Cutis

To the Editor:

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune nonscarring hair loss disorder that can present at any age. Patients with AA have a disproportionately high comorbidity burden and low quality of life, often grappling with anxiety, depression, and psychosocial sequelae involving identity, such as reduced self-esteem.^1,2 Although conventional therapies aim to reduce hair loss, none are curative.³ Response to treatment is highly unpredictable, with current data suggesting that up to 50% of patients recover within 1 year while 14% to 25% progress to either alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) or alopecia universalis (total body hair loss).⁴ Options for therapeutic intervention remain limited and vary in safety and effectiveness, warranting further research to identify optimal modalities and minimize side effects. Interestingly, scalp rolling has been used as an adjuvant to topical triamcinolone acetonide.^3,5 However, the extent of its effect in combination with other therapies remains unclear. We report 3 pediatric patients with confirmed AA refractory to conventional topical treatment who experienced remarkable scalp hair regrowth after adding biweekly scalp rolling as an adjuvant therapy.

A 7-year-old boy with AA presented with 95% scalp hair loss of 7 months’ duration (Figure 1A)(patient 1). Prior treatments included mometasone solution and clobetasol solution 0.05%. After 3 months of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth after 13 months of treatment (Figure 1B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

An 11-year-old girl with AA presented with 100% hair loss of 7 months’ duration (Figure 2A)(patient 2). Prior treatments included fluocinonide solution and intralesional Kenalog injections. After 4 months of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth after 13 months of treatment (Figure 2B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

A 16-year-old boy with AA presented with 30% hair loss of 4 years’ duration (Figure 3A)(patient 3). Prior treatments included squaric acid and intralesional Kenalog injections. After 2 years of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth at 17 months (Figure 3B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

Scalp rolling—also known as microneedling—provides a multifactorial approach to hair regrowth in patients with AA. The mechanism of action involves both the hair cycle and wound repair pathways by stimulation of the dermal papillae and stem cells.⁶ Scalp rolling has been observed to induce the expression of several hair growth pathway mediators, such as WNT3A, β-catenin, vascular endothelial growth factor, and WNT10B.⁷ Wnt/β-catenin pathway signaling is integral to multiple aspects of the hair regrowth process, including hair morphogenesis, follicle regeneration, and growth of the shaft itself.^8,9 Scalp rolling causes microinjuries to the skin, thereby diverting blood supply to the follicles and stimulating wound regeneration, a process suggested to induce follicle regeneration. This effect is due to increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor after cutaneous injury, a mediator of both hair growth and cycling as well as wound repair.⁷ Adjuvant scalp rolling creates a synergistic effect by facilitating absorption of topical and intralesional therapies. The physical breakdown of dermal capillary barriers creates microchannels that traverse the stratum corneum, improving the permeability of small-molecule substances and allowing for relatively painless and uniform delivery of combination therapies. A secondary benefit is hypertrophy, which counteracts the atrophy caused by topical steroids via collagen induction.⁷

Additionally, scalp rolling confers minimal risk to the patient, making it safer than conventional pharmacologic therapies such as corticosteroids or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Although intralesional steroid injections are first-line treatments for limited disease, they can cause pain and skin atrophy.¹⁰ In one cohort of 54 patients, topical steroids were inferior to both oral and intralesional treatment, and oral steroids carried a systemic side-effect profile and worsening of comorbidities including hyperglycemia and hypertension as well as negative effects on bone density.¹¹ Baricitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was the first systemic treatment to gain US Food and Drug Administration approval for severe AA.¹² However, this novel therapeutic confers adverse effects including infection, acne, and hypercholesterolemia, as reported in the BRAVE-AA trials.¹³ More broadly, the US Food and Drug Administration warns of serious long-term risks such as cardiovascular events and malignancy.¹⁴ Given the tremendous potential of JAK inhibitors, further research is warranted to understand both the efficacy of topical formulations as well as the possible role of scalp rolling as its adjuvant.

Finally, scalp rolling is easily accessible and affordable to patients. Scalp rolling devices are readily available and affordable online, and they can be used autonomously at home. This pragmatic option allows patients to take control of their own treatment course and offers a financially feasible alternative to navigating insurance coverage as well as the need for extra office visits for medication refills and monitoring.

We report 3 cases of the use of scalp rolling as an adjuvant to conventional therapy for refractory AA in young patients. Although prospective research is required to establish causality and characterize age-related trends in treatment response, consideration of scalp rolling as an adjuvant to conventional therapy may help to optimize treatment regimens. Given its low risk for side effects and potential benefits, we recommend scalp rolling for patients with refractory AA.

To the Editor:

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune nonscarring hair loss disorder that can present at any age. Patients with AA have a disproportionately high comorbidity burden and low quality of life, often grappling with anxiety, depression, and psychosocial sequelae involving identity, such as reduced self-esteem.^1,2 Although conventional therapies aim to reduce hair loss, none are curative.³ Response to treatment is highly unpredictable, with current data suggesting that up to 50% of patients recover within 1 year while 14% to 25% progress to either alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) or alopecia universalis (total body hair loss).⁴ Options for therapeutic intervention remain limited and vary in safety and effectiveness, warranting further research to identify optimal modalities and minimize side effects. Interestingly, scalp rolling has been used as an adjuvant to topical triamcinolone acetonide.^3,5 However, the extent of its effect in combination with other therapies remains unclear. We report 3 pediatric patients with confirmed AA refractory to conventional topical treatment who experienced remarkable scalp hair regrowth after adding biweekly scalp rolling as an adjuvant therapy.

A 7-year-old boy with AA presented with 95% scalp hair loss of 7 months’ duration (Figure 1A)(patient 1). Prior treatments included mometasone solution and clobetasol solution 0.05%. After 3 months of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth after 13 months of treatment (Figure 1B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

An 11-year-old girl with AA presented with 100% hair loss of 7 months’ duration (Figure 2A)(patient 2). Prior treatments included fluocinonide solution and intralesional Kenalog injections. After 4 months of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth after 13 months of treatment (Figure 2B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

A 16-year-old boy with AA presented with 30% hair loss of 4 years’ duration (Figure 3A)(patient 3). Prior treatments included squaric acid and intralesional Kenalog injections. After 2 years of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth at 17 months (Figure 3B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

Scalp rolling—also known as microneedling—provides a multifactorial approach to hair regrowth in patients with AA. The mechanism of action involves both the hair cycle and wound repair pathways by stimulation of the dermal papillae and stem cells.⁶ Scalp rolling has been observed to induce the expression of several hair growth pathway mediators, such as WNT3A, β-catenin, vascular endothelial growth factor, and WNT10B.⁷ Wnt/β-catenin pathway signaling is integral to multiple aspects of the hair regrowth process, including hair morphogenesis, follicle regeneration, and growth of the shaft itself.^8,9 Scalp rolling causes microinjuries to the skin, thereby diverting blood supply to the follicles and stimulating wound regeneration, a process suggested to induce follicle regeneration. This effect is due to increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor after cutaneous injury, a mediator of both hair growth and cycling as well as wound repair.⁷ Adjuvant scalp rolling creates a synergistic effect by facilitating absorption of topical and intralesional therapies. The physical breakdown of dermal capillary barriers creates microchannels that traverse the stratum corneum, improving the permeability of small-molecule substances and allowing for relatively painless and uniform delivery of combination therapies. A secondary benefit is hypertrophy, which counteracts the atrophy caused by topical steroids via collagen induction.⁷

Additionally, scalp rolling confers minimal risk to the patient, making it safer than conventional pharmacologic therapies such as corticosteroids or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Although intralesional steroid injections are first-line treatments for limited disease, they can cause pain and skin atrophy.¹⁰ In one cohort of 54 patients, topical steroids were inferior to both oral and intralesional treatment, and oral steroids carried a systemic side-effect profile and worsening of comorbidities including hyperglycemia and hypertension as well as negative effects on bone density.¹¹ Baricitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was the first systemic treatment to gain US Food and Drug Administration approval for severe AA.¹² However, this novel therapeutic confers adverse effects including infection, acne, and hypercholesterolemia, as reported in the BRAVE-AA trials.¹³ More broadly, the US Food and Drug Administration warns of serious long-term risks such as cardiovascular events and malignancy.¹⁴ Given the tremendous potential of JAK inhibitors, further research is warranted to understand both the efficacy of topical formulations as well as the possible role of scalp rolling as its adjuvant.

Finally, scalp rolling is easily accessible and affordable to patients. Scalp rolling devices are readily available and affordable online, and they can be used autonomously at home. This pragmatic option allows patients to take control of their own treatment course and offers a financially feasible alternative to navigating insurance coverage as well as the need for extra office visits for medication refills and monitoring.

We report 3 cases of the use of scalp rolling as an adjuvant to conventional therapy for refractory AA in young patients. Although prospective research is required to establish causality and characterize age-related trends in treatment response, consideration of scalp rolling as an adjuvant to conventional therapy may help to optimize treatment regimens. Given its low risk for side effects and potential benefits, we recommend scalp rolling for patients with refractory AA.

To the Editor:

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune nonscarring hair loss disorder that can present at any age. Patients with AA have a disproportionately high comorbidity burden and low quality of life, often grappling with anxiety, depression, and psychosocial sequelae involving identity, such as reduced self-esteem.^1,2 Although conventional therapies aim to reduce hair loss, none are curative.³ Response to treatment is highly unpredictable, with current data suggesting that up to 50% of patients recover within 1 year while 14% to 25% progress to either alopecia totalis (total scalp hair loss) or alopecia universalis (total body hair loss).⁴ Options for therapeutic intervention remain limited and vary in safety and effectiveness, warranting further research to identify optimal modalities and minimize side effects. Interestingly, scalp rolling has been used as an adjuvant to topical triamcinolone acetonide.^3,5 However, the extent of its effect in combination with other therapies remains unclear. We report 3 pediatric patients with confirmed AA refractory to conventional topical treatment who experienced remarkable scalp hair regrowth after adding biweekly scalp rolling as an adjuvant therapy.

A 7-year-old boy with AA presented with 95% scalp hair loss of 7 months’ duration (Figure 1A)(patient 1). Prior treatments included mometasone solution and clobetasol solution 0.05%. After 3 months of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth after 13 months of treatment (Figure 1B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

An 11-year-old girl with AA presented with 100% hair loss of 7 months’ duration (Figure 2A)(patient 2). Prior treatments included fluocinonide solution and intralesional Kenalog injections. After 4 months of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth after 13 months of treatment (Figure 2B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

A 16-year-old boy with AA presented with 30% hair loss of 4 years’ duration (Figure 3A)(patient 3). Prior treatments included squaric acid and intralesional Kenalog injections. After 2 years of conventional topical therapy, twice-weekly scalp rolling with a 0.25-mm scalp roller of their choosing was added to the regimen, with clobetasol solution 0.05% and minoxidil foam 5% applied immediately after each scalp rolling session. The patient experienced 95% scalp hair regrowth at 17 months (Figure 3B). No pain, bleeding, or other side effects were reported.

Scalp rolling—also known as microneedling—provides a multifactorial approach to hair regrowth in patients with AA. The mechanism of action involves both the hair cycle and wound repair pathways by stimulation of the dermal papillae and stem cells.⁶ Scalp rolling has been observed to induce the expression of several hair growth pathway mediators, such as WNT3A, β-catenin, vascular endothelial growth factor, and WNT10B.⁷ Wnt/β-catenin pathway signaling is integral to multiple aspects of the hair regrowth process, including hair morphogenesis, follicle regeneration, and growth of the shaft itself.^8,9 Scalp rolling causes microinjuries to the skin, thereby diverting blood supply to the follicles and stimulating wound regeneration, a process suggested to induce follicle regeneration. This effect is due to increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor after cutaneous injury, a mediator of both hair growth and cycling as well as wound repair.⁷ Adjuvant scalp rolling creates a synergistic effect by facilitating absorption of topical and intralesional therapies. The physical breakdown of dermal capillary barriers creates microchannels that traverse the stratum corneum, improving the permeability of small-molecule substances and allowing for relatively painless and uniform delivery of combination therapies. A secondary benefit is hypertrophy, which counteracts the atrophy caused by topical steroids via collagen induction.⁷

Additionally, scalp rolling confers minimal risk to the patient, making it safer than conventional pharmacologic therapies such as corticosteroids or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Although intralesional steroid injections are first-line treatments for limited disease, they can cause pain and skin atrophy.¹⁰ In one cohort of 54 patients, topical steroids were inferior to both oral and intralesional treatment, and oral steroids carried a systemic side-effect profile and worsening of comorbidities including hyperglycemia and hypertension as well as negative effects on bone density.¹¹ Baricitinib, a JAK inhibitor, was the first systemic treatment to gain US Food and Drug Administration approval for severe AA.¹² However, this novel therapeutic confers adverse effects including infection, acne, and hypercholesterolemia, as reported in the BRAVE-AA trials.¹³ More broadly, the US Food and Drug Administration warns of serious long-term risks such as cardiovascular events and malignancy.¹⁴ Given the tremendous potential of JAK inhibitors, further research is warranted to understand both the efficacy of topical formulations as well as the possible role of scalp rolling as its adjuvant.

Finally, scalp rolling is easily accessible and affordable to patients. Scalp rolling devices are readily available and affordable online, and they can be used autonomously at home. This pragmatic option allows patients to take control of their own treatment course and offers a financially feasible alternative to navigating insurance coverage as well as the need for extra office visits for medication refills and monitoring.

We report 3 cases of the use of scalp rolling as an adjuvant to conventional therapy for refractory AA in young patients. Although prospective research is required to establish causality and characterize age-related trends in treatment response, consideration of scalp rolling as an adjuvant to conventional therapy may help to optimize treatment regimens. Given its low risk for side effects and potential benefits, we recommend scalp rolling for patients with refractory AA.

To the Editor:

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungus with a predilection for immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). However, the rapid emergence of diffuse panniculitis only upon the start of therapy for extracutaneous disease is a rare phenomenon. We report the case of a liver transplant recipient who developed a paradoxical inflammatory reaction after initiating liposomal amphotericin B therapy for disseminated C neoformans, which manifested as progressive indurated plaques histologically consistent with cryptococcal panniculitis.

A 44-year-old man who received an orthotopic liver transplant 12 months prior and was on prednisone (20 mg daily) and tacrolimus (7 mg total daily) was admitted for multifocal pneumonia complicated by septic shock. Blood and respiratory cultures grew C neoformans, and lumbar puncture evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of Cryptococcus antigen in 1:40 titers. Liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg intravenous daily and fluconazole 400 mg intravenous daily were administered starting on the fourth day of admission; maintenance tacrolimus and steroids were stopped. Within 36 hours of treatment initiation, an erythematous papular rash was noted on the extremities, which initially was deemed an infusion reaction. Over the next 6 days, the rash became progressively confluent and hyperpigmented. A dermatologist was consulted on the fifteenth day of admission.

Physical examination by dermatology revealed diffuse, hyperpigmented to erythematous macules on the torso, back, arms, and legs that coalesced into dusky indurated plaques along the thighs, right side of the flank, and right upper arm (Figure 1). Laboratory analysis revealed thrombocytopenia but was otherwise unremarkable. Histoplasma antigen and Coccidioides IgG and IgM enzyme immunoassays were negative, as were cytomegalovirus, HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test results. Blood culture testing was repeated, and the findings were negative.

The emergence of the rash after amphotericin initiation prompted concern that the cause was due to a drug reaction rather than cutaneous involvement of cryptococcal infection. Punch biopsies were obtained from the thigh plaque. Hematoxylin and eosin and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed cryptococcal organisms in the dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2). Bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures showed no growth.

The patient was diagnosed with cryptococcal panniculitis. Induction therapy with liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg daily and flucytosine 25 mg/kg twice daily was pursued. During the treatment, cutaneous involvement evolved into superficial desquamation. The patient ultimately died from shock secondary to persistent cryptococcal fungemia.

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungal infection that represents a notable hazard to SOTR, inflicting 1.5% to 2.8% of this population and carrying a 19% to 42% mortality rate.^1,2 This infection occurs at a median of 1.6 to 2.3 years after transplantation,^1,3 though liver transplant recipients and those with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS)–like complications may present sooner (8.8 and 10.5 months, respectively).⁴ Cutaneous involvement comprises 17% to 21% of cases and is associated with extensive dissemination, including the central nervous system, lung, and bloodstream (61.5%, 23.1%, and 38.5%, respectively).^1-3 When Cryptococcus infects the skin, it classically manifests as multiple nodules, umbilicated papules, ulcers, or cellulitis.³ Involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue is uncommon and primarily is observed at initial presentation alongside disseminated disease.^5-8 Our case is unique because cutaneous involvement was absent until treatment initiation.

Similar patterns of worsened or unmasked disease following treatment initiation have been observed in SOTRs with extracutaneous cryptococcus and were attributed to IRIS-like phenomena that generate a hyperactive inflammatory response to infection.^4,9 Common immunosuppressive regimens, particularly tacrolimus, depress helper T cell (T_H1) cytokine release and promote a T_H2-dominant, anti-inflammatory state.¹⁰ In cryptococcosis, the fungus itself may stimulate a comparable cytokine milieu to promote immunologic evasion and dissemination. Cryptococcal IRIS-like responses in SOTRs are precipitated by rapid reduction or withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids, in combination with the inherent mitogenicity of the C neoformans polysaccharide capsule and antifungal agents.¹⁰ In our patient, cryptococcal yeasts may have invaded subcutaneous tissues when he became fungemic but remained subclinical due to minimal inflammatory recruitment. As treatment began and immunosuppressants diminished, fungal recognition and massive cytokine release resulted in frank panniculitis via precipitous immune dysregulation.

First-line therapy of cryptococcosis entails the use of liposomal amphotericin B and flucytosine for induction, followed by fluconazole for consolidation and maintenance. Use of corticosteroids is atypical to the antifungal regimen; however, a role for them has been suggested in severe IRIS involving individuals who are HIV positive, such as those with lesions demonstrating mass effect.¹¹ Rare case reports have described their utility as adjunctive therapies against cryptococcus in SOTRs when treatment with antifungal agents alone failed.¹² Given the paucity of prospective trials to support corticosteroid use in SOTRs as well as the worse global outcomes in cases of cryptococcal meningitis,¹³ therapeutic corticosteroids were not administered in our patient.

Although our case represents a rare event, cutaneous cryptococcosis and IRIS-like phenomena are clinically relevant complications in immunocompromised patients. In particular, they should be promptly considered in SOTRs receiving maintenance immunosuppressants who demonstrate symptom aggravation despite negative microbial culture results and uninterrupted antifungal therapy.

To the Editor:

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungus with a predilection for immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). However, the rapid emergence of diffuse panniculitis only upon the start of therapy for extracutaneous disease is a rare phenomenon. We report the case of a liver transplant recipient who developed a paradoxical inflammatory reaction after initiating liposomal amphotericin B therapy for disseminated C neoformans, which manifested as progressive indurated plaques histologically consistent with cryptococcal panniculitis.

A 44-year-old man who received an orthotopic liver transplant 12 months prior and was on prednisone (20 mg daily) and tacrolimus (7 mg total daily) was admitted for multifocal pneumonia complicated by septic shock. Blood and respiratory cultures grew C neoformans, and lumbar puncture evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of Cryptococcus antigen in 1:40 titers. Liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg intravenous daily and fluconazole 400 mg intravenous daily were administered starting on the fourth day of admission; maintenance tacrolimus and steroids were stopped. Within 36 hours of treatment initiation, an erythematous papular rash was noted on the extremities, which initially was deemed an infusion reaction. Over the next 6 days, the rash became progressively confluent and hyperpigmented. A dermatologist was consulted on the fifteenth day of admission.

Physical examination by dermatology revealed diffuse, hyperpigmented to erythematous macules on the torso, back, arms, and legs that coalesced into dusky indurated plaques along the thighs, right side of the flank, and right upper arm (Figure 1). Laboratory analysis revealed thrombocytopenia but was otherwise unremarkable. Histoplasma antigen and Coccidioides IgG and IgM enzyme immunoassays were negative, as were cytomegalovirus, HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test results. Blood culture testing was repeated, and the findings were negative.

The emergence of the rash after amphotericin initiation prompted concern that the cause was due to a drug reaction rather than cutaneous involvement of cryptococcal infection. Punch biopsies were obtained from the thigh plaque. Hematoxylin and eosin and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed cryptococcal organisms in the dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2). Bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures showed no growth.

The patient was diagnosed with cryptococcal panniculitis. Induction therapy with liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg daily and flucytosine 25 mg/kg twice daily was pursued. During the treatment, cutaneous involvement evolved into superficial desquamation. The patient ultimately died from shock secondary to persistent cryptococcal fungemia.

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungal infection that represents a notable hazard to SOTR, inflicting 1.5% to 2.8% of this population and carrying a 19% to 42% mortality rate.^1,2 This infection occurs at a median of 1.6 to 2.3 years after transplantation,^1,3 though liver transplant recipients and those with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS)–like complications may present sooner (8.8 and 10.5 months, respectively).⁴ Cutaneous involvement comprises 17% to 21% of cases and is associated with extensive dissemination, including the central nervous system, lung, and bloodstream (61.5%, 23.1%, and 38.5%, respectively).^1-3 When Cryptococcus infects the skin, it classically manifests as multiple nodules, umbilicated papules, ulcers, or cellulitis.³ Involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue is uncommon and primarily is observed at initial presentation alongside disseminated disease.^5-8 Our case is unique because cutaneous involvement was absent until treatment initiation.

Similar patterns of worsened or unmasked disease following treatment initiation have been observed in SOTRs with extracutaneous cryptococcus and were attributed to IRIS-like phenomena that generate a hyperactive inflammatory response to infection.^4,9 Common immunosuppressive regimens, particularly tacrolimus, depress helper T cell (T_H1) cytokine release and promote a T_H2-dominant, anti-inflammatory state.¹⁰ In cryptococcosis, the fungus itself may stimulate a comparable cytokine milieu to promote immunologic evasion and dissemination. Cryptococcal IRIS-like responses in SOTRs are precipitated by rapid reduction or withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids, in combination with the inherent mitogenicity of the C neoformans polysaccharide capsule and antifungal agents.¹⁰ In our patient, cryptococcal yeasts may have invaded subcutaneous tissues when he became fungemic but remained subclinical due to minimal inflammatory recruitment. As treatment began and immunosuppressants diminished, fungal recognition and massive cytokine release resulted in frank panniculitis via precipitous immune dysregulation.

First-line therapy of cryptococcosis entails the use of liposomal amphotericin B and flucytosine for induction, followed by fluconazole for consolidation and maintenance. Use of corticosteroids is atypical to the antifungal regimen; however, a role for them has been suggested in severe IRIS involving individuals who are HIV positive, such as those with lesions demonstrating mass effect.¹¹ Rare case reports have described their utility as adjunctive therapies against cryptococcus in SOTRs when treatment with antifungal agents alone failed.¹² Given the paucity of prospective trials to support corticosteroid use in SOTRs as well as the worse global outcomes in cases of cryptococcal meningitis,¹³ therapeutic corticosteroids were not administered in our patient.

Although our case represents a rare event, cutaneous cryptococcosis and IRIS-like phenomena are clinically relevant complications in immunocompromised patients. In particular, they should be promptly considered in SOTRs receiving maintenance immunosuppressants who demonstrate symptom aggravation despite negative microbial culture results and uninterrupted antifungal therapy.

To the Editor:

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungus with a predilection for immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). However, the rapid emergence of diffuse panniculitis only upon the start of therapy for extracutaneous disease is a rare phenomenon. We report the case of a liver transplant recipient who developed a paradoxical inflammatory reaction after initiating liposomal amphotericin B therapy for disseminated C neoformans, which manifested as progressive indurated plaques histologically consistent with cryptococcal panniculitis.

A 44-year-old man who received an orthotopic liver transplant 12 months prior and was on prednisone (20 mg daily) and tacrolimus (7 mg total daily) was admitted for multifocal pneumonia complicated by septic shock. Blood and respiratory cultures grew C neoformans, and lumbar puncture evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of Cryptococcus antigen in 1:40 titers. Liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg intravenous daily and fluconazole 400 mg intravenous daily were administered starting on the fourth day of admission; maintenance tacrolimus and steroids were stopped. Within 36 hours of treatment initiation, an erythematous papular rash was noted on the extremities, which initially was deemed an infusion reaction. Over the next 6 days, the rash became progressively confluent and hyperpigmented. A dermatologist was consulted on the fifteenth day of admission.

Physical examination by dermatology revealed diffuse, hyperpigmented to erythematous macules on the torso, back, arms, and legs that coalesced into dusky indurated plaques along the thighs, right side of the flank, and right upper arm (Figure 1). Laboratory analysis revealed thrombocytopenia but was otherwise unremarkable. Histoplasma antigen and Coccidioides IgG and IgM enzyme immunoassays were negative, as were cytomegalovirus, HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test results. Blood culture testing was repeated, and the findings were negative.

The emergence of the rash after amphotericin initiation prompted concern that the cause was due to a drug reaction rather than cutaneous involvement of cryptococcal infection. Punch biopsies were obtained from the thigh plaque. Hematoxylin and eosin and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed cryptococcal organisms in the dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2). Bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures showed no growth.

The patient was diagnosed with cryptococcal panniculitis. Induction therapy with liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg daily and flucytosine 25 mg/kg twice daily was pursued. During the treatment, cutaneous involvement evolved into superficial desquamation. The patient ultimately died from shock secondary to persistent cryptococcal fungemia.

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungal infection that represents a notable hazard to SOTR, inflicting 1.5% to 2.8% of this population and carrying a 19% to 42% mortality rate.^1,2 This infection occurs at a median of 1.6 to 2.3 years after transplantation,^1,3 though liver transplant recipients and those with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS)–like complications may present sooner (8.8 and 10.5 months, respectively).⁴ Cutaneous involvement comprises 17% to 21% of cases and is associated with extensive dissemination, including the central nervous system, lung, and bloodstream (61.5%, 23.1%, and 38.5%, respectively).^1-3 When Cryptococcus infects the skin, it classically manifests as multiple nodules, umbilicated papules, ulcers, or cellulitis.³ Involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue is uncommon and primarily is observed at initial presentation alongside disseminated disease.^5-8 Our case is unique because cutaneous involvement was absent until treatment initiation.

Similar patterns of worsened or unmasked disease following treatment initiation have been observed in SOTRs with extracutaneous cryptococcus and were attributed to IRIS-like phenomena that generate a hyperactive inflammatory response to infection.^4,9 Common immunosuppressive regimens, particularly tacrolimus, depress helper T cell (T_H1) cytokine release and promote a T_H2-dominant, anti-inflammatory state.¹⁰ In cryptococcosis, the fungus itself may stimulate a comparable cytokine milieu to promote immunologic evasion and dissemination. Cryptococcal IRIS-like responses in SOTRs are precipitated by rapid reduction or withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids, in combination with the inherent mitogenicity of the C neoformans polysaccharide capsule and antifungal agents.¹⁰ In our patient, cryptococcal yeasts may have invaded subcutaneous tissues when he became fungemic but remained subclinical due to minimal inflammatory recruitment. As treatment began and immunosuppressants diminished, fungal recognition and massive cytokine release resulted in frank panniculitis via precipitous immune dysregulation.

First-line therapy of cryptococcosis entails the use of liposomal amphotericin B and flucytosine for induction, followed by fluconazole for consolidation and maintenance. Use of corticosteroids is atypical to the antifungal regimen; however, a role for them has been suggested in severe IRIS involving individuals who are HIV positive, such as those with lesions demonstrating mass effect.¹¹ Rare case reports have described their utility as adjunctive therapies against cryptococcus in SOTRs when treatment with antifungal agents alone failed.¹² Given the paucity of prospective trials to support corticosteroid use in SOTRs as well as the worse global outcomes in cases of cryptococcal meningitis,¹³ therapeutic corticosteroids were not administered in our patient.

Although our case represents a rare event, cutaneous cryptococcosis and IRIS-like phenomena are clinically relevant complications in immunocompromised patients. In particular, they should be promptly considered in SOTRs receiving maintenance immunosuppressants who demonstrate symptom aggravation despite negative microbial culture results and uninterrupted antifungal therapy.

The Diagnosis: Scrotal Calcinosis

Scrotal calcinosis is a rare benign disease that results from the deposition of calcium, magnesium, phosphate, and carbonate within the dermis and subcutaneous layer of the skin in the absence of underlying systemic disease or serum calcium and phosphorus abnormalities.^1,2 Lesions usually are asymptomatic but can be mildly painful or pruritic. They usually present in childhood or early adulthood as yellow-white firm nodules ranging in size from a few millimeters to a few centimeters that increase in size and number over time. Additionally, lesions can ulcerate and discharge a chalklike exudative material. Although benign in nature, the quality-of-life impact in patients with this condition can be substantial, specifically regarding cosmesis, which may cause patients to feel embarrassed and even avoid sexual activity. This condition rarely has been associated with infection.¹

Our patient elected to undergo surgical excision under local anesthesia, and the lesions were sent for histopathologic examination. His postoperative course was unremarkable, and he was pleased with the cosmetic result of the surgery (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed calcified deposits that appeared as intradermal basophilic nodules lacking an epithelial lining (Figure 2), consistent with the diagnosis of scrotal calcinosis.² No recurrence of the lesions was documented over the course of 18 months.

The pathogenesis of this condition is not clear. Most research supports scrotal calcinosis resulting from dystrophic calcification of epidermal inclusion cysts.³ There have been cases of scrotal calcinosis coinciding with epidermal inclusion cysts of the scrotum in varying stages of inflammation (some intact and some ruptured).² Some research also suggests dystrophic calcification of eccrine epithelial cysts and degenerated dartos muscle as the origin of scrotal calcinosis.³

The differential diagnosis for this case included calcified steatocystoma multiplex, eruptive xanthomas, nodular scabies, and epidermal inclusion cysts. Steatocystoma multiplex can be inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion or can develop sporadically with mutations in the KRT17 gene.⁴ It is characterized by multiple sebum-filled, cystic lesions of the pilosebaceous unit that may become calcified. Calcified lesions appear as yellow, firm, irregularly shaped papules or nodules ranging from a few millimeters to centimeters in size. Cysts can develop anywhere on the body with a predilection for the chest, upper extremities, axillae, trunk, groin, and scrotum.⁴ Histologically, our patient’s lesions were not associated with the pilosebaceous unit. Additionally, our patient denied a family history of similar skin lesions, which made calcified steatocystoma multiplex an unlikely diagnosis.

Eruptive xanthomas result from localized deposition of lipids within the dermis, typically in the setting of dyslipidemia or poorly controlled diabetes mellitus. They commonly appear on the extremities or buttocks as pruritic crops of yellow-red papules or nodules that are a few millimeters in size. Although our patient has a history of hyperlipidemia, his lesions differed substantially from eruptive xanthomas in clinical presentation.

Nodular scabies is a manifestation of classic scabies that presents with intensely pruritic erythematous papules and nodules that are a few millimeters in size and commonly occur on the axillae, groin, and genitalia. Our patient’s skin lesions were not pruritic and differed in appearance from nodular scabies.

Although research indicates scrotal calcinosis may result from dystrophic calcification of epidermal inclusion cysts,² the latter present as dome-shaped, flesh-colored nodules with central pores representing the opening of hair follicles. Our patient lacked characteristic findings of epidermal inclusion cysts on histology.

The preferred treatment for scrotal calcinosis is surgical excision, which improves the aesthetic appearance, relieves itch, and removes ulcerative lesions.⁵ Additionally, surgical excision provides histological diagnostic confirmation. Recurrence with incomplete excision is possible; therefore, all lesions should be completely excised to reduce the risk for recurrence.³

The Diagnosis: Scrotal Calcinosis

Scrotal calcinosis is a rare benign disease that results from the deposition of calcium, magnesium, phosphate, and carbonate within the dermis and subcutaneous layer of the skin in the absence of underlying systemic disease or serum calcium and phosphorus abnormalities.^1,2 Lesions usually are asymptomatic but can be mildly painful or pruritic. They usually present in childhood or early adulthood as yellow-white firm nodules ranging in size from a few millimeters to a few centimeters that increase in size and number over time. Additionally, lesions can ulcerate and discharge a chalklike exudative material. Although benign in nature, the quality-of-life impact in patients with this condition can be substantial, specifically regarding cosmesis, which may cause patients to feel embarrassed and even avoid sexual activity. This condition rarely has been associated with infection.¹

Our patient elected to undergo surgical excision under local anesthesia, and the lesions were sent for histopathologic examination. His postoperative course was unremarkable, and he was pleased with the cosmetic result of the surgery (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed calcified deposits that appeared as intradermal basophilic nodules lacking an epithelial lining (Figure 2), consistent with the diagnosis of scrotal calcinosis.² No recurrence of the lesions was documented over the course of 18 months.

The pathogenesis of this condition is not clear. Most research supports scrotal calcinosis resulting from dystrophic calcification of epidermal inclusion cysts.³ There have been cases of scrotal calcinosis coinciding with epidermal inclusion cysts of the scrotum in varying stages of inflammation (some intact and some ruptured).² Some research also suggests dystrophic calcification of eccrine epithelial cysts and degenerated dartos muscle as the origin of scrotal calcinosis.³

The differential diagnosis for this case included calcified steatocystoma multiplex, eruptive xanthomas, nodular scabies, and epidermal inclusion cysts. Steatocystoma multiplex can be inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion or can develop sporadically with mutations in the KRT17 gene.⁴ It is characterized by multiple sebum-filled, cystic lesions of the pilosebaceous unit that may become calcified. Calcified lesions appear as yellow, firm, irregularly shaped papules or nodules ranging from a few millimeters to centimeters in size. Cysts can develop anywhere on the body with a predilection for the chest, upper extremities, axillae, trunk, groin, and scrotum.⁴ Histologically, our patient’s lesions were not associated with the pilosebaceous unit. Additionally, our patient denied a family history of similar skin lesions, which made calcified steatocystoma multiplex an unlikely diagnosis.

Eruptive xanthomas result from localized deposition of lipids within the dermis, typically in the setting of dyslipidemia or poorly controlled diabetes mellitus. They commonly appear on the extremities or buttocks as pruritic crops of yellow-red papules or nodules that are a few millimeters in size. Although our patient has a history of hyperlipidemia, his lesions differed substantially from eruptive xanthomas in clinical presentation.

Nodular scabies is a manifestation of classic scabies that presents with intensely pruritic erythematous papules and nodules that are a few millimeters in size and commonly occur on the axillae, groin, and genitalia. Our patient’s skin lesions were not pruritic and differed in appearance from nodular scabies.

Although research indicates scrotal calcinosis may result from dystrophic calcification of epidermal inclusion cysts,² the latter present as dome-shaped, flesh-colored nodules with central pores representing the opening of hair follicles. Our patient lacked characteristic findings of epidermal inclusion cysts on histology.

The preferred treatment for scrotal calcinosis is surgical excision, which improves the aesthetic appearance, relieves itch, and removes ulcerative lesions.⁵ Additionally, surgical excision provides histological diagnostic confirmation. Recurrence with incomplete excision is possible; therefore, all lesions should be completely excised to reduce the risk for recurrence.³

The Diagnosis: Scrotal Calcinosis

Scrotal calcinosis is a rare benign disease that results from the deposition of calcium, magnesium, phosphate, and carbonate within the dermis and subcutaneous layer of the skin in the absence of underlying systemic disease or serum calcium and phosphorus abnormalities.^1,2 Lesions usually are asymptomatic but can be mildly painful or pruritic. They usually present in childhood or early adulthood as yellow-white firm nodules ranging in size from a few millimeters to a few centimeters that increase in size and number over time. Additionally, lesions can ulcerate and discharge a chalklike exudative material. Although benign in nature, the quality-of-life impact in patients with this condition can be substantial, specifically regarding cosmesis, which may cause patients to feel embarrassed and even avoid sexual activity. This condition rarely has been associated with infection.¹

Our patient elected to undergo surgical excision under local anesthesia, and the lesions were sent for histopathologic examination. His postoperative course was unremarkable, and he was pleased with the cosmetic result of the surgery (Figure 1). Histopathology revealed calcified deposits that appeared as intradermal basophilic nodules lacking an epithelial lining (Figure 2), consistent with the diagnosis of scrotal calcinosis.² No recurrence of the lesions was documented over the course of 18 months.

The pathogenesis of this condition is not clear. Most research supports scrotal calcinosis resulting from dystrophic calcification of epidermal inclusion cysts.³ There have been cases of scrotal calcinosis coinciding with epidermal inclusion cysts of the scrotum in varying stages of inflammation (some intact and some ruptured).² Some research also suggests dystrophic calcification of eccrine epithelial cysts and degenerated dartos muscle as the origin of scrotal calcinosis.³

The differential diagnosis for this case included calcified steatocystoma multiplex, eruptive xanthomas, nodular scabies, and epidermal inclusion cysts. Steatocystoma multiplex can be inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion or can develop sporadically with mutations in the KRT17 gene.⁴ It is characterized by multiple sebum-filled, cystic lesions of the pilosebaceous unit that may become calcified. Calcified lesions appear as yellow, firm, irregularly shaped papules or nodules ranging from a few millimeters to centimeters in size. Cysts can develop anywhere on the body with a predilection for the chest, upper extremities, axillae, trunk, groin, and scrotum.⁴ Histologically, our patient’s lesions were not associated with the pilosebaceous unit. Additionally, our patient denied a family history of similar skin lesions, which made calcified steatocystoma multiplex an unlikely diagnosis.

Eruptive xanthomas result from localized deposition of lipids within the dermis, typically in the setting of dyslipidemia or poorly controlled diabetes mellitus. They commonly appear on the extremities or buttocks as pruritic crops of yellow-red papules or nodules that are a few millimeters in size. Although our patient has a history of hyperlipidemia, his lesions differed substantially from eruptive xanthomas in clinical presentation.

Nodular scabies is a manifestation of classic scabies that presents with intensely pruritic erythematous papules and nodules that are a few millimeters in size and commonly occur on the axillae, groin, and genitalia. Our patient’s skin lesions were not pruritic and differed in appearance from nodular scabies.

Although research indicates scrotal calcinosis may result from dystrophic calcification of epidermal inclusion cysts,² the latter present as dome-shaped, flesh-colored nodules with central pores representing the opening of hair follicles. Our patient lacked characteristic findings of epidermal inclusion cysts on histology.

The preferred treatment for scrotal calcinosis is surgical excision, which improves the aesthetic appearance, relieves itch, and removes ulcerative lesions.⁵ Additionally, surgical excision provides histological diagnostic confirmation. Recurrence with incomplete excision is possible; therefore, all lesions should be completely excised to reduce the risk for recurrence.³

To the Editor:

Methemoglobinemia (MetHb) is a condition caused by elevated levels of methemoglobin in the blood, which leads to an overall reduced ability of red blood cells to release oxygen to tissues, causing tissue hypoxia. Methemoglobinemia may be congenital or acquired. Various antibiotics and local anesthetics have been reported to induce acquired MetHb.¹ We describe an adult who presented with MetHb resulting from excessive topical application of local anesthetics for painful scrotal ulcers.

A 54-year-old man presented with multiple scrotal and penile shaft ulcers of a few weeks’ duration with no systemic concerns. His medical history included chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and lumbar disc disease. Physical examination revealed multiple erosions and ulcers on an erythematous base involving the scrotal skin and distal penile shaft (Figure). Histopathology revealed acute leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and a laboratory workup was positive for mixed cryoglobulinemia that was thought to be HCV related. The patient was started on a systemic corticosteroid treatment in addition to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for the treatment of HCV-related mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis. Concomitantly, the patient self-treated for pain with a local anesthetic cream containing lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%, applying it excessively every few hours daily for 2 weeks. He also intermittently used occlusive dressings.

After 2 weeks of application, the patient developed lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He returned and was admitted for further evaluation. He had dyspnea and tachypnea of 22 breaths per minute. He also had mild tachycardia (109 beats per minute). He did not have a fever, and his blood pressure was normal. The oxygen saturation measured in ambient room air by pulse oximetry was 82%. A neurologic examination was normal except for mild drowsiness. The lungs were clear, and heart sounds were normal. A 12-lead electrocardiogram also was normal. A complete blood cell count showed severe macrocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL, which was a severe decline from the patient’s baseline level of 14 g/dL (reference range, 13–17 g/dL). A MetHb blood level of 11% was reported on co-oximetry. An arterial blood gas analysis revealed a pH of 7.46; partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 41 mm Hg; and partial pressure of oxygen of 63 mm Hg. The haptoglobin level was low at 2.6 mg/dL (reference range, 30–200 mg/dL). An absolute reticulocyte count was markedly elevated at 0.4×10⁶/mL (reference range, 0.03–0.08×10⁶/mL), lactate dehydrogenase was elevated at 430 U/L (reference range, 125–220 U/L), and indirect billirubin was high at 0.9 mg/dL (reference range, 0–0.5 mg/dL), consistent with hemolytic anemia. Electrolyte serum levels and renal function tests were within reference range. A diagnosis of MetHb induced by the lidocaine-prilocaine cream was rendered, and intravenous methylene blue 72 mg (1 mg/kg) was administered over 10 minutes. Within the next 60 minutes, the patient’s drowsiness and arterial desaturation resolved. A subsequent MetHb measurement taken several hours later was reduced to 4%. The patient remained asymptomatic and was eventually discharged.

Methemoglobinemia is an altered state of hemoglobin where the ferrous (Fe2⁺) ions of heme are oxidized to the ferric (Fe3⁺) state. These ferric ions are unable to bind oxygen, resulting in impaired oxygen delivery to tissues.¹ Local anesthetics, which are strong oxidizers, have been reported to induce MetHb.² In our patient, the extensive use of lidocaine 2.5%–prilocaine 2.5% cream resulted in severe life-threatening MetHb. The oxidizing properties of local anesthetics can be attributed to their chemical structure. Benzocaine is metabolized to potent oxidizers such as aniline, phenylhydroxylamine, and nitrobenzene.³ Prilocaine and another potent oxidizer, ortho-toluidine, which is a metabolite of prilocaine, can oxidize the iron in hemoglobin from ferrous (Fe2⁺) to ferric (Fe3⁺), leading to MetHb.^2,3

Cases of anesthetic-induced MetHb primarily are associated with overuse of the product by applying it to large surface areas or using it for prolonged periods of time. In one case report, the occlusive dressing of the lidocaine-prilocaine cream applied to skin of the legs that was already abraded by laser epilation therapy resulted in MetHb.⁴ In our patient, applying the topical anesthetic to the eroded high-absorptive mucosal surface of the scrotal skin and the use of occlusive dressings increased the risk for toxicity. Absorption from scrotal skin is 40-times higher than the forearm.⁵ The face, axillae, and scalp also exhibit increased absorption compared to the forearm—10-, 4-, and 3-times higher, respectively.

In recent years, the use of topical anesthetics has greatly expanded due to the popularity of aesthetic and cosmetic procedures. These procedures often are performed in an outpatient setting.⁶ Dermatologists should be well aware of MetHb as a serious adverse effect and guide patients accordingly, as patients do not tend to consider a local anesthetic to be a drug. Drug interactions also may affect free lidocaine concentrations by liver cytochrome P450 metabolism; although this was not the case with our patient, special attention should be given to potential interactions that may exacerbate this serious adverse effect. Consideration should be given to patients applying the anesthetic to areas with high absorption capacity.

To the Editor:

Methemoglobinemia (MetHb) is a condition caused by elevated levels of methemoglobin in the blood, which leads to an overall reduced ability of red blood cells to release oxygen to tissues, causing tissue hypoxia. Methemoglobinemia may be congenital or acquired. Various antibiotics and local anesthetics have been reported to induce acquired MetHb.¹ We describe an adult who presented with MetHb resulting from excessive topical application of local anesthetics for painful scrotal ulcers.

A 54-year-old man presented with multiple scrotal and penile shaft ulcers of a few weeks’ duration with no systemic concerns. His medical history included chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and lumbar disc disease. Physical examination revealed multiple erosions and ulcers on an erythematous base involving the scrotal skin and distal penile shaft (Figure). Histopathology revealed acute leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and a laboratory workup was positive for mixed cryoglobulinemia that was thought to be HCV related. The patient was started on a systemic corticosteroid treatment in addition to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for the treatment of HCV-related mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis. Concomitantly, the patient self-treated for pain with a local anesthetic cream containing lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%, applying it excessively every few hours daily for 2 weeks. He also intermittently used occlusive dressings.

After 2 weeks of application, the patient developed lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He returned and was admitted for further evaluation. He had dyspnea and tachypnea of 22 breaths per minute. He also had mild tachycardia (109 beats per minute). He did not have a fever, and his blood pressure was normal. The oxygen saturation measured in ambient room air by pulse oximetry was 82%. A neurologic examination was normal except for mild drowsiness. The lungs were clear, and heart sounds were normal. A 12-lead electrocardiogram also was normal. A complete blood cell count showed severe macrocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL, which was a severe decline from the patient’s baseline level of 14 g/dL (reference range, 13–17 g/dL). A MetHb blood level of 11% was reported on co-oximetry. An arterial blood gas analysis revealed a pH of 7.46; partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 41 mm Hg; and partial pressure of oxygen of 63 mm Hg. The haptoglobin level was low at 2.6 mg/dL (reference range, 30–200 mg/dL). An absolute reticulocyte count was markedly elevated at 0.4×10⁶/mL (reference range, 0.03–0.08×10⁶/mL), lactate dehydrogenase was elevated at 430 U/L (reference range, 125–220 U/L), and indirect billirubin was high at 0.9 mg/dL (reference range, 0–0.5 mg/dL), consistent with hemolytic anemia. Electrolyte serum levels and renal function tests were within reference range. A diagnosis of MetHb induced by the lidocaine-prilocaine cream was rendered, and intravenous methylene blue 72 mg (1 mg/kg) was administered over 10 minutes. Within the next 60 minutes, the patient’s drowsiness and arterial desaturation resolved. A subsequent MetHb measurement taken several hours later was reduced to 4%. The patient remained asymptomatic and was eventually discharged.

Methemoglobinemia is an altered state of hemoglobin where the ferrous (Fe2⁺) ions of heme are oxidized to the ferric (Fe3⁺) state. These ferric ions are unable to bind oxygen, resulting in impaired oxygen delivery to tissues.¹ Local anesthetics, which are strong oxidizers, have been reported to induce MetHb.² In our patient, the extensive use of lidocaine 2.5%–prilocaine 2.5% cream resulted in severe life-threatening MetHb. The oxidizing properties of local anesthetics can be attributed to their chemical structure. Benzocaine is metabolized to potent oxidizers such as aniline, phenylhydroxylamine, and nitrobenzene.³ Prilocaine and another potent oxidizer, ortho-toluidine, which is a metabolite of prilocaine, can oxidize the iron in hemoglobin from ferrous (Fe2⁺) to ferric (Fe3⁺), leading to MetHb.^2,3

Cases of anesthetic-induced MetHb primarily are associated with overuse of the product by applying it to large surface areas or using it for prolonged periods of time. In one case report, the occlusive dressing of the lidocaine-prilocaine cream applied to skin of the legs that was already abraded by laser epilation therapy resulted in MetHb.⁴ In our patient, applying the topical anesthetic to the eroded high-absorptive mucosal surface of the scrotal skin and the use of occlusive dressings increased the risk for toxicity. Absorption from scrotal skin is 40-times higher than the forearm.⁵ The face, axillae, and scalp also exhibit increased absorption compared to the forearm—10-, 4-, and 3-times higher, respectively.

In recent years, the use of topical anesthetics has greatly expanded due to the popularity of aesthetic and cosmetic procedures. These procedures often are performed in an outpatient setting.⁶ Dermatologists should be well aware of MetHb as a serious adverse effect and guide patients accordingly, as patients do not tend to consider a local anesthetic to be a drug. Drug interactions also may affect free lidocaine concentrations by liver cytochrome P450 metabolism; although this was not the case with our patient, special attention should be given to potential interactions that may exacerbate this serious adverse effect. Consideration should be given to patients applying the anesthetic to areas with high absorption capacity.

To the Editor:

Methemoglobinemia (MetHb) is a condition caused by elevated levels of methemoglobin in the blood, which leads to an overall reduced ability of red blood cells to release oxygen to tissues, causing tissue hypoxia. Methemoglobinemia may be congenital or acquired. Various antibiotics and local anesthetics have been reported to induce acquired MetHb.¹ We describe an adult who presented with MetHb resulting from excessive topical application of local anesthetics for painful scrotal ulcers.

A 54-year-old man presented with multiple scrotal and penile shaft ulcers of a few weeks’ duration with no systemic concerns. His medical history included chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and lumbar disc disease. Physical examination revealed multiple erosions and ulcers on an erythematous base involving the scrotal skin and distal penile shaft (Figure). Histopathology revealed acute leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and a laboratory workup was positive for mixed cryoglobulinemia that was thought to be HCV related. The patient was started on a systemic corticosteroid treatment in addition to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for the treatment of HCV-related mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis. Concomitantly, the patient self-treated for pain with a local anesthetic cream containing lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%, applying it excessively every few hours daily for 2 weeks. He also intermittently used occlusive dressings.

After 2 weeks of application, the patient developed lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He returned and was admitted for further evaluation. He had dyspnea and tachypnea of 22 breaths per minute. He also had mild tachycardia (109 beats per minute). He did not have a fever, and his blood pressure was normal. The oxygen saturation measured in ambient room air by pulse oximetry was 82%. A neurologic examination was normal except for mild drowsiness. The lungs were clear, and heart sounds were normal. A 12-lead electrocardiogram also was normal. A complete blood cell count showed severe macrocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL, which was a severe decline from the patient’s baseline level of 14 g/dL (reference range, 13–17 g/dL). A MetHb blood level of 11% was reported on co-oximetry. An arterial blood gas analysis revealed a pH of 7.46; partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 41 mm Hg; and partial pressure of oxygen of 63 mm Hg. The haptoglobin level was low at 2.6 mg/dL (reference range, 30–200 mg/dL). An absolute reticulocyte count was markedly elevated at 0.4×10⁶/mL (reference range, 0.03–0.08×10⁶/mL), lactate dehydrogenase was elevated at 430 U/L (reference range, 125–220 U/L), and indirect billirubin was high at 0.9 mg/dL (reference range, 0–0.5 mg/dL), consistent with hemolytic anemia. Electrolyte serum levels and renal function tests were within reference range. A diagnosis of MetHb induced by the lidocaine-prilocaine cream was rendered, and intravenous methylene blue 72 mg (1 mg/kg) was administered over 10 minutes. Within the next 60 minutes, the patient’s drowsiness and arterial desaturation resolved. A subsequent MetHb measurement taken several hours later was reduced to 4%. The patient remained asymptomatic and was eventually discharged.

Methemoglobinemia is an altered state of hemoglobin where the ferrous (Fe2⁺) ions of heme are oxidized to the ferric (Fe3⁺) state. These ferric ions are unable to bind oxygen, resulting in impaired oxygen delivery to tissues.¹ Local anesthetics, which are strong oxidizers, have been reported to induce MetHb.² In our patient, the extensive use of lidocaine 2.5%–prilocaine 2.5% cream resulted in severe life-threatening MetHb. The oxidizing properties of local anesthetics can be attributed to their chemical structure. Benzocaine is metabolized to potent oxidizers such as aniline, phenylhydroxylamine, and nitrobenzene.³ Prilocaine and another potent oxidizer, ortho-toluidine, which is a metabolite of prilocaine, can oxidize the iron in hemoglobin from ferrous (Fe2⁺) to ferric (Fe3⁺), leading to MetHb.^2,3

Cases of anesthetic-induced MetHb primarily are associated with overuse of the product by applying it to large surface areas or using it for prolonged periods of time. In one case report, the occlusive dressing of the lidocaine-prilocaine cream applied to skin of the legs that was already abraded by laser epilation therapy resulted in MetHb.⁴ In our patient, applying the topical anesthetic to the eroded high-absorptive mucosal surface of the scrotal skin and the use of occlusive dressings increased the risk for toxicity. Absorption from scrotal skin is 40-times higher than the forearm.⁵ The face, axillae, and scalp also exhibit increased absorption compared to the forearm—10-, 4-, and 3-times higher, respectively.

In recent years, the use of topical anesthetics has greatly expanded due to the popularity of aesthetic and cosmetic procedures. These procedures often are performed in an outpatient setting.⁶ Dermatologists should be well aware of MetHb as a serious adverse effect and guide patients accordingly, as patients do not tend to consider a local anesthetic to be a drug. Drug interactions also may affect free lidocaine concentrations by liver cytochrome P450 metabolism; although this was not the case with our patient, special attention should be given to potential interactions that may exacerbate this serious adverse effect. Consideration should be given to patients applying the anesthetic to areas with high absorption capacity.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

Similar to medical school, residency is a time to drink out of the proverbial firehose of knowledge. Along with clinical duties, there is a plethora of information ranging from clinical management decisions to boards fodder that dermatology residents are expected to know, leaving residents to adopt study habits from medical school. Flash cards remain a popular study tool in the medical education community. The use of Anki, a web-based and mobile flash card application (app) that features custom and premade flash card decks made and shared by users, has become increasingly popular. In a 2021 study, Lu et al¹ found that Anki flash card usage was associated with higher US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Herein, I provide an updated review of the top 3 most comprehensive premade Anki decks for dermatology residents, per my assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE DERMATOLOGY DECKS

Dolphin Dermatology

• Creator: Reddit user, Unknown²
• Date created: December 2020
• Last updated: April 2022
• Number of cards: 13,833
• Resources covered: Photographs of common dermatologic diagnoses from online sources such as VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) and DermNet (https://dermnetnz.org/).
• Format of cards: One image or factoid per card.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Each general dermatology card is tagged by the diagnosis name. Pediatric dermatology cards are tagged by affected body location.
• Advantages: As you may glean by the sheer number of flash cards, this deck is a comprehensive review of clinical dermatology. Most cards feature clinical vignettes with clinical photographs of a dermatologic condition or histologic slide and ask what the diagnosis may be. It features photographs of pathology on a range of skin tones and many different images of each diagnosis. This is a great deck for residents who need to study clinical photographs of dermatologic diagnoses.
• Disadvantages: This deck does not cover dermatopathology, basic science, treatment options, or pharmacology in depth. Additionally, is difficult to find a link to download this resource.
• At the time of publication of this article, users are unable to download this deck.

vismo_djib’s Review of Dermatology Anki

• Creator: Reddit user vismo_djib³
• Date created: June 2020
• Last updated: February 2022
• Number of cards: 8454
• Resources covered: Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ is the main resource with supplemental images from VisualDx, Bolognia et al’s Dermatology,⁵ Patterson’s Weedon’s Skin Pathology Essentials,⁶ Elston et al’s Dermatopathology,⁷ Soyer et al’s Dermoscopy: The Essentials,⁸ and Robinson et al’s Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology.⁹
• Format of cards: Cards mostly feature a diagnosis with color-coded categories including epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, histopathology, and treatment.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged with chapter numbers from Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: This impressive comprehensive review of dermatology is a great option for residents studying for the American Board of Dermatology CORE examinations and users looking to solidify the information in Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ a frequently used resource among dermatology residents. It currently is my favorite deck because it features holistic information on diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, and treatment with excellent clinical photographs.
• Disadvantages: For some purposes, this deck may be too lofty. For maximum benefit, it may require user customization including separating cards by tag and other add-ons that allow only 1 card per note, which will separate the information on each card into smaller increments. The mostly free-response format and lengthy slides may make it difficult to practice recall.

AnKingMed Dermki

• Creator: Reddit user AnKingMed^10,11
• Date created: April 2023
• Last updated: This deck features a dynamic add-on and collaboration application called AnkiHub, which allows for real-time updates. At the time this article was written, the deck was last updated on June 19, 2023.
• Number of cards: 7889
• Resources covered: Currently 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with supplemental images from DermNet and Eleryan and Friedman’s The Full Spectrum of Dermatology: A Diverse and Inclusive Atlas.¹²
• Format of cards: Cards are in a fill-in-the-blank format.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged by chapter number and subsection of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: As the newest contribution to the dermatology Anki card compendium, this deck is up to date, innovative, and dynamic. It features an optional add-on application—AnkiHub—which allows users to keep up with live updates and collaborations. The deck features a fill-in-the-blank format that may be preferred to a free-response format for information recall. It features Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ which is a high-yield review of clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, surgical dermatology, pharmacology, and histopathology for dermatology residents.
• Disadvantages: The deck is still currently in a development phase, covering 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with plans to add the remaining 25%. The add-on to access the most up-to-date version of the flashcards requires a paid monthly or annual subscription; however, the creator announced they will release periodic free updates of the deck.

Final Thoughts

As a collaborative platform, new flash card decks are always being added to Anki. This article is not comprehensive of all dermatologic flash card decks available. There are decks better suited for medical students covering topics such as the American Academy of Dermatology Basic Dermatology Curriculum, UWorld United States Medical Licensing Examination dermatology, and dermatology in internal medicine. Furthermore, specific study tools in dermatology may have their own accompanying Anki decks (ie, The Grenz Zone podcast, Dermnemonics). Flash cards can be a valuable study tool to trainees in medicine, and residents are immensely grateful to our peers who make them for our use.

Similar to medical school, residency is a time to drink out of the proverbial firehose of knowledge. Along with clinical duties, there is a plethora of information ranging from clinical management decisions to boards fodder that dermatology residents are expected to know, leaving residents to adopt study habits from medical school. Flash cards remain a popular study tool in the medical education community. The use of Anki, a web-based and mobile flash card application (app) that features custom and premade flash card decks made and shared by users, has become increasingly popular. In a 2021 study, Lu et al¹ found that Anki flash card usage was associated with higher US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Herein, I provide an updated review of the top 3 most comprehensive premade Anki decks for dermatology residents, per my assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE DERMATOLOGY DECKS

Dolphin Dermatology

• Creator: Reddit user, Unknown²
• Date created: December 2020
• Last updated: April 2022
• Number of cards: 13,833
• Resources covered: Photographs of common dermatologic diagnoses from online sources such as VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) and DermNet (https://dermnetnz.org/).
• Format of cards: One image or factoid per card.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Each general dermatology card is tagged by the diagnosis name. Pediatric dermatology cards are tagged by affected body location.
• Advantages: As you may glean by the sheer number of flash cards, this deck is a comprehensive review of clinical dermatology. Most cards feature clinical vignettes with clinical photographs of a dermatologic condition or histologic slide and ask what the diagnosis may be. It features photographs of pathology on a range of skin tones and many different images of each diagnosis. This is a great deck for residents who need to study clinical photographs of dermatologic diagnoses.
• Disadvantages: This deck does not cover dermatopathology, basic science, treatment options, or pharmacology in depth. Additionally, is difficult to find a link to download this resource.
• At the time of publication of this article, users are unable to download this deck.

vismo_djib’s Review of Dermatology Anki

• Creator: Reddit user vismo_djib³
• Date created: June 2020
• Last updated: February 2022
• Number of cards: 8454
• Resources covered: Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ is the main resource with supplemental images from VisualDx, Bolognia et al’s Dermatology,⁵ Patterson’s Weedon’s Skin Pathology Essentials,⁶ Elston et al’s Dermatopathology,⁷ Soyer et al’s Dermoscopy: The Essentials,⁸ and Robinson et al’s Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology.⁹
• Format of cards: Cards mostly feature a diagnosis with color-coded categories including epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, histopathology, and treatment.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged with chapter numbers from Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: This impressive comprehensive review of dermatology is a great option for residents studying for the American Board of Dermatology CORE examinations and users looking to solidify the information in Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ a frequently used resource among dermatology residents. It currently is my favorite deck because it features holistic information on diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, and treatment with excellent clinical photographs.
• Disadvantages: For some purposes, this deck may be too lofty. For maximum benefit, it may require user customization including separating cards by tag and other add-ons that allow only 1 card per note, which will separate the information on each card into smaller increments. The mostly free-response format and lengthy slides may make it difficult to practice recall.

AnKingMed Dermki

• Creator: Reddit user AnKingMed^10,11
• Date created: April 2023
• Last updated: This deck features a dynamic add-on and collaboration application called AnkiHub, which allows for real-time updates. At the time this article was written, the deck was last updated on June 19, 2023.
• Number of cards: 7889
• Resources covered: Currently 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with supplemental images from DermNet and Eleryan and Friedman’s The Full Spectrum of Dermatology: A Diverse and Inclusive Atlas.¹²
• Format of cards: Cards are in a fill-in-the-blank format.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged by chapter number and subsection of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: As the newest contribution to the dermatology Anki card compendium, this deck is up to date, innovative, and dynamic. It features an optional add-on application—AnkiHub—which allows users to keep up with live updates and collaborations. The deck features a fill-in-the-blank format that may be preferred to a free-response format for information recall. It features Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ which is a high-yield review of clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, surgical dermatology, pharmacology, and histopathology for dermatology residents.
• Disadvantages: The deck is still currently in a development phase, covering 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with plans to add the remaining 25%. The add-on to access the most up-to-date version of the flashcards requires a paid monthly or annual subscription; however, the creator announced they will release periodic free updates of the deck.

Final Thoughts

As a collaborative platform, new flash card decks are always being added to Anki. This article is not comprehensive of all dermatologic flash card decks available. There are decks better suited for medical students covering topics such as the American Academy of Dermatology Basic Dermatology Curriculum, UWorld United States Medical Licensing Examination dermatology, and dermatology in internal medicine. Furthermore, specific study tools in dermatology may have their own accompanying Anki decks (ie, The Grenz Zone podcast, Dermnemonics). Flash cards can be a valuable study tool to trainees in medicine, and residents are immensely grateful to our peers who make them for our use.

Similar to medical school, residency is a time to drink out of the proverbial firehose of knowledge. Along with clinical duties, there is a plethora of information ranging from clinical management decisions to boards fodder that dermatology residents are expected to know, leaving residents to adopt study habits from medical school. Flash cards remain a popular study tool in the medical education community. The use of Anki, a web-based and mobile flash card application (app) that features custom and premade flash card decks made and shared by users, has become increasingly popular. In a 2021 study, Lu et al¹ found that Anki flash card usage was associated with higher US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Herein, I provide an updated review of the top 3 most comprehensive premade Anki decks for dermatology residents, per my assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE DERMATOLOGY DECKS

Dolphin Dermatology

• Creator: Reddit user, Unknown²
• Date created: December 2020
• Last updated: April 2022
• Number of cards: 13,833
• Resources covered: Photographs of common dermatologic diagnoses from online sources such as VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) and DermNet (https://dermnetnz.org/).
• Format of cards: One image or factoid per card.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Each general dermatology card is tagged by the diagnosis name. Pediatric dermatology cards are tagged by affected body location.
• Advantages: As you may glean by the sheer number of flash cards, this deck is a comprehensive review of clinical dermatology. Most cards feature clinical vignettes with clinical photographs of a dermatologic condition or histologic slide and ask what the diagnosis may be. It features photographs of pathology on a range of skin tones and many different images of each diagnosis. This is a great deck for residents who need to study clinical photographs of dermatologic diagnoses.
• Disadvantages: This deck does not cover dermatopathology, basic science, treatment options, or pharmacology in depth. Additionally, is difficult to find a link to download this resource.
• At the time of publication of this article, users are unable to download this deck.

vismo_djib’s Review of Dermatology Anki

• Creator: Reddit user vismo_djib³
• Date created: June 2020
• Last updated: February 2022
• Number of cards: 8454
• Resources covered: Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ is the main resource with supplemental images from VisualDx, Bolognia et al’s Dermatology,⁵ Patterson’s Weedon’s Skin Pathology Essentials,⁶ Elston et al’s Dermatopathology,⁷ Soyer et al’s Dermoscopy: The Essentials,⁸ and Robinson et al’s Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology.⁹
• Format of cards: Cards mostly feature a diagnosis with color-coded categories including epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, histopathology, and treatment.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged with chapter numbers from Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: This impressive comprehensive review of dermatology is a great option for residents studying for the American Board of Dermatology CORE examinations and users looking to solidify the information in Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ a frequently used resource among dermatology residents. It currently is my favorite deck because it features holistic information on diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, and treatment with excellent clinical photographs.
• Disadvantages: For some purposes, this deck may be too lofty. For maximum benefit, it may require user customization including separating cards by tag and other add-ons that allow only 1 card per note, which will separate the information on each card into smaller increments. The mostly free-response format and lengthy slides may make it difficult to practice recall.

AnKingMed Dermki

• Creator: Reddit user AnKingMed^10,11
• Date created: April 2023
• Last updated: This deck features a dynamic add-on and collaboration application called AnkiHub, which allows for real-time updates. At the time this article was written, the deck was last updated on June 19, 2023.
• Number of cards: 7889
• Resources covered: Currently 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with supplemental images from DermNet and Eleryan and Friedman’s The Full Spectrum of Dermatology: A Diverse and Inclusive Atlas.¹²
• Format of cards: Cards are in a fill-in-the-blank format.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged by chapter number and subsection of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: As the newest contribution to the dermatology Anki card compendium, this deck is up to date, innovative, and dynamic. It features an optional add-on application—AnkiHub—which allows users to keep up with live updates and collaborations. The deck features a fill-in-the-blank format that may be preferred to a free-response format for information recall. It features Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ which is a high-yield review of clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, surgical dermatology, pharmacology, and histopathology for dermatology residents.
• Disadvantages: The deck is still currently in a development phase, covering 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with plans to add the remaining 25%. The add-on to access the most up-to-date version of the flashcards requires a paid monthly or annual subscription; however, the creator announced they will release periodic free updates of the deck.

Final Thoughts

As a collaborative platform, new flash card decks are always being added to Anki. This article is not comprehensive of all dermatologic flash card decks available. There are decks better suited for medical students covering topics such as the American Academy of Dermatology Basic Dermatology Curriculum, UWorld United States Medical Licensing Examination dermatology, and dermatology in internal medicine. Furthermore, specific study tools in dermatology may have their own accompanying Anki decks (ie, The Grenz Zone podcast, Dermnemonics). Flash cards can be a valuable study tool to trainees in medicine, and residents are immensely grateful to our peers who make them for our use.

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses (PPDs) are characterized by petechiae, dusky macules representative of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and dermal hemosiderin, and purpura generally localized to the lower extremities. They typically represent a spectrum of lymphocytic capillaritis, variable erythrocyte extravasation from papillary dermal blood vessels, and deposition of hemosiderin, yielding the classic red to orange to golden-brown findings on gross examination. Clinical overlap exists, but variants include Schamberg disease (SD), Majocchi purpura, Gougerot-Blum purpura, eczematoid purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis (DK), and lichen aureus.¹ Other forms are rarer, including linear, granulomatous, quadrantic, transitory, and familial variants. It remains controversial whether PPD may precede or have an association with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.² Dermoscopy usually shows copper-red pigmentation in the background, oval red dots, linear vessels, brown globules, and follicular openings. Although these findings may be useful in PPD diagnosis, they are not applicable in differentiating among the variants.

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses can easily be mistaken for stasis dermatitis or cellulitis, as these may occur concomitantly or in populations at risk for all 3 conditions, such as women older than 50 years with recent trauma or infection in the affected area. Tissue biopsy and clinical laboratory evaluation may be required to differentiate between PPD from leukocytoclastic vasculitis or the myriad causes of retiform purpura. Importantly, clinicians also should differentiate PPD from the purpuric eruptions of the lower extremities associated with COVID-19 infection.

Pigmented Purpuric Dermatoses

Schamberg Disease—In 1901, Jay Frank Schamberg, a distinguished professor of dermatology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, described “a peculiar progressive pigmentary disease of the skin” in a 15-year-old adolescent boy.³ Schamberg disease is the most common PPD, characterized by pruritic spots resembling cayenne pepper (Figure 1) with orange-brown pigmented macules on the legs and feet.⁴ Although platelet dysfunction, coagulation deficiencies, or dermal atrophy may contribute to hemorrhaging that manifests as petechiae or ecchymoses, SD typically is not associated with any laboratory abnormalities, and petechial eruption is not widespread.⁵ Capillary fragility can be assessed by the tourniquet test, in which pressure is applied to the forearm with a blood pressure cuff inflated between systolic and diastolic blood pressure for 5 to 10 minutes. Upon removing the cuff, a positive test is indicated by 15 or more petechiae in an area 5 cm in diameter due to poor platelet function. A positive result may be seen in SD.⁶

Histologically, SD is characterized by patchy parakeratosis, mild spongiosis of the stratum Malpighi, and lymphoid capillaritis (Figure 2).⁷ In addition to CD3⁺, CD4⁺, CD8⁺, CD1a⁺, and CD36⁺ lymphocytes, histology also may contain dendritic cells and cellular adhesion molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule 1, epithelial cell adhesion molecule 1) within the superficial perivascular infiltrate.⁸ There is no definitive therapy, but first-line interventions include emollients, topical steroids, and oral antihistamines. Nonpharmacologic management includes compression or support stockings, elevation of the lower extremities, and avoidance of offending medications (if identifiable).¹

Majocchi Purpura—Domenico Majocchi was a renowned Italian dermatologist who described an entity in 1898 that he called purpura annularis telangiectodes, now also known as Majocchi purpura.⁹ It is more common in females, young adults, and children. Majocchi purpura has rarely been reported in families with a possible autosomal-dominant inheritance.¹⁰ Typically, bluish-red annular macules with central atrophy surrounded by hyperpigmentation may be seen on the lower extremities, potentially extending to the upper extremities.¹ Treatment of Majocchi purpura remains a challenge but may respond to narrowband UVB phototherapy. Emollients and topical steroids also are used as first-line treatments. Biopsy demonstrates telangiectasia, pericapillary infiltration of mononuclear lymphocytes, and papillary dermal hemosiderin.¹¹

Gougerot-Blum Purpura—In 1925, French dermatologists Henri Gougerot and Paul Blum described a pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis known as Gougerot-Blum purpura,¹² a rare PPD characterized by lichenoid papules that eventually coalesce into plaques of various colors, along with red-brown hyperpigmentation.⁴ As with other PPD variants, the legs are most involved, with rare extension to the trunk or thighs. The plaques may resemble and be mistaken for Kaposi sarcoma, cutaneous vasculitis, traumatic purpura, or mycosis fungoides. Dermoscopic examination reveals small, polygonal or round, red dots underlying brown scaly patches.¹³ Gougerot-Blum purpura is found more commonly in adult men and rarely affects children.⁴ Histologically, a lichenoid and superficial perivascular infiltrate composed of lymphocytes and macrophages is seen. Various therapies have been described, including topical steroids, antihistamines, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, and cyclosporin A.¹⁴

Eczematoid Purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis—In 1949, Greek dermatologists Christopher Doucas and John Kapetanakis observed several cases of purpuric dermatosis similar in form to the “pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis” of Gougerot-Blum purpura¹² and to the “progressive pigmentary dermatitis” of Schamberg disease.³ After observing a gradual disappearance of the classic yellow color from hemosiderin deposition, Doucas and Kapetanakis described a new bright red eruption with lichenification.¹⁵ Eczematoid purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis is rare and predominantly seen in middle-aged males. Hyperpigmented or dark brown macules may develop bilaterally on the legs, progressing to the thighs and upper extremities. Unlike the other types of PPD, DK is extensive and severely pruritic.⁴

Although most PPD can be drug induced, DK has shown the greatest tendency for pruritic erythematous plaques following drug usage including but not limited to amlodipine, aspirin, acetaminophen, thiamine, interferon alfa, chlordiazepoxide, and isotretinoin. Additionally, DK has been associated with a contact allergy to clothing dyes and rubber.⁴ On histology, epidermal spongiosis may be seen, correlating with the eczematoid clinical findings. Spontaneous remission also is more common compared to the other PPDs. Treatment consists of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.¹⁶

Lichen Aureus—Lichen aureus was first observed by the dermatologist R.H. Martin in 1958.¹⁷ It is clinically characterized by closely aggregated purpuric papules with a distinctive golden-brown color more often localized to the lower extremities and sometimes in a dermatomal distribution. Lichen aureus affects males and females equally, and similar to Majocchi purpura can be seen in children.⁴ Histopathologic examination reveals a prominent lichenoid plus superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, extravasated erythrocytes, papillary dermal edema, hemosiderophages, and an unaffected epidermis. In rare cases, perineural infiltrates may be seen. Topical steroids usually are ineffective in lichen aureus treatment, but responses to psoralen plus UVA therapy also have been noted.¹⁷

Differential Diagnosis

COVID-19–Related Cutaneous Changes—Because COVID-19–related pathology is now a common differential diagnosis for many cutaneous eruptions, one must be mindful of the possibility for patients to have PPD, cutaneous changes from underlying COVID-19, or both.¹⁸ The microvascular changes from COVID-19 infection can be variable.¹⁹ Besides the presence of erythema along a distal digit, manifestations can include reticulated dusky erythema mimicking livedoid vasculopathy or inflammatory purpura.¹⁹

Retiform Purpura—Retiform purpura may occur in the setting of microvascular occlusion and can represent the pattern of underlying dermal vasculature. It is nonblanching and typically stellate or branching.²⁰ The microvascular occlusion may be a result of hypercoagulability or may be secondary to cutaneous vasculitis, resulting in thrombosis and subsequent vascular occlusion.²¹ There are many reasons for hypercoagulability in retiform purpura, including disseminated intravascular coagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection.²² The treatment of retiform purpura is aimed at alleviating the underlying cause and providing symptomatic relief. Conversely, the PPDs generally are benign and require minimal workup.

Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis—The hallmark of leukocytoclastic vasculitis is palpable purpura, often appearing as nonblanchable papules, typically in a dependent distribution such as the lower extremities (Figure 3). Although it primarily affects children, Henoch-Schönlein purpura is a type of leukocytoclastic vasculitis with lesions potentially similar in appearance to those of PPD.²³ Palpable purpura may be painful and may ulcerate but rarely is pruritic. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis represents perivascular infiltrates composed of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and occasionally eosinophils, along with karyorrhexis, luminal fibrin, and fibrinoid degeneration of blood vessel walls, often resulting from immune complex deposition. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may affect blood vessels of any size and requires further clinical and laboratory evaluation for infection (including COVID-19), hypercoagulability, autoimmune disease, or medication-related reactions.²⁴

Stasis Dermatitis—Stasis dermatitis, a chronic inflammatory condition stemming from retrograde venous flow due to incompetent venous valves, mimics PPD. Stasis dermatitis initially appears as demarcated erythematous plaques, fissures, and scaling of the lower legs bilaterally, usually involving the medial malleolus.²⁵ With time, the affected region develops overlying brawny hyperpigmentation and fibrosis (Figure 4). Pruritus or pain are common features, while fissures and superficial erosions may heal and recur, leading to lichenification.

Although both commonly appear on the lower extremities, duplex ultrasonography may be helpful to distinguish PPDs from stasis dermatitis since the latter occurs in the context of chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, soft tissue edema, and lymphedema.²⁵ Additionally, pruritus, lichenification, and edema often are not seen in most PPD variants, although stasis dermatitis and PPD may occur in tandem. Conservative treatment involves elevation of the extremities, compression, and topical steroids for symptomatic relief.

Cellulitis—The key characteristics of cellulitis are redness, swelling, warmth, tenderness, fever, and leukocytosis. A history of trauma, such as a prior break in the skin, and pain in the affected area suggest cellulitis. Several skin conditions present similarly to cellulitis, including PPD, and thus approximately 30% of cases are misdiagnosed.²⁶ Cellulitis rarely presents in a bilateral or diffusely scattered pattern as seen in PPDs. Rather, it is unilateral with smooth indistinct borders. Variables suggestive of cellulitis include immunosuppression, rapid progression, and previous occurrences. Hyperpigmented plaques or thickening of the skin are more indicative of a chronic process such as stasis dermatitis or lipodermatosclerosis rather than acute cellulitis. Purpura is not a typical finding in most cases of soft tissue cellulitis. Treatment may be case specific depending on severity, presence or absence of sepsis, findings on blood cultures, or other pathologic evaluation. Antibiotics are directed to the causative organism, typically Streptococcus and Staphylococcus species, although coverage against various gram-negative organisms may be indicated.²⁷

Caution With Teledermatology

COVID-19 has established the value of telemedicine in providing access to health care services for at-risk or underserved individuals. The PPDs are benign, often asymptomatic, and potentially identifiable with teledermatology alone; however, they also can easily be mistaken for COVID-19–related eruptions, vasculitis, other types of purpura, stasis dermatitis, or other complications of lower extremity stasis and lymphedema, especially in an aging population. If tissue biopsy is required, as in the workup of vasculitis, the efficacy of telemedicine becomes more questionable. It is important to delineate the potentially confusing PPDs from other potentially dangerous or life-threatening inflammatory dermatoses.²⁸

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses (PPDs) are characterized by petechiae, dusky macules representative of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and dermal hemosiderin, and purpura generally localized to the lower extremities. They typically represent a spectrum of lymphocytic capillaritis, variable erythrocyte extravasation from papillary dermal blood vessels, and deposition of hemosiderin, yielding the classic red to orange to golden-brown findings on gross examination. Clinical overlap exists, but variants include Schamberg disease (SD), Majocchi purpura, Gougerot-Blum purpura, eczematoid purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis (DK), and lichen aureus.¹ Other forms are rarer, including linear, granulomatous, quadrantic, transitory, and familial variants. It remains controversial whether PPD may precede or have an association with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.² Dermoscopy usually shows copper-red pigmentation in the background, oval red dots, linear vessels, brown globules, and follicular openings. Although these findings may be useful in PPD diagnosis, they are not applicable in differentiating among the variants.

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses can easily be mistaken for stasis dermatitis or cellulitis, as these may occur concomitantly or in populations at risk for all 3 conditions, such as women older than 50 years with recent trauma or infection in the affected area. Tissue biopsy and clinical laboratory evaluation may be required to differentiate between PPD from leukocytoclastic vasculitis or the myriad causes of retiform purpura. Importantly, clinicians also should differentiate PPD from the purpuric eruptions of the lower extremities associated with COVID-19 infection.

Pigmented Purpuric Dermatoses

Schamberg Disease—In 1901, Jay Frank Schamberg, a distinguished professor of dermatology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, described “a peculiar progressive pigmentary disease of the skin” in a 15-year-old adolescent boy.³ Schamberg disease is the most common PPD, characterized by pruritic spots resembling cayenne pepper (Figure 1) with orange-brown pigmented macules on the legs and feet.⁴ Although platelet dysfunction, coagulation deficiencies, or dermal atrophy may contribute to hemorrhaging that manifests as petechiae or ecchymoses, SD typically is not associated with any laboratory abnormalities, and petechial eruption is not widespread.⁵ Capillary fragility can be assessed by the tourniquet test, in which pressure is applied to the forearm with a blood pressure cuff inflated between systolic and diastolic blood pressure for 5 to 10 minutes. Upon removing the cuff, a positive test is indicated by 15 or more petechiae in an area 5 cm in diameter due to poor platelet function. A positive result may be seen in SD.⁶

Histologically, SD is characterized by patchy parakeratosis, mild spongiosis of the stratum Malpighi, and lymphoid capillaritis (Figure 2).⁷ In addition to CD3⁺, CD4⁺, CD8⁺, CD1a⁺, and CD36⁺ lymphocytes, histology also may contain dendritic cells and cellular adhesion molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule 1, epithelial cell adhesion molecule 1) within the superficial perivascular infiltrate.⁸ There is no definitive therapy, but first-line interventions include emollients, topical steroids, and oral antihistamines. Nonpharmacologic management includes compression or support stockings, elevation of the lower extremities, and avoidance of offending medications (if identifiable).¹

Majocchi Purpura—Domenico Majocchi was a renowned Italian dermatologist who described an entity in 1898 that he called purpura annularis telangiectodes, now also known as Majocchi purpura.⁹ It is more common in females, young adults, and children. Majocchi purpura has rarely been reported in families with a possible autosomal-dominant inheritance.¹⁰ Typically, bluish-red annular macules with central atrophy surrounded by hyperpigmentation may be seen on the lower extremities, potentially extending to the upper extremities.¹ Treatment of Majocchi purpura remains a challenge but may respond to narrowband UVB phototherapy. Emollients and topical steroids also are used as first-line treatments. Biopsy demonstrates telangiectasia, pericapillary infiltration of mononuclear lymphocytes, and papillary dermal hemosiderin.¹¹

Gougerot-Blum Purpura—In 1925, French dermatologists Henri Gougerot and Paul Blum described a pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis known as Gougerot-Blum purpura,¹² a rare PPD characterized by lichenoid papules that eventually coalesce into plaques of various colors, along with red-brown hyperpigmentation.⁴ As with other PPD variants, the legs are most involved, with rare extension to the trunk or thighs. The plaques may resemble and be mistaken for Kaposi sarcoma, cutaneous vasculitis, traumatic purpura, or mycosis fungoides. Dermoscopic examination reveals small, polygonal or round, red dots underlying brown scaly patches.¹³ Gougerot-Blum purpura is found more commonly in adult men and rarely affects children.⁴ Histologically, a lichenoid and superficial perivascular infiltrate composed of lymphocytes and macrophages is seen. Various therapies have been described, including topical steroids, antihistamines, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, and cyclosporin A.¹⁴

Eczematoid Purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis—In 1949, Greek dermatologists Christopher Doucas and John Kapetanakis observed several cases of purpuric dermatosis similar in form to the “pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis” of Gougerot-Blum purpura¹² and to the “progressive pigmentary dermatitis” of Schamberg disease.³ After observing a gradual disappearance of the classic yellow color from hemosiderin deposition, Doucas and Kapetanakis described a new bright red eruption with lichenification.¹⁵ Eczematoid purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis is rare and predominantly seen in middle-aged males. Hyperpigmented or dark brown macules may develop bilaterally on the legs, progressing to the thighs and upper extremities. Unlike the other types of PPD, DK is extensive and severely pruritic.⁴

Although most PPD can be drug induced, DK has shown the greatest tendency for pruritic erythematous plaques following drug usage including but not limited to amlodipine, aspirin, acetaminophen, thiamine, interferon alfa, chlordiazepoxide, and isotretinoin. Additionally, DK has been associated with a contact allergy to clothing dyes and rubber.⁴ On histology, epidermal spongiosis may be seen, correlating with the eczematoid clinical findings. Spontaneous remission also is more common compared to the other PPDs. Treatment consists of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.¹⁶

Lichen Aureus—Lichen aureus was first observed by the dermatologist R.H. Martin in 1958.¹⁷ It is clinically characterized by closely aggregated purpuric papules with a distinctive golden-brown color more often localized to the lower extremities and sometimes in a dermatomal distribution. Lichen aureus affects males and females equally, and similar to Majocchi purpura can be seen in children.⁴ Histopathologic examination reveals a prominent lichenoid plus superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, extravasated erythrocytes, papillary dermal edema, hemosiderophages, and an unaffected epidermis. In rare cases, perineural infiltrates may be seen. Topical steroids usually are ineffective in lichen aureus treatment, but responses to psoralen plus UVA therapy also have been noted.¹⁷

Differential Diagnosis

COVID-19–Related Cutaneous Changes—Because COVID-19–related pathology is now a common differential diagnosis for many cutaneous eruptions, one must be mindful of the possibility for patients to have PPD, cutaneous changes from underlying COVID-19, or both.¹⁸ The microvascular changes from COVID-19 infection can be variable.¹⁹ Besides the presence of erythema along a distal digit, manifestations can include reticulated dusky erythema mimicking livedoid vasculopathy or inflammatory purpura.¹⁹

Retiform Purpura—Retiform purpura may occur in the setting of microvascular occlusion and can represent the pattern of underlying dermal vasculature. It is nonblanching and typically stellate or branching.²⁰ The microvascular occlusion may be a result of hypercoagulability or may be secondary to cutaneous vasculitis, resulting in thrombosis and subsequent vascular occlusion.²¹ There are many reasons for hypercoagulability in retiform purpura, including disseminated intravascular coagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection.²² The treatment of retiform purpura is aimed at alleviating the underlying cause and providing symptomatic relief. Conversely, the PPDs generally are benign and require minimal workup.

Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis—The hallmark of leukocytoclastic vasculitis is palpable purpura, often appearing as nonblanchable papules, typically in a dependent distribution such as the lower extremities (Figure 3). Although it primarily affects children, Henoch-Schönlein purpura is a type of leukocytoclastic vasculitis with lesions potentially similar in appearance to those of PPD.²³ Palpable purpura may be painful and may ulcerate but rarely is pruritic. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis represents perivascular infiltrates composed of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and occasionally eosinophils, along with karyorrhexis, luminal fibrin, and fibrinoid degeneration of blood vessel walls, often resulting from immune complex deposition. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may affect blood vessels of any size and requires further clinical and laboratory evaluation for infection (including COVID-19), hypercoagulability, autoimmune disease, or medication-related reactions.²⁴

Stasis Dermatitis—Stasis dermatitis, a chronic inflammatory condition stemming from retrograde venous flow due to incompetent venous valves, mimics PPD. Stasis dermatitis initially appears as demarcated erythematous plaques, fissures, and scaling of the lower legs bilaterally, usually involving the medial malleolus.²⁵ With time, the affected region develops overlying brawny hyperpigmentation and fibrosis (Figure 4). Pruritus or pain are common features, while fissures and superficial erosions may heal and recur, leading to lichenification.

Although both commonly appear on the lower extremities, duplex ultrasonography may be helpful to distinguish PPDs from stasis dermatitis since the latter occurs in the context of chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, soft tissue edema, and lymphedema.²⁵ Additionally, pruritus, lichenification, and edema often are not seen in most PPD variants, although stasis dermatitis and PPD may occur in tandem. Conservative treatment involves elevation of the extremities, compression, and topical steroids for symptomatic relief.

Cellulitis—The key characteristics of cellulitis are redness, swelling, warmth, tenderness, fever, and leukocytosis. A history of trauma, such as a prior break in the skin, and pain in the affected area suggest cellulitis. Several skin conditions present similarly to cellulitis, including PPD, and thus approximately 30% of cases are misdiagnosed.²⁶ Cellulitis rarely presents in a bilateral or diffusely scattered pattern as seen in PPDs. Rather, it is unilateral with smooth indistinct borders. Variables suggestive of cellulitis include immunosuppression, rapid progression, and previous occurrences. Hyperpigmented plaques or thickening of the skin are more indicative of a chronic process such as stasis dermatitis or lipodermatosclerosis rather than acute cellulitis. Purpura is not a typical finding in most cases of soft tissue cellulitis. Treatment may be case specific depending on severity, presence or absence of sepsis, findings on blood cultures, or other pathologic evaluation. Antibiotics are directed to the causative organism, typically Streptococcus and Staphylococcus species, although coverage against various gram-negative organisms may be indicated.²⁷

Caution With Teledermatology

COVID-19 has established the value of telemedicine in providing access to health care services for at-risk or underserved individuals. The PPDs are benign, often asymptomatic, and potentially identifiable with teledermatology alone; however, they also can easily be mistaken for COVID-19–related eruptions, vasculitis, other types of purpura, stasis dermatitis, or other complications of lower extremity stasis and lymphedema, especially in an aging population. If tissue biopsy is required, as in the workup of vasculitis, the efficacy of telemedicine becomes more questionable. It is important to delineate the potentially confusing PPDs from other potentially dangerous or life-threatening inflammatory dermatoses.²⁸

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses (PPDs) are characterized by petechiae, dusky macules representative of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and dermal hemosiderin, and purpura generally localized to the lower extremities. They typically represent a spectrum of lymphocytic capillaritis, variable erythrocyte extravasation from papillary dermal blood vessels, and deposition of hemosiderin, yielding the classic red to orange to golden-brown findings on gross examination. Clinical overlap exists, but variants include Schamberg disease (SD), Majocchi purpura, Gougerot-Blum purpura, eczematoid purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis (DK), and lichen aureus.¹ Other forms are rarer, including linear, granulomatous, quadrantic, transitory, and familial variants. It remains controversial whether PPD may precede or have an association with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.² Dermoscopy usually shows copper-red pigmentation in the background, oval red dots, linear vessels, brown globules, and follicular openings. Although these findings may be useful in PPD diagnosis, they are not applicable in differentiating among the variants.

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses can easily be mistaken for stasis dermatitis or cellulitis, as these may occur concomitantly or in populations at risk for all 3 conditions, such as women older than 50 years with recent trauma or infection in the affected area. Tissue biopsy and clinical laboratory evaluation may be required to differentiate between PPD from leukocytoclastic vasculitis or the myriad causes of retiform purpura. Importantly, clinicians also should differentiate PPD from the purpuric eruptions of the lower extremities associated with COVID-19 infection.

Pigmented Purpuric Dermatoses

Schamberg Disease—In 1901, Jay Frank Schamberg, a distinguished professor of dermatology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, described “a peculiar progressive pigmentary disease of the skin” in a 15-year-old adolescent boy.³ Schamberg disease is the most common PPD, characterized by pruritic spots resembling cayenne pepper (Figure 1) with orange-brown pigmented macules on the legs and feet.⁴ Although platelet dysfunction, coagulation deficiencies, or dermal atrophy may contribute to hemorrhaging that manifests as petechiae or ecchymoses, SD typically is not associated with any laboratory abnormalities, and petechial eruption is not widespread.⁵ Capillary fragility can be assessed by the tourniquet test, in which pressure is applied to the forearm with a blood pressure cuff inflated between systolic and diastolic blood pressure for 5 to 10 minutes. Upon removing the cuff, a positive test is indicated by 15 or more petechiae in an area 5 cm in diameter due to poor platelet function. A positive result may be seen in SD.⁶

Histologically, SD is characterized by patchy parakeratosis, mild spongiosis of the stratum Malpighi, and lymphoid capillaritis (Figure 2).⁷ In addition to CD3⁺, CD4⁺, CD8⁺, CD1a⁺, and CD36⁺ lymphocytes, histology also may contain dendritic cells and cellular adhesion molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule 1, epithelial cell adhesion molecule 1) within the superficial perivascular infiltrate.⁸ There is no definitive therapy, but first-line interventions include emollients, topical steroids, and oral antihistamines. Nonpharmacologic management includes compression or support stockings, elevation of the lower extremities, and avoidance of offending medications (if identifiable).¹

Majocchi Purpura—Domenico Majocchi was a renowned Italian dermatologist who described an entity in 1898 that he called purpura annularis telangiectodes, now also known as Majocchi purpura.⁹ It is more common in females, young adults, and children. Majocchi purpura has rarely been reported in families with a possible autosomal-dominant inheritance.¹⁰ Typically, bluish-red annular macules with central atrophy surrounded by hyperpigmentation may be seen on the lower extremities, potentially extending to the upper extremities.¹ Treatment of Majocchi purpura remains a challenge but may respond to narrowband UVB phototherapy. Emollients and topical steroids also are used as first-line treatments. Biopsy demonstrates telangiectasia, pericapillary infiltration of mononuclear lymphocytes, and papillary dermal hemosiderin.¹¹

Gougerot-Blum Purpura—In 1925, French dermatologists Henri Gougerot and Paul Blum described a pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis known as Gougerot-Blum purpura,¹² a rare PPD characterized by lichenoid papules that eventually coalesce into plaques of various colors, along with red-brown hyperpigmentation.⁴ As with other PPD variants, the legs are most involved, with rare extension to the trunk or thighs. The plaques may resemble and be mistaken for Kaposi sarcoma, cutaneous vasculitis, traumatic purpura, or mycosis fungoides. Dermoscopic examination reveals small, polygonal or round, red dots underlying brown scaly patches.¹³ Gougerot-Blum purpura is found more commonly in adult men and rarely affects children.⁴ Histologically, a lichenoid and superficial perivascular infiltrate composed of lymphocytes and macrophages is seen. Various therapies have been described, including topical steroids, antihistamines, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, and cyclosporin A.¹⁴

Eczematoid Purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis—In 1949, Greek dermatologists Christopher Doucas and John Kapetanakis observed several cases of purpuric dermatosis similar in form to the “pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatitis” of Gougerot-Blum purpura¹² and to the “progressive pigmentary dermatitis” of Schamberg disease.³ After observing a gradual disappearance of the classic yellow color from hemosiderin deposition, Doucas and Kapetanakis described a new bright red eruption with lichenification.¹⁵ Eczematoid purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis is rare and predominantly seen in middle-aged males. Hyperpigmented or dark brown macules may develop bilaterally on the legs, progressing to the thighs and upper extremities. Unlike the other types of PPD, DK is extensive and severely pruritic.⁴

Although most PPD can be drug induced, DK has shown the greatest tendency for pruritic erythematous plaques following drug usage including but not limited to amlodipine, aspirin, acetaminophen, thiamine, interferon alfa, chlordiazepoxide, and isotretinoin. Additionally, DK has been associated with a contact allergy to clothing dyes and rubber.⁴ On histology, epidermal spongiosis may be seen, correlating with the eczematoid clinical findings. Spontaneous remission also is more common compared to the other PPDs. Treatment consists of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.¹⁶

Lichen Aureus—Lichen aureus was first observed by the dermatologist R.H. Martin in 1958.¹⁷ It is clinically characterized by closely aggregated purpuric papules with a distinctive golden-brown color more often localized to the lower extremities and sometimes in a dermatomal distribution. Lichen aureus affects males and females equally, and similar to Majocchi purpura can be seen in children.⁴ Histopathologic examination reveals a prominent lichenoid plus superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, extravasated erythrocytes, papillary dermal edema, hemosiderophages, and an unaffected epidermis. In rare cases, perineural infiltrates may be seen. Topical steroids usually are ineffective in lichen aureus treatment, but responses to psoralen plus UVA therapy also have been noted.¹⁷

Differential Diagnosis

COVID-19–Related Cutaneous Changes—Because COVID-19–related pathology is now a common differential diagnosis for many cutaneous eruptions, one must be mindful of the possibility for patients to have PPD, cutaneous changes from underlying COVID-19, or both.¹⁸ The microvascular changes from COVID-19 infection can be variable.¹⁹ Besides the presence of erythema along a distal digit, manifestations can include reticulated dusky erythema mimicking livedoid vasculopathy or inflammatory purpura.¹⁹

Retiform Purpura—Retiform purpura may occur in the setting of microvascular occlusion and can represent the pattern of underlying dermal vasculature. It is nonblanching and typically stellate or branching.²⁰ The microvascular occlusion may be a result of hypercoagulability or may be secondary to cutaneous vasculitis, resulting in thrombosis and subsequent vascular occlusion.²¹ There are many reasons for hypercoagulability in retiform purpura, including disseminated intravascular coagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection.²² The treatment of retiform purpura is aimed at alleviating the underlying cause and providing symptomatic relief. Conversely, the PPDs generally are benign and require minimal workup.

Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis—The hallmark of leukocytoclastic vasculitis is palpable purpura, often appearing as nonblanchable papules, typically in a dependent distribution such as the lower extremities (Figure 3). Although it primarily affects children, Henoch-Schönlein purpura is a type of leukocytoclastic vasculitis with lesions potentially similar in appearance to those of PPD.²³ Palpable purpura may be painful and may ulcerate but rarely is pruritic. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis represents perivascular infiltrates composed of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and occasionally eosinophils, along with karyorrhexis, luminal fibrin, and fibrinoid degeneration of blood vessel walls, often resulting from immune complex deposition. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may affect blood vessels of any size and requires further clinical and laboratory evaluation for infection (including COVID-19), hypercoagulability, autoimmune disease, or medication-related reactions.²⁴

Stasis Dermatitis—Stasis dermatitis, a chronic inflammatory condition stemming from retrograde venous flow due to incompetent venous valves, mimics PPD. Stasis dermatitis initially appears as demarcated erythematous plaques, fissures, and scaling of the lower legs bilaterally, usually involving the medial malleolus.²⁵ With time, the affected region develops overlying brawny hyperpigmentation and fibrosis (Figure 4). Pruritus or pain are common features, while fissures and superficial erosions may heal and recur, leading to lichenification.

Although both commonly appear on the lower extremities, duplex ultrasonography may be helpful to distinguish PPDs from stasis dermatitis since the latter occurs in the context of chronic venous insufficiency, varicose veins, soft tissue edema, and lymphedema.²⁵ Additionally, pruritus, lichenification, and edema often are not seen in most PPD variants, although stasis dermatitis and PPD may occur in tandem. Conservative treatment involves elevation of the extremities, compression, and topical steroids for symptomatic relief.

Cellulitis—The key characteristics of cellulitis are redness, swelling, warmth, tenderness, fever, and leukocytosis. A history of trauma, such as a prior break in the skin, and pain in the affected area suggest cellulitis. Several skin conditions present similarly to cellulitis, including PPD, and thus approximately 30% of cases are misdiagnosed.²⁶ Cellulitis rarely presents in a bilateral or diffusely scattered pattern as seen in PPDs. Rather, it is unilateral with smooth indistinct borders. Variables suggestive of cellulitis include immunosuppression, rapid progression, and previous occurrences. Hyperpigmented plaques or thickening of the skin are more indicative of a chronic process such as stasis dermatitis or lipodermatosclerosis rather than acute cellulitis. Purpura is not a typical finding in most cases of soft tissue cellulitis. Treatment may be case specific depending on severity, presence or absence of sepsis, findings on blood cultures, or other pathologic evaluation. Antibiotics are directed to the causative organism, typically Streptococcus and Staphylococcus species, although coverage against various gram-negative organisms may be indicated.²⁷

Caution With Teledermatology

COVID-19 has established the value of telemedicine in providing access to health care services for at-risk or underserved individuals. The PPDs are benign, often asymptomatic, and potentially identifiable with teledermatology alone; however, they also can easily be mistaken for COVID-19–related eruptions, vasculitis, other types of purpura, stasis dermatitis, or other complications of lower extremity stasis and lymphedema, especially in an aging population. If tissue biopsy is required, as in the workup of vasculitis, the efficacy of telemedicine becomes more questionable. It is important to delineate the potentially confusing PPDs from other potentially dangerous or life-threatening inflammatory dermatoses.²⁸

To the Editor:

Herpes vegetans (HV) is an uncommon infection caused by human herpesvirus (HHV) in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those who are HIV positive.¹ Unlike typical HHV infection, HV can present with exophytic exudative ulcers and papillomatous vegetations. The presentation of ulcerated genital nodules, especially in an immunocompromised patient, yields an array of disorders in the differential diagnosis, including condyloma latum, condyloma acuminatum, pyogenic granuloma (PG), and verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Histopathology of HV reveals pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, plasma cell infiltration, and positivity for HHV type 1 (HHV-1) and/or HHV type 2 (HHV-2). Herpes vegetans lesions typically require a multimodal treatment approach because many cases are resistant to acyclovir. Treatment options include the nucleoside analogues foscarnet and cidofovir; immunomodulators such as topical imiquimod; and the topical antiviral trifluridine.^1,4-6 We describe a case of HV in a patient with a history of well-controlled HIV infection who presented with a painful fungating penile lesion.

A 55-year-old man presented to the hospital with a painful expanding mass on the distal aspect of the penis of 3 months’ duration. He had a history of HIV infection that was well-controlled by antiretroviral therapy, prior hepatitis B virus infection and acyclovir-resistant genital HHV-2 infection. Physical examination revealed a large, firm, circumferential, exophytic, verrucous plaque with various areas of ulceration and purulent drainage on the distal shaft and glans of the penis (Figure 1). The patient’s most recent absolute CD4 count was 425 cells/mm³ (reference range, 500–1500 cells/mm³). His HIV viral load was undetectable at less than 30 copies/mL. Histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin staining of biopsy material from the penile lesion demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous epidermal hyperplasia with focal ulceration and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 2A). At higher magnification, clear viral cytopathic changes of HHV were noted, including multinucleation, nuclear molding, and homogenous gray nuclei (Figure 2B). Additional staining for fungi, mycobacteria, and spirochetes was negative. In-situ hybridization was negative for human papillomavirus subtypes. A bacterial culture of swabs of the purulent drainage was positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis.

Given the patient’s known history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, he received a 28-day course of intravenous foscarnet 40 mg/kg every 12 hours. He also was given a 14-day course of intravenous ampicillin-sulbactam 3 g every 6 hours. The patient gradually improved during a 35-day hospital stay. He was discharged with cidofovir cream 1% and oral valacyclovir; the latter was subsequently discontinued by dermatology because of his known history of acyclovir resistance. Four months after discharge, the patient underwent a circumcision performed by urology to decrease the risk for recurrence and achieve the best cosmetic outcome. At the 6-month follow-up visit, dramatic clinical improvement was evident, with complete resolution of the plaque and only isolated areas of scarring (Figure 3). The patient reported that penile function was preserved.

Herpes vegetans represents a rare infection with HHV-1 or HHV-2, typically in patients who are considerably immunosuppressed, such as those with cancer, those undergoing transplantation, and those with uncontrolled HIV infection.¹ Few cases of HV have been described in an immunocompetent patient.² Our case is unique because the patient’s HIV infection was well controlled at the time HV was diagnosed, demonstrated by his modestly low CD4 count and undetectable HIV viral load.

Patients with HV can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Typically, a diagnosis of cutaneous HHV infection does not require a biopsy; most cases appear as clustered vesicular lesions, making the disease easy to diagnose clinically. However, biopsies and cultures are necessary to identify the underlying cause of atypical verrucous exophytic lesions. Other conditions with clinical features similar to HV include squamous cell carcinoma, condyloma acuminatum, and deep fungal and mycobacterial infections.^2,3 A tissue biopsy, histologic staining, and tissue culture should be performed to identify the causative pathogen and potential targets for treatment. Definitive diagnosis is vital to deliver proper treatment modalities, which often involve a multimodal multidisciplinary approach. 

Several pathogenic mechanisms of HV have been proposed. One theory suggests that in an immunocompetent patient, HHV typically triggers a lymphocytic response, which leads to activation of interferon alpha. However, in an immunocompromised patient, such as an individual with AIDS, this interferon response is diminished, which explains why these patients typically have a chronic and resistant HHV infection. HIV has an affinity for infecting dermal dendritic cells, which signals activation of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin.⁶ Both cytokines contribute to an antiapoptotic environment that promotes continued proliferation of these viral cells in the epidermis. Over time, propagation of disinhibited cells can lead to the verrucous and hyperkeratotic-appearing skin that is common in patients with HV.⁷

Another theorized mechanism underlying hypertrophic herpetic lesions was described in the context of HHV-1 infection and subsequent PG. El Hayderi et al⁸ reported that histologic and immunohistochemical examination of a patient’s lesion revealed sparse epithelial cell aggregates within PG as well as HHV-1 antigens in the nuclei and cytoplasm of normal-appearing and cytopathic epithelial cells. Immunohistochemical examination also revealed vascular endothelial growth factor within HHV-1–infected epithelial cells and PG endothelial cells, suggesting that PG formation may be indirectly driven by vascular endothelial growth factor and its proangiogenic properties. The pathogenesis of PG in the setting of HHV-1 infection displays many similarities to hyperkeratotic lesions observed in atypical cutaneous manifestations of HHV-2.⁸

The management of patients with HV continues to be complex, often requiring a multimodal regimen. Although acyclovir has been shown to be highly effective for treating and preventing most HHV infections, acyclovir resistance frequently has been reported in immunocompromised populations.⁵ Acyclovir resistance can be correlated with the severity of immunodeficiency as well as the duration of acyclovir exposure. Resistance to acyclovir often results from deficient intracellular phosphorylation, which is required for activation of the drug. If patients show resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives, alternate drug classes that do not depend on thymidine kinase phosphorylation should be considered.

Our patient received a combination of intravenous foscarnet and a course of ampicillin-sulbactam while an inpatient due to his documented history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, and he was discharged on cidofovir cream 1%. Cidofovir is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Although data are limited, topical and intralesional cidofovir have been used to treat acyclovir-resistant cases of HV with documented success.^1,9 In refractory HV or when the disease is slow to resolve, intralesional cidofovir has been documented to be an additional treatment option. Intralesional and topical cidofovir carry a much lower risk for adverse effects such as kidney dysfunction compared to intravenous cidofovir¹ and can be considered in patients with minimal clinical improvement and those at increased risk for side effects.

Our case demonstrated how a patient with HV may require a complex and prolonged hospital course for appropriate treatment. Our patient required an array of both medical and surgical modalities to reach the desired outcome. Here, a multitude of specialties including infectious disease, dermatology, and urology worked together to reach a positive clinical and cosmetic outcome for this patient. 

To the Editor:

Herpes vegetans (HV) is an uncommon infection caused by human herpesvirus (HHV) in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those who are HIV positive.¹ Unlike typical HHV infection, HV can present with exophytic exudative ulcers and papillomatous vegetations. The presentation of ulcerated genital nodules, especially in an immunocompromised patient, yields an array of disorders in the differential diagnosis, including condyloma latum, condyloma acuminatum, pyogenic granuloma (PG), and verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Histopathology of HV reveals pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, plasma cell infiltration, and positivity for HHV type 1 (HHV-1) and/or HHV type 2 (HHV-2). Herpes vegetans lesions typically require a multimodal treatment approach because many cases are resistant to acyclovir. Treatment options include the nucleoside analogues foscarnet and cidofovir; immunomodulators such as topical imiquimod; and the topical antiviral trifluridine.^1,4-6 We describe a case of HV in a patient with a history of well-controlled HIV infection who presented with a painful fungating penile lesion.

A 55-year-old man presented to the hospital with a painful expanding mass on the distal aspect of the penis of 3 months’ duration. He had a history of HIV infection that was well-controlled by antiretroviral therapy, prior hepatitis B virus infection and acyclovir-resistant genital HHV-2 infection. Physical examination revealed a large, firm, circumferential, exophytic, verrucous plaque with various areas of ulceration and purulent drainage on the distal shaft and glans of the penis (Figure 1). The patient’s most recent absolute CD4 count was 425 cells/mm³ (reference range, 500–1500 cells/mm³). His HIV viral load was undetectable at less than 30 copies/mL. Histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin staining of biopsy material from the penile lesion demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous epidermal hyperplasia with focal ulceration and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 2A). At higher magnification, clear viral cytopathic changes of HHV were noted, including multinucleation, nuclear molding, and homogenous gray nuclei (Figure 2B). Additional staining for fungi, mycobacteria, and spirochetes was negative. In-situ hybridization was negative for human papillomavirus subtypes. A bacterial culture of swabs of the purulent drainage was positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis.

Given the patient’s known history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, he received a 28-day course of intravenous foscarnet 40 mg/kg every 12 hours. He also was given a 14-day course of intravenous ampicillin-sulbactam 3 g every 6 hours. The patient gradually improved during a 35-day hospital stay. He was discharged with cidofovir cream 1% and oral valacyclovir; the latter was subsequently discontinued by dermatology because of his known history of acyclovir resistance. Four months after discharge, the patient underwent a circumcision performed by urology to decrease the risk for recurrence and achieve the best cosmetic outcome. At the 6-month follow-up visit, dramatic clinical improvement was evident, with complete resolution of the plaque and only isolated areas of scarring (Figure 3). The patient reported that penile function was preserved.

Herpes vegetans represents a rare infection with HHV-1 or HHV-2, typically in patients who are considerably immunosuppressed, such as those with cancer, those undergoing transplantation, and those with uncontrolled HIV infection.¹ Few cases of HV have been described in an immunocompetent patient.² Our case is unique because the patient’s HIV infection was well controlled at the time HV was diagnosed, demonstrated by his modestly low CD4 count and undetectable HIV viral load.

Patients with HV can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Typically, a diagnosis of cutaneous HHV infection does not require a biopsy; most cases appear as clustered vesicular lesions, making the disease easy to diagnose clinically. However, biopsies and cultures are necessary to identify the underlying cause of atypical verrucous exophytic lesions. Other conditions with clinical features similar to HV include squamous cell carcinoma, condyloma acuminatum, and deep fungal and mycobacterial infections.^2,3 A tissue biopsy, histologic staining, and tissue culture should be performed to identify the causative pathogen and potential targets for treatment. Definitive diagnosis is vital to deliver proper treatment modalities, which often involve a multimodal multidisciplinary approach. 

Several pathogenic mechanisms of HV have been proposed. One theory suggests that in an immunocompetent patient, HHV typically triggers a lymphocytic response, which leads to activation of interferon alpha. However, in an immunocompromised patient, such as an individual with AIDS, this interferon response is diminished, which explains why these patients typically have a chronic and resistant HHV infection. HIV has an affinity for infecting dermal dendritic cells, which signals activation of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin.⁶ Both cytokines contribute to an antiapoptotic environment that promotes continued proliferation of these viral cells in the epidermis. Over time, propagation of disinhibited cells can lead to the verrucous and hyperkeratotic-appearing skin that is common in patients with HV.⁷

Another theorized mechanism underlying hypertrophic herpetic lesions was described in the context of HHV-1 infection and subsequent PG. El Hayderi et al⁸ reported that histologic and immunohistochemical examination of a patient’s lesion revealed sparse epithelial cell aggregates within PG as well as HHV-1 antigens in the nuclei and cytoplasm of normal-appearing and cytopathic epithelial cells. Immunohistochemical examination also revealed vascular endothelial growth factor within HHV-1–infected epithelial cells and PG endothelial cells, suggesting that PG formation may be indirectly driven by vascular endothelial growth factor and its proangiogenic properties. The pathogenesis of PG in the setting of HHV-1 infection displays many similarities to hyperkeratotic lesions observed in atypical cutaneous manifestations of HHV-2.⁸

The management of patients with HV continues to be complex, often requiring a multimodal regimen. Although acyclovir has been shown to be highly effective for treating and preventing most HHV infections, acyclovir resistance frequently has been reported in immunocompromised populations.⁵ Acyclovir resistance can be correlated with the severity of immunodeficiency as well as the duration of acyclovir exposure. Resistance to acyclovir often results from deficient intracellular phosphorylation, which is required for activation of the drug. If patients show resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives, alternate drug classes that do not depend on thymidine kinase phosphorylation should be considered.

Our patient received a combination of intravenous foscarnet and a course of ampicillin-sulbactam while an inpatient due to his documented history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, and he was discharged on cidofovir cream 1%. Cidofovir is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Although data are limited, topical and intralesional cidofovir have been used to treat acyclovir-resistant cases of HV with documented success.^1,9 In refractory HV or when the disease is slow to resolve, intralesional cidofovir has been documented to be an additional treatment option. Intralesional and topical cidofovir carry a much lower risk for adverse effects such as kidney dysfunction compared to intravenous cidofovir¹ and can be considered in patients with minimal clinical improvement and those at increased risk for side effects.

Our case demonstrated how a patient with HV may require a complex and prolonged hospital course for appropriate treatment. Our patient required an array of both medical and surgical modalities to reach the desired outcome. Here, a multitude of specialties including infectious disease, dermatology, and urology worked together to reach a positive clinical and cosmetic outcome for this patient. 

To the Editor:

Herpes vegetans (HV) is an uncommon infection caused by human herpesvirus (HHV) in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those who are HIV positive.¹ Unlike typical HHV infection, HV can present with exophytic exudative ulcers and papillomatous vegetations. The presentation of ulcerated genital nodules, especially in an immunocompromised patient, yields an array of disorders in the differential diagnosis, including condyloma latum, condyloma acuminatum, pyogenic granuloma (PG), and verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Histopathology of HV reveals pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, plasma cell infiltration, and positivity for HHV type 1 (HHV-1) and/or HHV type 2 (HHV-2). Herpes vegetans lesions typically require a multimodal treatment approach because many cases are resistant to acyclovir. Treatment options include the nucleoside analogues foscarnet and cidofovir; immunomodulators such as topical imiquimod; and the topical antiviral trifluridine.^1,4-6 We describe a case of HV in a patient with a history of well-controlled HIV infection who presented with a painful fungating penile lesion.

A 55-year-old man presented to the hospital with a painful expanding mass on the distal aspect of the penis of 3 months’ duration. He had a history of HIV infection that was well-controlled by antiretroviral therapy, prior hepatitis B virus infection and acyclovir-resistant genital HHV-2 infection. Physical examination revealed a large, firm, circumferential, exophytic, verrucous plaque with various areas of ulceration and purulent drainage on the distal shaft and glans of the penis (Figure 1). The patient’s most recent absolute CD4 count was 425 cells/mm³ (reference range, 500–1500 cells/mm³). His HIV viral load was undetectable at less than 30 copies/mL. Histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin staining of biopsy material from the penile lesion demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous epidermal hyperplasia with focal ulceration and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 2A). At higher magnification, clear viral cytopathic changes of HHV were noted, including multinucleation, nuclear molding, and homogenous gray nuclei (Figure 2B). Additional staining for fungi, mycobacteria, and spirochetes was negative. In-situ hybridization was negative for human papillomavirus subtypes. A bacterial culture of swabs of the purulent drainage was positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis.

Given the patient’s known history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, he received a 28-day course of intravenous foscarnet 40 mg/kg every 12 hours. He also was given a 14-day course of intravenous ampicillin-sulbactam 3 g every 6 hours. The patient gradually improved during a 35-day hospital stay. He was discharged with cidofovir cream 1% and oral valacyclovir; the latter was subsequently discontinued by dermatology because of his known history of acyclovir resistance. Four months after discharge, the patient underwent a circumcision performed by urology to decrease the risk for recurrence and achieve the best cosmetic outcome. At the 6-month follow-up visit, dramatic clinical improvement was evident, with complete resolution of the plaque and only isolated areas of scarring (Figure 3). The patient reported that penile function was preserved.

Herpes vegetans represents a rare infection with HHV-1 or HHV-2, typically in patients who are considerably immunosuppressed, such as those with cancer, those undergoing transplantation, and those with uncontrolled HIV infection.¹ Few cases of HV have been described in an immunocompetent patient.² Our case is unique because the patient’s HIV infection was well controlled at the time HV was diagnosed, demonstrated by his modestly low CD4 count and undetectable HIV viral load.

Patients with HV can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Typically, a diagnosis of cutaneous HHV infection does not require a biopsy; most cases appear as clustered vesicular lesions, making the disease easy to diagnose clinically. However, biopsies and cultures are necessary to identify the underlying cause of atypical verrucous exophytic lesions. Other conditions with clinical features similar to HV include squamous cell carcinoma, condyloma acuminatum, and deep fungal and mycobacterial infections.^2,3 A tissue biopsy, histologic staining, and tissue culture should be performed to identify the causative pathogen and potential targets for treatment. Definitive diagnosis is vital to deliver proper treatment modalities, which often involve a multimodal multidisciplinary approach. 

Several pathogenic mechanisms of HV have been proposed. One theory suggests that in an immunocompetent patient, HHV typically triggers a lymphocytic response, which leads to activation of interferon alpha. However, in an immunocompromised patient, such as an individual with AIDS, this interferon response is diminished, which explains why these patients typically have a chronic and resistant HHV infection. HIV has an affinity for infecting dermal dendritic cells, which signals activation of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin.⁶ Both cytokines contribute to an antiapoptotic environment that promotes continued proliferation of these viral cells in the epidermis. Over time, propagation of disinhibited cells can lead to the verrucous and hyperkeratotic-appearing skin that is common in patients with HV.⁷

Another theorized mechanism underlying hypertrophic herpetic lesions was described in the context of HHV-1 infection and subsequent PG. El Hayderi et al⁸ reported that histologic and immunohistochemical examination of a patient’s lesion revealed sparse epithelial cell aggregates within PG as well as HHV-1 antigens in the nuclei and cytoplasm of normal-appearing and cytopathic epithelial cells. Immunohistochemical examination also revealed vascular endothelial growth factor within HHV-1–infected epithelial cells and PG endothelial cells, suggesting that PG formation may be indirectly driven by vascular endothelial growth factor and its proangiogenic properties. The pathogenesis of PG in the setting of HHV-1 infection displays many similarities to hyperkeratotic lesions observed in atypical cutaneous manifestations of HHV-2.⁸

The management of patients with HV continues to be complex, often requiring a multimodal regimen. Although acyclovir has been shown to be highly effective for treating and preventing most HHV infections, acyclovir resistance frequently has been reported in immunocompromised populations.⁵ Acyclovir resistance can be correlated with the severity of immunodeficiency as well as the duration of acyclovir exposure. Resistance to acyclovir often results from deficient intracellular phosphorylation, which is required for activation of the drug. If patients show resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives, alternate drug classes that do not depend on thymidine kinase phosphorylation should be considered.

Our patient received a combination of intravenous foscarnet and a course of ampicillin-sulbactam while an inpatient due to his documented history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, and he was discharged on cidofovir cream 1%. Cidofovir is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Although data are limited, topical and intralesional cidofovir have been used to treat acyclovir-resistant cases of HV with documented success.^1,9 In refractory HV or when the disease is slow to resolve, intralesional cidofovir has been documented to be an additional treatment option. Intralesional and topical cidofovir carry a much lower risk for adverse effects such as kidney dysfunction compared to intravenous cidofovir¹ and can be considered in patients with minimal clinical improvement and those at increased risk for side effects.

Our case demonstrated how a patient with HV may require a complex and prolonged hospital course for appropriate treatment. Our patient required an array of both medical and surgical modalities to reach the desired outcome. Here, a multitude of specialties including infectious disease, dermatology, and urology worked together to reach a positive clinical and cosmetic outcome for this patient. 

To the Editor:

Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) are successfully treated with standard modalities such as surgical excision; however, a subset of tumors is not amenable to surgical resection.^1,2 Patients who are not able to undergo surgical treatment may instead receive radiation therapy, topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), imiquimod, cryosurgery, photodynamic therapy, or systemic treatment (eg, immunotherapy) in addition to intralesional approaches for localized disease.^1-4 However, the adverse effects associated with these treatments and their modest effect in preventing the recurrence of cutaneous lesions limit their efficacy against unresectable cSCC.^4-6 We present a case that demonstrates the efficacy of electrodesiccation and curettage (ED&C) followed by topical 5-FU for an invasive cSCC not amenable to surgical therapy.

A 58-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a 3.5×3.4-cm, incisional biopsy–proven, invasive stage T2a cSCC (Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor staging system [Boston, Massachusetts]) on the dorsal aspect of the left foot, which had developed over several months (Figure 1A). She had a history of treatment with psoralen plus UV light therapy for erythroderma of unknown cause and peripheral neuropathy. She was not a surgical candidate because of suspected underlying cutaneous sclerosis and a history of poor wound healing on the lower legs.

Prior to presentation to dermatology, the patient had been treated with intralesional methotrexate, intralesional 5-FU, and the antiangiogenic and antiproliferative combination agent OLCAT-005³—consisting of equal parts [by volume] of diclofenac gel 3%, imiquimod cream 5%, hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2%, calcipotriene cream 0.005%, and tretinoin cream 0.05—which failed, and the patient reported that OLCAT-005 made the pain from the cSCC worse.

Upon growth of the lesion over several months, the patient was referred to the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts). A repeat biopsy demonstrated an invasive well-differentiated cSCC (Figure 2). The size and invasive features of the lesion on clinical examination prompted a referral to surgical oncology for a wide local excision. However, surgical oncology concluded she was not a surgical candidate.

Magnetic resonance imaging showed no deep invasion of the cSCC to the tendons or bones. Electrodesiccation and curettage was performed to debulk the tumor, followed by twice-daily application of topical 5-FU for 4 weeks to improve the odds of tumor clearance (Figure 1B). Fourteen weeks after completion of 5-FU treatment, the cSCC showed complete clinical regression (Figure 1C). No recurrence has been detected clinically more than 3 years following treatment.

Prior to the advent of Mohs micrographic surgery, ED&C commonly was used to treat skin cancer, with a lower cost and a cure rate close to 95%.^7,8 We postulate that the mechanism of tumor regression in our patient was ED&C-mediated removal and necrosis of neoplastic tissue combined with 5-FU–induced cancer-cell DNA damage and apoptosis. An antitumor immune response also may have contributed to the complete regression of the cSCC.

Although antiangiogenic and antiproliferative agents are suitable for primary cSCC treatment, it is possible that this patient’s prior therapies alone—in the absence of debulking by ED&C to sufficiently reduce disease burden—did not allow for tumor clearance and were ineffective. Many clinicians are reluctant to apply 5-FU to a wound bed because it can impede wound healing.⁹ In this case, re-epithelialization likely occurred primarily after completion of 5-FU treatment.

We recommend consideration of ED&C with 5-FU for similar malignant lesions that are not amenable to surgical excision. Nevertheless, Mohs micrographic surgery and wide local excision remain the gold standards for definitive treatment of invasive skin cancer in a patient who is a candidate for surgical treatment.

To the Editor:

Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) are successfully treated with standard modalities such as surgical excision; however, a subset of tumors is not amenable to surgical resection.^1,2 Patients who are not able to undergo surgical treatment may instead receive radiation therapy, topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), imiquimod, cryosurgery, photodynamic therapy, or systemic treatment (eg, immunotherapy) in addition to intralesional approaches for localized disease.^1-4 However, the adverse effects associated with these treatments and their modest effect in preventing the recurrence of cutaneous lesions limit their efficacy against unresectable cSCC.^4-6 We present a case that demonstrates the efficacy of electrodesiccation and curettage (ED&C) followed by topical 5-FU for an invasive cSCC not amenable to surgical therapy.

A 58-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a 3.5×3.4-cm, incisional biopsy–proven, invasive stage T2a cSCC (Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor staging system [Boston, Massachusetts]) on the dorsal aspect of the left foot, which had developed over several months (Figure 1A). She had a history of treatment with psoralen plus UV light therapy for erythroderma of unknown cause and peripheral neuropathy. She was not a surgical candidate because of suspected underlying cutaneous sclerosis and a history of poor wound healing on the lower legs.

Prior to presentation to dermatology, the patient had been treated with intralesional methotrexate, intralesional 5-FU, and the antiangiogenic and antiproliferative combination agent OLCAT-005³—consisting of equal parts [by volume] of diclofenac gel 3%, imiquimod cream 5%, hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2%, calcipotriene cream 0.005%, and tretinoin cream 0.05—which failed, and the patient reported that OLCAT-005 made the pain from the cSCC worse.

Upon growth of the lesion over several months, the patient was referred to the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts). A repeat biopsy demonstrated an invasive well-differentiated cSCC (Figure 2). The size and invasive features of the lesion on clinical examination prompted a referral to surgical oncology for a wide local excision. However, surgical oncology concluded she was not a surgical candidate.

Magnetic resonance imaging showed no deep invasion of the cSCC to the tendons or bones. Electrodesiccation and curettage was performed to debulk the tumor, followed by twice-daily application of topical 5-FU for 4 weeks to improve the odds of tumor clearance (Figure 1B). Fourteen weeks after completion of 5-FU treatment, the cSCC showed complete clinical regression (Figure 1C). No recurrence has been detected clinically more than 3 years following treatment.

Prior to the advent of Mohs micrographic surgery, ED&C commonly was used to treat skin cancer, with a lower cost and a cure rate close to 95%.^7,8 We postulate that the mechanism of tumor regression in our patient was ED&C-mediated removal and necrosis of neoplastic tissue combined with 5-FU–induced cancer-cell DNA damage and apoptosis. An antitumor immune response also may have contributed to the complete regression of the cSCC.

Although antiangiogenic and antiproliferative agents are suitable for primary cSCC treatment, it is possible that this patient’s prior therapies alone—in the absence of debulking by ED&C to sufficiently reduce disease burden—did not allow for tumor clearance and were ineffective. Many clinicians are reluctant to apply 5-FU to a wound bed because it can impede wound healing.⁹ In this case, re-epithelialization likely occurred primarily after completion of 5-FU treatment.

We recommend consideration of ED&C with 5-FU for similar malignant lesions that are not amenable to surgical excision. Nevertheless, Mohs micrographic surgery and wide local excision remain the gold standards for definitive treatment of invasive skin cancer in a patient who is a candidate for surgical treatment.

To the Editor:

Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) are successfully treated with standard modalities such as surgical excision; however, a subset of tumors is not amenable to surgical resection.^1,2 Patients who are not able to undergo surgical treatment may instead receive radiation therapy, topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), imiquimod, cryosurgery, photodynamic therapy, or systemic treatment (eg, immunotherapy) in addition to intralesional approaches for localized disease.^1-4 However, the adverse effects associated with these treatments and their modest effect in preventing the recurrence of cutaneous lesions limit their efficacy against unresectable cSCC.^4-6 We present a case that demonstrates the efficacy of electrodesiccation and curettage (ED&C) followed by topical 5-FU for an invasive cSCC not amenable to surgical therapy.

A 58-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a 3.5×3.4-cm, incisional biopsy–proven, invasive stage T2a cSCC (Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor staging system [Boston, Massachusetts]) on the dorsal aspect of the left foot, which had developed over several months (Figure 1A). She had a history of treatment with psoralen plus UV light therapy for erythroderma of unknown cause and peripheral neuropathy. She was not a surgical candidate because of suspected underlying cutaneous sclerosis and a history of poor wound healing on the lower legs.

Prior to presentation to dermatology, the patient had been treated with intralesional methotrexate, intralesional 5-FU, and the antiangiogenic and antiproliferative combination agent OLCAT-005³—consisting of equal parts [by volume] of diclofenac gel 3%, imiquimod cream 5%, hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2%, calcipotriene cream 0.005%, and tretinoin cream 0.05—which failed, and the patient reported that OLCAT-005 made the pain from the cSCC worse.

Upon growth of the lesion over several months, the patient was referred to the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts). A repeat biopsy demonstrated an invasive well-differentiated cSCC (Figure 2). The size and invasive features of the lesion on clinical examination prompted a referral to surgical oncology for a wide local excision. However, surgical oncology concluded she was not a surgical candidate.

Magnetic resonance imaging showed no deep invasion of the cSCC to the tendons or bones. Electrodesiccation and curettage was performed to debulk the tumor, followed by twice-daily application of topical 5-FU for 4 weeks to improve the odds of tumor clearance (Figure 1B). Fourteen weeks after completion of 5-FU treatment, the cSCC showed complete clinical regression (Figure 1C). No recurrence has been detected clinically more than 3 years following treatment.

Prior to the advent of Mohs micrographic surgery, ED&C commonly was used to treat skin cancer, with a lower cost and a cure rate close to 95%.^7,8 We postulate that the mechanism of tumor regression in our patient was ED&C-mediated removal and necrosis of neoplastic tissue combined with 5-FU–induced cancer-cell DNA damage and apoptosis. An antitumor immune response also may have contributed to the complete regression of the cSCC.

Although antiangiogenic and antiproliferative agents are suitable for primary cSCC treatment, it is possible that this patient’s prior therapies alone—in the absence of debulking by ED&C to sufficiently reduce disease burden—did not allow for tumor clearance and were ineffective. Many clinicians are reluctant to apply 5-FU to a wound bed because it can impede wound healing.⁹ In this case, re-epithelialization likely occurred primarily after completion of 5-FU treatment.

We recommend consideration of ED&C with 5-FU for similar malignant lesions that are not amenable to surgical excision. Nevertheless, Mohs micrographic surgery and wide local excision remain the gold standards for definitive treatment of invasive skin cancer in a patient who is a candidate for surgical treatment.

The Diagnosis: Extragenital Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus

A punch biopsy of the lesion revealed epidermal hyperkeratosis, atrophy, follicular plugs with basal vacuolar degeneration, and homogenous dense fibrosis in the papillary dermis with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate beneath the fibrosis (Figure 1). Dermoscopic examination was remarkable for a distinctive rainbow pattern. Clinical, histopathologic, and dermoscopic findings led to the diagnosis of extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSEA). A potent corticosteroid cream was prescribed twice daily for 2 months, after which the lesions completely resolved. At 2-year follow-up, a relapse was not observed (Figure 2).

Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus is an inflammatory dermatosis that clinically presents as atrophic or hypertrophic plaques that may show pigmentation changes with anogenital and extragenital involvement. It is common among females and predominantly occurs in prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women. The exact etiology is unclear; however, it is hypothesized to occur secondary to autoimmunity with an underlying genetic predisposition. Local trauma, hormonal influences, and infections are other suspected etiologic factors. Genital lesions often lead to itching, pain, and dyspareunia, whereas extragenital lesions predominantly are asymptomatic. When symptomatic, itching usually is the main concern. Unlike genital LSEA, extragenital lesions are not associated with squamous cell carcinoma development. Reported dermoscopic features of LSEA are white structureless areas with scaling, comedolike openings, follicular plugs, white shiny streaks, blue-gray peppering, pigment network, and red-purple globules.¹ In our case, the dermoscopic finding of a rainbow pattern in LSEA is rare.² Although the mechanism behind this appearance unclear, it can be the result of the birefringence effect—local variations in refractive index—influenced by the direction of structures within the dermis such as collagen. In this case, there was diffuse and dense homogenous fibrosis in the superficial dermis that corresponded to dermoscopic white polygonal clods.

Extragenital LSEA commonly is located on the neck, shoulders, wrists, and upper trunk and manifests clinically as whitish papules coalescing into scarlike plaques. Of all patients who have LSEA, 20% have extragenital lesions, and most of these lesions are seen in patients who also have genital LSEA. Approximately 6% of all LSEA patients have extragenital LSEA without genital involvement.³

For experienced dermatologists, clinical symptoms and lesion characteristics usually are sufficient for diagnosis; however, a differential diagnosis of atypical lesions and isolated extragenital presentations such as morphea, lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and vitiligo requires the correlation of clinical findings with histopathology and dermoscopy. Morphea, known as localized scleroderma, is an idiopathic inflammatory skin disease with sclerotic changes. It manifests as inflammatory plaques that vary in color from red to purple. If there is moderate sclerosis in the center of this plaque, the color progressively fades to white, leaving a purplish ring around the edges. Dermoscopic features of morphea are reported as areas of erythema; red-focused vessels of linear, irregular, or dotted morphology; white fibrotic beams; and pigmentary structures.² Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by single or multiple dry and patchy skin lesions that are intensely pruritic. It commonly occurs on the neck, scalp, extremities, genital areas, and buttocks. Scratching the lesions leads to scarring, thickening of the skin, and increased frequency of itching. Histopathology of lichen simplex chronicus most frequently demonstrates a thickening of the epidermis and papillary dermis, irregularly elongated rete ridges, and fibroplasia with stellate or multinucleated fibroblasts completed by perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.⁴ Lichen planus presents with pruritic, polygonal, purple papules and/or plaques that can present in a variety of clinical forms, including atrophic and hypertrophic lichen planus.⁵ Lichen planus was an unlikely diagnosis for our patient due to the presence of patchy scarlike lesions and dermoscopic features that are well described in patients with LSEA. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus presents with hypopigmented and/or hyperpigmented patches and plaques, distinguishing itself from vitiligo, which has flat lesions.

Topical steroids are the first-line therapeutic agents in the treatment of LSEA.6 Despite frequent use in this setting, common side effects such as localized scarring and atrophic degenerations have led to debate about their use. In our patient, the lesions resolved almost completely in 2 months, and no relapse was observed in the following 2 years. In the setting of topical steroid resistance, topical calcineurin inhibitors, UVA/UVB phototherapy, and topical tacrolimus can be used for treatment.⁶

The diagnosis of isolated extragenital LSEA may be a clinical challenge and generally requires further workup. When evaluating extragenital lesions, dermatologists should keep in mind extragenital LSEA as a differential diagnosis in the presence of a dermoscopic rainbow pattern arranged over white polygonal clods.

The Diagnosis: Extragenital Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus

A punch biopsy of the lesion revealed epidermal hyperkeratosis, atrophy, follicular plugs with basal vacuolar degeneration, and homogenous dense fibrosis in the papillary dermis with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate beneath the fibrosis (Figure 1). Dermoscopic examination was remarkable for a distinctive rainbow pattern. Clinical, histopathologic, and dermoscopic findings led to the diagnosis of extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSEA). A potent corticosteroid cream was prescribed twice daily for 2 months, after which the lesions completely resolved. At 2-year follow-up, a relapse was not observed (Figure 2).

Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus is an inflammatory dermatosis that clinically presents as atrophic or hypertrophic plaques that may show pigmentation changes with anogenital and extragenital involvement. It is common among females and predominantly occurs in prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women. The exact etiology is unclear; however, it is hypothesized to occur secondary to autoimmunity with an underlying genetic predisposition. Local trauma, hormonal influences, and infections are other suspected etiologic factors. Genital lesions often lead to itching, pain, and dyspareunia, whereas extragenital lesions predominantly are asymptomatic. When symptomatic, itching usually is the main concern. Unlike genital LSEA, extragenital lesions are not associated with squamous cell carcinoma development. Reported dermoscopic features of LSEA are white structureless areas with scaling, comedolike openings, follicular plugs, white shiny streaks, blue-gray peppering, pigment network, and red-purple globules.¹ In our case, the dermoscopic finding of a rainbow pattern in LSEA is rare.² Although the mechanism behind this appearance unclear, it can be the result of the birefringence effect—local variations in refractive index—influenced by the direction of structures within the dermis such as collagen. In this case, there was diffuse and dense homogenous fibrosis in the superficial dermis that corresponded to dermoscopic white polygonal clods.

Extragenital LSEA commonly is located on the neck, shoulders, wrists, and upper trunk and manifests clinically as whitish papules coalescing into scarlike plaques. Of all patients who have LSEA, 20% have extragenital lesions, and most of these lesions are seen in patients who also have genital LSEA. Approximately 6% of all LSEA patients have extragenital LSEA without genital involvement.³

For experienced dermatologists, clinical symptoms and lesion characteristics usually are sufficient for diagnosis; however, a differential diagnosis of atypical lesions and isolated extragenital presentations such as morphea, lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and vitiligo requires the correlation of clinical findings with histopathology and dermoscopy. Morphea, known as localized scleroderma, is an idiopathic inflammatory skin disease with sclerotic changes. It manifests as inflammatory plaques that vary in color from red to purple. If there is moderate sclerosis in the center of this plaque, the color progressively fades to white, leaving a purplish ring around the edges. Dermoscopic features of morphea are reported as areas of erythema; red-focused vessels of linear, irregular, or dotted morphology; white fibrotic beams; and pigmentary structures.² Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by single or multiple dry and patchy skin lesions that are intensely pruritic. It commonly occurs on the neck, scalp, extremities, genital areas, and buttocks. Scratching the lesions leads to scarring, thickening of the skin, and increased frequency of itching. Histopathology of lichen simplex chronicus most frequently demonstrates a thickening of the epidermis and papillary dermis, irregularly elongated rete ridges, and fibroplasia with stellate or multinucleated fibroblasts completed by perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.⁴ Lichen planus presents with pruritic, polygonal, purple papules and/or plaques that can present in a variety of clinical forms, including atrophic and hypertrophic lichen planus.⁵ Lichen planus was an unlikely diagnosis for our patient due to the presence of patchy scarlike lesions and dermoscopic features that are well described in patients with LSEA. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus presents with hypopigmented and/or hyperpigmented patches and plaques, distinguishing itself from vitiligo, which has flat lesions.

Topical steroids are the first-line therapeutic agents in the treatment of LSEA.6 Despite frequent use in this setting, common side effects such as localized scarring and atrophic degenerations have led to debate about their use. In our patient, the lesions resolved almost completely in 2 months, and no relapse was observed in the following 2 years. In the setting of topical steroid resistance, topical calcineurin inhibitors, UVA/UVB phototherapy, and topical tacrolimus can be used for treatment.⁶

The diagnosis of isolated extragenital LSEA may be a clinical challenge and generally requires further workup. When evaluating extragenital lesions, dermatologists should keep in mind extragenital LSEA as a differential diagnosis in the presence of a dermoscopic rainbow pattern arranged over white polygonal clods.

The Diagnosis: Extragenital Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus

A punch biopsy of the lesion revealed epidermal hyperkeratosis, atrophy, follicular plugs with basal vacuolar degeneration, and homogenous dense fibrosis in the papillary dermis with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate beneath the fibrosis (Figure 1). Dermoscopic examination was remarkable for a distinctive rainbow pattern. Clinical, histopathologic, and dermoscopic findings led to the diagnosis of extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSEA). A potent corticosteroid cream was prescribed twice daily for 2 months, after which the lesions completely resolved. At 2-year follow-up, a relapse was not observed (Figure 2).

Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus is an inflammatory dermatosis that clinically presents as atrophic or hypertrophic plaques that may show pigmentation changes with anogenital and extragenital involvement. It is common among females and predominantly occurs in prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women. The exact etiology is unclear; however, it is hypothesized to occur secondary to autoimmunity with an underlying genetic predisposition. Local trauma, hormonal influences, and infections are other suspected etiologic factors. Genital lesions often lead to itching, pain, and dyspareunia, whereas extragenital lesions predominantly are asymptomatic. When symptomatic, itching usually is the main concern. Unlike genital LSEA, extragenital lesions are not associated with squamous cell carcinoma development. Reported dermoscopic features of LSEA are white structureless areas with scaling, comedolike openings, follicular plugs, white shiny streaks, blue-gray peppering, pigment network, and red-purple globules.¹ In our case, the dermoscopic finding of a rainbow pattern in LSEA is rare.² Although the mechanism behind this appearance unclear, it can be the result of the birefringence effect—local variations in refractive index—influenced by the direction of structures within the dermis such as collagen. In this case, there was diffuse and dense homogenous fibrosis in the superficial dermis that corresponded to dermoscopic white polygonal clods.

Extragenital LSEA commonly is located on the neck, shoulders, wrists, and upper trunk and manifests clinically as whitish papules coalescing into scarlike plaques. Of all patients who have LSEA, 20% have extragenital lesions, and most of these lesions are seen in patients who also have genital LSEA. Approximately 6% of all LSEA patients have extragenital LSEA without genital involvement.³

For experienced dermatologists, clinical symptoms and lesion characteristics usually are sufficient for diagnosis; however, a differential diagnosis of atypical lesions and isolated extragenital presentations such as morphea, lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and vitiligo requires the correlation of clinical findings with histopathology and dermoscopy. Morphea, known as localized scleroderma, is an idiopathic inflammatory skin disease with sclerotic changes. It manifests as inflammatory plaques that vary in color from red to purple. If there is moderate sclerosis in the center of this plaque, the color progressively fades to white, leaving a purplish ring around the edges. Dermoscopic features of morphea are reported as areas of erythema; red-focused vessels of linear, irregular, or dotted morphology; white fibrotic beams; and pigmentary structures.² Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by single or multiple dry and patchy skin lesions that are intensely pruritic. It commonly occurs on the neck, scalp, extremities, genital areas, and buttocks. Scratching the lesions leads to scarring, thickening of the skin, and increased frequency of itching. Histopathology of lichen simplex chronicus most frequently demonstrates a thickening of the epidermis and papillary dermis, irregularly elongated rete ridges, and fibroplasia with stellate or multinucleated fibroblasts completed by perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.⁴ Lichen planus presents with pruritic, polygonal, purple papules and/or plaques that can present in a variety of clinical forms, including atrophic and hypertrophic lichen planus.⁵ Lichen planus was an unlikely diagnosis for our patient due to the presence of patchy scarlike lesions and dermoscopic features that are well described in patients with LSEA. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus presents with hypopigmented and/or hyperpigmented patches and plaques, distinguishing itself from vitiligo, which has flat lesions.

Topical steroids are the first-line therapeutic agents in the treatment of LSEA.6 Despite frequent use in this setting, common side effects such as localized scarring and atrophic degenerations have led to debate about their use. In our patient, the lesions resolved almost completely in 2 months, and no relapse was observed in the following 2 years. In the setting of topical steroid resistance, topical calcineurin inhibitors, UVA/UVB phototherapy, and topical tacrolimus can be used for treatment.⁶

The diagnosis of isolated extragenital LSEA may be a clinical challenge and generally requires further workup. When evaluating extragenital lesions, dermatologists should keep in mind extragenital LSEA as a differential diagnosis in the presence of a dermoscopic rainbow pattern arranged over white polygonal clods.