be present in quantities that are insufficient to provide measurable benefit. Sourcing of ingredients also can be concerning, as they may not always meet manufacturer, physician, or patient expectations for characterization or efficacy.^28,29 Dry testing, which is when a manufacturer contracts a laboratory to certify their ingredients without performing assays, has been increasingly reported in lay and botanical literature over the last few years.³⁰

It is unknown if many nature-based products clinically exhibit their stated efficacy. Empirical evidence or well-conducted clinical studies on which to base recommendations of these products are limited. Individual natural ingredients, however, do have some supporting evidence of efficacy: shea butter moisturizes³¹; coconut oil exhibits anti-inflammatory properties^32,33; and vinegar, yogurt, and diluted tea tree oil exhibit antibacterial properties in postprocedure care and fungal infections, and as adjuvants to prescription antibiotics in atopic dermatitis, acne, and rosacea.^34-41 Honey also has been shown to improve wound healing and is even available as a medical device for wounds.^42,43 Although nature-based products are an interesting alternative to synthetic products, they require a fulsome understanding of characteristics and efficacy properties to support physician recommendations.

Physician Recommendations

Physicians must be educated to understand when and how to recommend nature-based products. Although we recommend increased product information to guide physicians, current laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, are satisfactory from a regulatory standpoint.⁴⁴ Here, we discuss the information physicians could use to support an informed recommendation of nature-based products.

A clear specific explanation of natural ingredient sources, their intended efficacy, and rigorous scientific clinical evidence supporting their use should be given. Manufacturers are needed to document and report the structure and function of natural ingredients, leading to a common understanding by practicing dermatologists.⁴⁵ For this reason, manufacturers must provide nonambiguous and standardized methods and measures to demonstrate the mechanism of ingredient efficacy and the limits of safety and tolerability.

We recommend that manufacturers provide standardized transparency into the composition of nature-based formulations, including amounts and concentrations of ingredients; geographic sources; parts of plants used; and if extracted, what agent(s) this standard is based on (eg, hypericin in Saint-John’s-wort or kavalactones in kava kava). Most natural products contain an aqueous phase and therefore will likely require preservatives such as synthetic parabens or alcohols to avoid degradation. Unnecessary ingredients, including fragrances, fillers, and support chemicals, should be absent since inert agents may exhibit biologic effects, obscuring the boundary between active and inert. A clear explanation of the origins of these nature-based ingredients and the concentration, purity, and activity assessment should be provided. In the context of an authoritative review with standardized measures, labels that provide the common name, plant name, part used, how it was obtained, concentrations and/or amounts, and standardized activity measures can be helpful to the recommending physician, who will then know the efficacy patients should expect from the ingredients. They also can assess the expected tolerability based on the concentrations and their own experience managing a particular disorder, tempered by the patient’s experiences with prior therapies. Transparent and standardized labeling describing the formulation, quantities of ingredients, and intended activity will help inform expectations of efficacy.

We recommend clear preclinical and clinical demonstrations of the efficacy and benefits that are claimed by nature-based formulations. Properly designed placebo- or active-controlled, blinded, randomized studies with standardized measures and end points are recommended to determine efficacy and safety. These demonstrations of efficacy can provide physicians with credible evidence on which to base their recommendations and guide the use of products for the patient’s best experience. Given sufficient involvement from manufacturers and publication of the information in peer-reviewed journals, the relative benefits for each nature-based product can be cataloged as a resource for physicians.

Conclusion

Patients turn to nature-based products for many reasons. They have high expectations but also harbor concerns as to the efficacy of these products for skin and health care. Physicians seek to recommend nature-based products for these patients but often find themselves disadvantaged by limited published evidence and insufficient labeling information on composition and efficacy, which should support recommendations for use. To remedy this situation, we suggest research to allow a clear explanation of the activity of natural ingredients, clear demonstrations of the efficacy of nature-based formulas using clinical standardized measures and end points, and clear education and disclosure of ingredients contained within nature-based products.



Acknowledgments—Burt’s Bees (Durham, North Carolina) provided funding for editorial support by Medical Dynamics, Inc (New York, New York).

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented with multiple large friable tumors of the abdominal panniculus. The patient also reported an unintentional 75-lb weight loss over the last 9 months as well as vaginal bleeding and fecal discharge from the vagina of 2 weeks’ duration. The patient had a surgical and medical history of a robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed 4 years prior to presentation. Final surgical pathology showed complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia with no adenocarcinoma identified.

Physical examination revealed multiple large, friable, exophytic tumors of the left side of the lower abdominal panniculus within close vicinity of the patient’s abdominal hysterectomy scars (Figure 1). The largest lesion measured approximately 6 cm in length. Laboratory values were elevated for carcinoembryonic antigen (5.9 ng/mL [reference range, <3.0 ng/mL]) and cancer antigen 125 (202 U/mL [reference range, <35 U/mL]). Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed diffuse metastatic disease.

Comment

Incidence and Pathogenesis
Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, but it rarely progresses to disseminated disease because of routine gynecologic examinations and the low threshold for surgical intervention. Cutaneous metastases represent one of the rarest presentations of disseminated disease, occurring in only 0.8% of those diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma.¹ Cutaneous metastases occur almost exclusively in women older than 50 years and typically appear several months to years after hysterectomy. Although the exact pathogenesis is unknown, it is theorized that small foci of malignant cells may be seeded during surgery, leading to visceral and cutaneous involvement.

Clinical Presentation
Lesions vary morphologically, most commonly presenting as nonspecific, painless, hemorrhagic nodules. Lesions typically present in areas of direct local extension; prior radiotherapy; or areas of initial surgery, as was the case with our patient.² Approximately 20 cases of umbilical involvement (Sister Mary Joseph nodule) have been reported in the literature. These cases are thought to occur from direct local spread of disease from the peritoneum.³ Hematogenous and lymphatic spread to distant sites such as the scalp and mandible also have been reported. More than 50% of patients will have underlying visceral metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis.³

Histopathologic Findings
Histopathology varies with the morphology of the underlying primary tumor, with endometrioid adenocarcinoma being the most common form associated with cutaneous metastasis, as was the case with our patient.⁴ Histology is characterized by dermal proliferation of atypical glandular epithelium with diffuse hemorrhage. Staining typically is positive for CK7 and negative for CK20 and CDX2.⁵ Histopathology and immunohistochemical staining are not specific for diagnosis and must be correlated with clinical history.

Management and Prognosis
Similar to cutaneous metastasis in other internal malignancies, prognosis is poor, as widespread dissemination of the underlying malignancy typically is present. Mean life expectancy is 4 to 12 months.⁶ Treatment is primarily palliative, as chemotherapy and radiotherapy are largely ineffective.

Conclusion

Our patient represents a dramatic form of cutaneous extension of a common disease. Dermatologists often are consulted because of the nonspecific nature of the lesions and must be conscious of this entity. As with other cutaneous metastases, a thorough medical and surgical history in conjunction with histopathology are necessary for an accurate diagnosis.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented with multiple large friable tumors of the abdominal panniculus. The patient also reported an unintentional 75-lb weight loss over the last 9 months as well as vaginal bleeding and fecal discharge from the vagina of 2 weeks’ duration. The patient had a surgical and medical history of a robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed 4 years prior to presentation. Final surgical pathology showed complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia with no adenocarcinoma identified.

Physical examination revealed multiple large, friable, exophytic tumors of the left side of the lower abdominal panniculus within close vicinity of the patient’s abdominal hysterectomy scars (Figure 1). The largest lesion measured approximately 6 cm in length. Laboratory values were elevated for carcinoembryonic antigen (5.9 ng/mL [reference range, <3.0 ng/mL]) and cancer antigen 125 (202 U/mL [reference range, <35 U/mL]). Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed diffuse metastatic disease.

Comment

Incidence and Pathogenesis
Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, but it rarely progresses to disseminated disease because of routine gynecologic examinations and the low threshold for surgical intervention. Cutaneous metastases represent one of the rarest presentations of disseminated disease, occurring in only 0.8% of those diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma.¹ Cutaneous metastases occur almost exclusively in women older than 50 years and typically appear several months to years after hysterectomy. Although the exact pathogenesis is unknown, it is theorized that small foci of malignant cells may be seeded during surgery, leading to visceral and cutaneous involvement.

Clinical Presentation
Lesions vary morphologically, most commonly presenting as nonspecific, painless, hemorrhagic nodules. Lesions typically present in areas of direct local extension; prior radiotherapy; or areas of initial surgery, as was the case with our patient.² Approximately 20 cases of umbilical involvement (Sister Mary Joseph nodule) have been reported in the literature. These cases are thought to occur from direct local spread of disease from the peritoneum.³ Hematogenous and lymphatic spread to distant sites such as the scalp and mandible also have been reported. More than 50% of patients will have underlying visceral metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis.³

Histopathologic Findings
Histopathology varies with the morphology of the underlying primary tumor, with endometrioid adenocarcinoma being the most common form associated with cutaneous metastasis, as was the case with our patient.⁴ Histology is characterized by dermal proliferation of atypical glandular epithelium with diffuse hemorrhage. Staining typically is positive for CK7 and negative for CK20 and CDX2.⁵ Histopathology and immunohistochemical staining are not specific for diagnosis and must be correlated with clinical history.

Management and Prognosis
Similar to cutaneous metastasis in other internal malignancies, prognosis is poor, as widespread dissemination of the underlying malignancy typically is present. Mean life expectancy is 4 to 12 months.⁶ Treatment is primarily palliative, as chemotherapy and radiotherapy are largely ineffective.

Conclusion

Our patient represents a dramatic form of cutaneous extension of a common disease. Dermatologists often are consulted because of the nonspecific nature of the lesions and must be conscious of this entity. As with other cutaneous metastases, a thorough medical and surgical history in conjunction with histopathology are necessary for an accurate diagnosis.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented with multiple large friable tumors of the abdominal panniculus. The patient also reported an unintentional 75-lb weight loss over the last 9 months as well as vaginal bleeding and fecal discharge from the vagina of 2 weeks’ duration. The patient had a surgical and medical history of a robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed 4 years prior to presentation. Final surgical pathology showed complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia with no adenocarcinoma identified.

Physical examination revealed multiple large, friable, exophytic tumors of the left side of the lower abdominal panniculus within close vicinity of the patient’s abdominal hysterectomy scars (Figure 1). The largest lesion measured approximately 6 cm in length. Laboratory values were elevated for carcinoembryonic antigen (5.9 ng/mL [reference range, <3.0 ng/mL]) and cancer antigen 125 (202 U/mL [reference range, <35 U/mL]). Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed diffuse metastatic disease.

Comment

Incidence and Pathogenesis
Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, but it rarely progresses to disseminated disease because of routine gynecologic examinations and the low threshold for surgical intervention. Cutaneous metastases represent one of the rarest presentations of disseminated disease, occurring in only 0.8% of those diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma.¹ Cutaneous metastases occur almost exclusively in women older than 50 years and typically appear several months to years after hysterectomy. Although the exact pathogenesis is unknown, it is theorized that small foci of malignant cells may be seeded during surgery, leading to visceral and cutaneous involvement.

Clinical Presentation
Lesions vary morphologically, most commonly presenting as nonspecific, painless, hemorrhagic nodules. Lesions typically present in areas of direct local extension; prior radiotherapy; or areas of initial surgery, as was the case with our patient.² Approximately 20 cases of umbilical involvement (Sister Mary Joseph nodule) have been reported in the literature. These cases are thought to occur from direct local spread of disease from the peritoneum.³ Hematogenous and lymphatic spread to distant sites such as the scalp and mandible also have been reported. More than 50% of patients will have underlying visceral metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis.³

Histopathologic Findings
Histopathology varies with the morphology of the underlying primary tumor, with endometrioid adenocarcinoma being the most common form associated with cutaneous metastasis, as was the case with our patient.⁴ Histology is characterized by dermal proliferation of atypical glandular epithelium with diffuse hemorrhage. Staining typically is positive for CK7 and negative for CK20 and CDX2.⁵ Histopathology and immunohistochemical staining are not specific for diagnosis and must be correlated with clinical history.

Management and Prognosis
Similar to cutaneous metastasis in other internal malignancies, prognosis is poor, as widespread dissemination of the underlying malignancy typically is present. Mean life expectancy is 4 to 12 months.⁶ Treatment is primarily palliative, as chemotherapy and radiotherapy are largely ineffective.

Conclusion

Our patient represents a dramatic form of cutaneous extension of a common disease. Dermatologists often are consulted because of the nonspecific nature of the lesions and must be conscious of this entity. As with other cutaneous metastases, a thorough medical and surgical history in conjunction with histopathology are necessary for an accurate diagnosis.

Patients frequently present to dermatologists with nail disorders as their chief concern. Alternatively, nail conditions may be encountered by the examining physician as an incidental finding that may be a clue to underlying systemic disease. Competence in the diagnosis and treatment of nail diseases can drastically improve patient quality of life and can be lifesaving,¹ but many dermatologists find management of nail diseases challenging.² Bridging this educational gap begins with dermatology resident and medical student education. In a collaboration with dermatology educators, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) prepared a free online core curriculum for medical students that covers the essential concepts of dermatology. We sought to determine the integration of nail education in the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum was conducted to determine nail disease content. The curriculum modules were downloaded in June 2018,³ and mentions of nails were recorded and evaluated for overall quantities and relevant content. References to nail procedures and diagnostic techniques including nail biopsies, fungal cultures, microscopy on nail scrapings, nail clippings, and nail-related cancers also were assessed in the analysis.

Results

Of 342 patients discussed in cases and quizzes, nails were mentioned for 19 patients (89 times total)(Table 1). Additionally, there were 2 mentions each of nail clippings and nail tumors, 0 mentions of nail biopsies, and 1 mention each of fungal cultures and microscopy on nail scrapings (Table 1). Of the 40 modules, nails were mentioned in 12 modules (Table 2) and 6 introductions to the modules (Table 1). There were no mentions of the terms nails, subungual, or onychomycosis in the learning objectives.³

Comment

Our study demonstrates a paucity of content relevant to nails in the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum. Medical students are missing an important opportunity to learn about diagnosis and management of nail conditions and may incorrectly conclude that nail expertise is not essential to becoming a competent board-certified dermatologist.

Particularly concerning is the exclusion of nail examinations in the skin exam module addressing full-body skin examinations (0 mentions in 31 slides). This curriculum may negatively influence medical students and may then follow at the resident level, with a study reporting that 50.3% (69/137) of residents examine nails only when the patient brings it to their attention.⁴

Most concerning was the inadequate coverage of nail unit melanoma in the melanoma module (1 mention in 53 slides). Furthermore, the ABCDE—asymmetry, border, color, diameter, and evolving—mnemonic for cutaneous melanoma was covered in 6 slides in this module, and the ABCDEF—family history added—mnemonic for nail unit melanoma was completely excluded. Not surprisingly, resident knowledge of melanonychia diagnosis is deficient, with a prior study demonstrating that 62% (88/142) of residents were not confident diagnosing and managing patients with melanonychia, and only 88% (125/142) of residents were aware of the nail melanoma mnemonic.⁴

Similarly, nail biopsy for melanonychia diagnosis was excluded from the curriculum, whereas skin biopsy was thoroughly discussed in the context of a cutaneous melanoma diagnosis. This deficient teaching may track to the dermatology resident curriculum, as a survey of third-year dermatology residents (N=240) showed that 58% performed 10 or fewer nail procedures, and one-third of residents felt incompetent in nail surgery.⁵

We acknowledge that the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum is simply an introduction to dermatology. However, given that dermatologists are among the major specialists who care for nail patients, we advocate for more content on nail diseases in this curriculum. Nails can easily be incorporated into existing modules, and a new module specifically dedicated to nail disease should be added. Moreover, we envision that our findings will positively reflect on competence in treating nail disease for dermatology residents.

Patients frequently present to dermatologists with nail disorders as their chief concern. Alternatively, nail conditions may be encountered by the examining physician as an incidental finding that may be a clue to underlying systemic disease. Competence in the diagnosis and treatment of nail diseases can drastically improve patient quality of life and can be lifesaving,¹ but many dermatologists find management of nail diseases challenging.² Bridging this educational gap begins with dermatology resident and medical student education. In a collaboration with dermatology educators, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) prepared a free online core curriculum for medical students that covers the essential concepts of dermatology. We sought to determine the integration of nail education in the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum was conducted to determine nail disease content. The curriculum modules were downloaded in June 2018,³ and mentions of nails were recorded and evaluated for overall quantities and relevant content. References to nail procedures and diagnostic techniques including nail biopsies, fungal cultures, microscopy on nail scrapings, nail clippings, and nail-related cancers also were assessed in the analysis.

Results

Of 342 patients discussed in cases and quizzes, nails were mentioned for 19 patients (89 times total)(Table 1). Additionally, there were 2 mentions each of nail clippings and nail tumors, 0 mentions of nail biopsies, and 1 mention each of fungal cultures and microscopy on nail scrapings (Table 1). Of the 40 modules, nails were mentioned in 12 modules (Table 2) and 6 introductions to the modules (Table 1). There were no mentions of the terms nails, subungual, or onychomycosis in the learning objectives.³

Comment

Our study demonstrates a paucity of content relevant to nails in the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum. Medical students are missing an important opportunity to learn about diagnosis and management of nail conditions and may incorrectly conclude that nail expertise is not essential to becoming a competent board-certified dermatologist.

Particularly concerning is the exclusion of nail examinations in the skin exam module addressing full-body skin examinations (0 mentions in 31 slides). This curriculum may negatively influence medical students and may then follow at the resident level, with a study reporting that 50.3% (69/137) of residents examine nails only when the patient brings it to their attention.⁴

Most concerning was the inadequate coverage of nail unit melanoma in the melanoma module (1 mention in 53 slides). Furthermore, the ABCDE—asymmetry, border, color, diameter, and evolving—mnemonic for cutaneous melanoma was covered in 6 slides in this module, and the ABCDEF—family history added—mnemonic for nail unit melanoma was completely excluded. Not surprisingly, resident knowledge of melanonychia diagnosis is deficient, with a prior study demonstrating that 62% (88/142) of residents were not confident diagnosing and managing patients with melanonychia, and only 88% (125/142) of residents were aware of the nail melanoma mnemonic.⁴

Similarly, nail biopsy for melanonychia diagnosis was excluded from the curriculum, whereas skin biopsy was thoroughly discussed in the context of a cutaneous melanoma diagnosis. This deficient teaching may track to the dermatology resident curriculum, as a survey of third-year dermatology residents (N=240) showed that 58% performed 10 or fewer nail procedures, and one-third of residents felt incompetent in nail surgery.⁵

We acknowledge that the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum is simply an introduction to dermatology. However, given that dermatologists are among the major specialists who care for nail patients, we advocate for more content on nail diseases in this curriculum. Nails can easily be incorporated into existing modules, and a new module specifically dedicated to nail disease should be added. Moreover, we envision that our findings will positively reflect on competence in treating nail disease for dermatology residents.

Patients frequently present to dermatologists with nail disorders as their chief concern. Alternatively, nail conditions may be encountered by the examining physician as an incidental finding that may be a clue to underlying systemic disease. Competence in the diagnosis and treatment of nail diseases can drastically improve patient quality of life and can be lifesaving,¹ but many dermatologists find management of nail diseases challenging.² Bridging this educational gap begins with dermatology resident and medical student education. In a collaboration with dermatology educators, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) prepared a free online core curriculum for medical students that covers the essential concepts of dermatology. We sought to determine the integration of nail education in the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum was conducted to determine nail disease content. The curriculum modules were downloaded in June 2018,³ and mentions of nails were recorded and evaluated for overall quantities and relevant content. References to nail procedures and diagnostic techniques including nail biopsies, fungal cultures, microscopy on nail scrapings, nail clippings, and nail-related cancers also were assessed in the analysis.

Results

Of 342 patients discussed in cases and quizzes, nails were mentioned for 19 patients (89 times total)(Table 1). Additionally, there were 2 mentions each of nail clippings and nail tumors, 0 mentions of nail biopsies, and 1 mention each of fungal cultures and microscopy on nail scrapings (Table 1). Of the 40 modules, nails were mentioned in 12 modules (Table 2) and 6 introductions to the modules (Table 1). There were no mentions of the terms nails, subungual, or onychomycosis in the learning objectives.³

Comment

Our study demonstrates a paucity of content relevant to nails in the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum. Medical students are missing an important opportunity to learn about diagnosis and management of nail conditions and may incorrectly conclude that nail expertise is not essential to becoming a competent board-certified dermatologist.

Particularly concerning is the exclusion of nail examinations in the skin exam module addressing full-body skin examinations (0 mentions in 31 slides). This curriculum may negatively influence medical students and may then follow at the resident level, with a study reporting that 50.3% (69/137) of residents examine nails only when the patient brings it to their attention.⁴

Most concerning was the inadequate coverage of nail unit melanoma in the melanoma module (1 mention in 53 slides). Furthermore, the ABCDE—asymmetry, border, color, diameter, and evolving—mnemonic for cutaneous melanoma was covered in 6 slides in this module, and the ABCDEF—family history added—mnemonic for nail unit melanoma was completely excluded. Not surprisingly, resident knowledge of melanonychia diagnosis is deficient, with a prior study demonstrating that 62% (88/142) of residents were not confident diagnosing and managing patients with melanonychia, and only 88% (125/142) of residents were aware of the nail melanoma mnemonic.⁴

Similarly, nail biopsy for melanonychia diagnosis was excluded from the curriculum, whereas skin biopsy was thoroughly discussed in the context of a cutaneous melanoma diagnosis. This deficient teaching may track to the dermatology resident curriculum, as a survey of third-year dermatology residents (N=240) showed that 58% performed 10 or fewer nail procedures, and one-third of residents felt incompetent in nail surgery.⁵

We acknowledge that the AAD Basic Dermatology Curriculum is simply an introduction to dermatology. However, given that dermatologists are among the major specialists who care for nail patients, we advocate for more content on nail diseases in this curriculum. Nails can easily be incorporated into existing modules, and a new module specifically dedicated to nail disease should be added. Moreover, we envision that our findings will positively reflect on competence in treating nail disease for dermatology residents.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the informative Cutis case report by Krooks and Weatherall¹ in which the authors not only described the case of a 66-year-old man whose diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy–confirmed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) presented concurrently with skin biopsy–confirmed leukemia cutis but also discussed the poor prognosis of individuals with acute myelogenous leukemia cutis. Their patient died within 5 weeks of establishing the diagnosis. In addition, lateral and frontal photographs of the patient’s face demonstrated diffuse infiltrative plaques of leukemia cutis; he had swollen eyelids and lips with distortion of the nose secondary to dermal infiltration of leukemic myeloid cells.¹ Although not emphasized by the authors, the patient appeared to have a leonine facies and at least partial loss of the lateral eyebrows.

Malignancy-associated leonine facies resulting from infiltration of the skin by neoplastic cells has been reported in a patient with metastatic breast carcinoma.^2,3 However, it predominantly occurs in patients with hematologic dyscrasias such as leukemia cutis, lymphoma (ie, cutaneous B cell, cutaneous T cell, Hodgkin), plasmacytoma, and systemic mastocytosis.^3,4 The report by Krooks and Weatherall¹ adds AML-associated leukemia cutis to the previously observed types of leukemia cutis–related leonine facies in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^3,4

Partial or complete loss of eyebrows in the setting of leonine facies has a limited differential diagnosis.^3,5 In addition to cancer, the associated disorders include adnexal mucin deposition (alopecia mucinosis), granulomatous conditions (sarcoidosis), infectious diseases (leprosy), inherited syndromes (Setleis syndrome), photoallergic dermatoses (actinic reticuloid), and viral conditions (viral-associated trichodysplasia).^3-9 Neoplasms associated with leonine facies and eyebrow loss include lymphomas (mycosis fungoides and unspecified cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), systemic mastocytosis and leukemia cutis secondary to acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, and now AML.^1,3-5

The eyebrow loss associated with leonine facies often is not reversible once the causative cell of the associated condition (eg, granulomas of mycobacteria-infected histiocytes in leprosy, neoplastic lymphocytes in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma) has infiltrated the area of the eyebrows and abolished the preexisting hair follicles; however, follow-up descriptions of patients after treatment of other conditions that cause eyebrow loss usually are not reported. Indeed, there was partial reappearance of the eyebrows in a woman with systemic mastocytosis–associated loss of the eyebrows after malignancy-related treatment was reinitiated and the infiltrative facial plaques that had created her leonine facies had decreased in size.⁵ It is reasonable to speculate that the eyebrows may have reappeared in the patient reported by Krooks and Weatherall¹ and his leonine facies–associated facial plaques may have resolved if he had underwent and responded to treatment with antineoplastic chemotherapy.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the informative Cutis case report by Krooks and Weatherall¹ in which the authors not only described the case of a 66-year-old man whose diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy–confirmed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) presented concurrently with skin biopsy–confirmed leukemia cutis but also discussed the poor prognosis of individuals with acute myelogenous leukemia cutis. Their patient died within 5 weeks of establishing the diagnosis. In addition, lateral and frontal photographs of the patient’s face demonstrated diffuse infiltrative plaques of leukemia cutis; he had swollen eyelids and lips with distortion of the nose secondary to dermal infiltration of leukemic myeloid cells.¹ Although not emphasized by the authors, the patient appeared to have a leonine facies and at least partial loss of the lateral eyebrows.

Malignancy-associated leonine facies resulting from infiltration of the skin by neoplastic cells has been reported in a patient with metastatic breast carcinoma.^2,3 However, it predominantly occurs in patients with hematologic dyscrasias such as leukemia cutis, lymphoma (ie, cutaneous B cell, cutaneous T cell, Hodgkin), plasmacytoma, and systemic mastocytosis.^3,4 The report by Krooks and Weatherall¹ adds AML-associated leukemia cutis to the previously observed types of leukemia cutis–related leonine facies in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^3,4

Partial or complete loss of eyebrows in the setting of leonine facies has a limited differential diagnosis.^3,5 In addition to cancer, the associated disorders include adnexal mucin deposition (alopecia mucinosis), granulomatous conditions (sarcoidosis), infectious diseases (leprosy), inherited syndromes (Setleis syndrome), photoallergic dermatoses (actinic reticuloid), and viral conditions (viral-associated trichodysplasia).^3-9 Neoplasms associated with leonine facies and eyebrow loss include lymphomas (mycosis fungoides and unspecified cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), systemic mastocytosis and leukemia cutis secondary to acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, and now AML.^1,3-5

The eyebrow loss associated with leonine facies often is not reversible once the causative cell of the associated condition (eg, granulomas of mycobacteria-infected histiocytes in leprosy, neoplastic lymphocytes in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma) has infiltrated the area of the eyebrows and abolished the preexisting hair follicles; however, follow-up descriptions of patients after treatment of other conditions that cause eyebrow loss usually are not reported. Indeed, there was partial reappearance of the eyebrows in a woman with systemic mastocytosis–associated loss of the eyebrows after malignancy-related treatment was reinitiated and the infiltrative facial plaques that had created her leonine facies had decreased in size.⁵ It is reasonable to speculate that the eyebrows may have reappeared in the patient reported by Krooks and Weatherall¹ and his leonine facies–associated facial plaques may have resolved if he had underwent and responded to treatment with antineoplastic chemotherapy.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the informative Cutis case report by Krooks and Weatherall¹ in which the authors not only described the case of a 66-year-old man whose diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy–confirmed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) presented concurrently with skin biopsy–confirmed leukemia cutis but also discussed the poor prognosis of individuals with acute myelogenous leukemia cutis. Their patient died within 5 weeks of establishing the diagnosis. In addition, lateral and frontal photographs of the patient’s face demonstrated diffuse infiltrative plaques of leukemia cutis; he had swollen eyelids and lips with distortion of the nose secondary to dermal infiltration of leukemic myeloid cells.¹ Although not emphasized by the authors, the patient appeared to have a leonine facies and at least partial loss of the lateral eyebrows.

Malignancy-associated leonine facies resulting from infiltration of the skin by neoplastic cells has been reported in a patient with metastatic breast carcinoma.^2,3 However, it predominantly occurs in patients with hematologic dyscrasias such as leukemia cutis, lymphoma (ie, cutaneous B cell, cutaneous T cell, Hodgkin), plasmacytoma, and systemic mastocytosis.^3,4 The report by Krooks and Weatherall¹ adds AML-associated leukemia cutis to the previously observed types of leukemia cutis–related leonine facies in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.^3,4

Partial or complete loss of eyebrows in the setting of leonine facies has a limited differential diagnosis.^3,5 In addition to cancer, the associated disorders include adnexal mucin deposition (alopecia mucinosis), granulomatous conditions (sarcoidosis), infectious diseases (leprosy), inherited syndromes (Setleis syndrome), photoallergic dermatoses (actinic reticuloid), and viral conditions (viral-associated trichodysplasia).^3-9 Neoplasms associated with leonine facies and eyebrow loss include lymphomas (mycosis fungoides and unspecified cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), systemic mastocytosis and leukemia cutis secondary to acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, and now AML.^1,3-5

The eyebrow loss associated with leonine facies often is not reversible once the causative cell of the associated condition (eg, granulomas of mycobacteria-infected histiocytes in leprosy, neoplastic lymphocytes in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma) has infiltrated the area of the eyebrows and abolished the preexisting hair follicles; however, follow-up descriptions of patients after treatment of other conditions that cause eyebrow loss usually are not reported. Indeed, there was partial reappearance of the eyebrows in a woman with systemic mastocytosis–associated loss of the eyebrows after malignancy-related treatment was reinitiated and the infiltrative facial plaques that had created her leonine facies had decreased in size.⁵ It is reasonable to speculate that the eyebrows may have reappeared in the patient reported by Krooks and Weatherall¹ and his leonine facies–associated facial plaques may have resolved if he had underwent and responded to treatment with antineoplastic chemotherapy.