MDedge Dermatology

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Practice Gap

Lichen planus (LP)—a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the nails—is prevalent in 10% to 15% of patients and is more common in the fingernails than toenails. Clinical manifestation includes longitudinal ridges, nail plate atrophy, and splitting, which all contribute to cosmetic disfigurement and difficulty with functionality. Quality of life and daily activities may be impacted profoundly.¹ First-line therapies include intralesional and systemic corticosteroids; however, efficacy is limited and recurrence is common.^1,2 Lichen planus is one of the few conditions that may cause permanent and debilitating nail loss.

Tools

A resin nail can be used to improve cosmetic appearance and functionality in patients with recalcitrant nail LP. The composite resin creates a flexible nonporous nail and allows the underlying natural nail to grow. Application of resin nails has been used for toenail onychodystrophies to improve cosmesis and functionality but has not been reported for fingernails. The resin typically lasts 6 to 8 weeks on toenails.

The Technique

Application of a resin nail involves several steps (see video online). First, the affected nail should be debrided and a bonding agent applied. Next, multiple layers of resin are applied until the patient’s desired thickness is achieved (typically 2 layers), followed by a sealing agent. Finally, the nail is cured with UV light. We recommend applying sunscreen to the hand(s) prior to curing with UV light. The liquid resin allows the nail to be customized to the patient’s desired length and shape. The overall procedure takes approximately 20 minutes for a single nail.

We applied resin nail to the thumbnail of a 46-year-old woman with recalcitrant isolated nail LP of 7 years’ duration (Figure). She previously had difficulties performing everyday activities, and the resin improved her functionality. She also was pleased with the cosmetic appearance. After 2 weeks, the resin started falling off with corresponding natural nail growth. The patient denied any adverse events.

Practice Implications

Resin nail application may serve as a temporary solution to improve cosmesis and functionality in patients with recalcitrant nail LP. As shown in our patient, the resin may fall off faster on the fingernails than the toenails, likely because of the faster growth rate of fingernails and more frequent exposure from daily activities. Further studies of resin nail application for the fingernails are needed to establish duration in patients with varying levels of activity (eg, washing dishes, woodworking).

Because the resin nail may be removed easily at any time, resin nail application does not interfere with treatments such as intralesional steroid injections. For patients using a topical medication regimen, the resin nail may be applied slightly distal to the cuticle so that the medication can still be applied by the proximal nail fold of the underlying natural nail.

The resin nail should be kept short and removed after 2 to 4 weeks for the fingernails and 6 to 8 weeks for the toenails to examine the underlying natural nail. Patients may go about their daily activities with the resin nail, including applying nail polish to the resin nail, bathing, and swimming. Resin nail application may complement medical treatments and improve quality of life for patients with nail LP.

Practice Gap

Lichen planus (LP)—a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the nails—is prevalent in 10% to 15% of patients and is more common in the fingernails than toenails. Clinical manifestation includes longitudinal ridges, nail plate atrophy, and splitting, which all contribute to cosmetic disfigurement and difficulty with functionality. Quality of life and daily activities may be impacted profoundly.¹ First-line therapies include intralesional and systemic corticosteroids; however, efficacy is limited and recurrence is common.^1,2 Lichen planus is one of the few conditions that may cause permanent and debilitating nail loss.

Tools

A resin nail can be used to improve cosmetic appearance and functionality in patients with recalcitrant nail LP. The composite resin creates a flexible nonporous nail and allows the underlying natural nail to grow. Application of resin nails has been used for toenail onychodystrophies to improve cosmesis and functionality but has not been reported for fingernails. The resin typically lasts 6 to 8 weeks on toenails.

The Technique

Application of a resin nail involves several steps (see video online). First, the affected nail should be debrided and a bonding agent applied. Next, multiple layers of resin are applied until the patient’s desired thickness is achieved (typically 2 layers), followed by a sealing agent. Finally, the nail is cured with UV light. We recommend applying sunscreen to the hand(s) prior to curing with UV light. The liquid resin allows the nail to be customized to the patient’s desired length and shape. The overall procedure takes approximately 20 minutes for a single nail.

We applied resin nail to the thumbnail of a 46-year-old woman with recalcitrant isolated nail LP of 7 years’ duration (Figure). She previously had difficulties performing everyday activities, and the resin improved her functionality. She also was pleased with the cosmetic appearance. After 2 weeks, the resin started falling off with corresponding natural nail growth. The patient denied any adverse events.

Practice Implications

Resin nail application may serve as a temporary solution to improve cosmesis and functionality in patients with recalcitrant nail LP. As shown in our patient, the resin may fall off faster on the fingernails than the toenails, likely because of the faster growth rate of fingernails and more frequent exposure from daily activities. Further studies of resin nail application for the fingernails are needed to establish duration in patients with varying levels of activity (eg, washing dishes, woodworking).

Because the resin nail may be removed easily at any time, resin nail application does not interfere with treatments such as intralesional steroid injections. For patients using a topical medication regimen, the resin nail may be applied slightly distal to the cuticle so that the medication can still be applied by the proximal nail fold of the underlying natural nail.

The resin nail should be kept short and removed after 2 to 4 weeks for the fingernails and 6 to 8 weeks for the toenails to examine the underlying natural nail. Patients may go about their daily activities with the resin nail, including applying nail polish to the resin nail, bathing, and swimming. Resin nail application may complement medical treatments and improve quality of life for patients with nail LP.

Practice Gap

Lichen planus (LP)—a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the nails—is prevalent in 10% to 15% of patients and is more common in the fingernails than toenails. Clinical manifestation includes longitudinal ridges, nail plate atrophy, and splitting, which all contribute to cosmetic disfigurement and difficulty with functionality. Quality of life and daily activities may be impacted profoundly.¹ First-line therapies include intralesional and systemic corticosteroids; however, efficacy is limited and recurrence is common.^1,2 Lichen planus is one of the few conditions that may cause permanent and debilitating nail loss.

Tools

A resin nail can be used to improve cosmetic appearance and functionality in patients with recalcitrant nail LP. The composite resin creates a flexible nonporous nail and allows the underlying natural nail to grow. Application of resin nails has been used for toenail onychodystrophies to improve cosmesis and functionality but has not been reported for fingernails. The resin typically lasts 6 to 8 weeks on toenails.

The Technique

Application of a resin nail involves several steps (see video online). First, the affected nail should be debrided and a bonding agent applied. Next, multiple layers of resin are applied until the patient’s desired thickness is achieved (typically 2 layers), followed by a sealing agent. Finally, the nail is cured with UV light. We recommend applying sunscreen to the hand(s) prior to curing with UV light. The liquid resin allows the nail to be customized to the patient’s desired length and shape. The overall procedure takes approximately 20 minutes for a single nail.

We applied resin nail to the thumbnail of a 46-year-old woman with recalcitrant isolated nail LP of 7 years’ duration (Figure). She previously had difficulties performing everyday activities, and the resin improved her functionality. She also was pleased with the cosmetic appearance. After 2 weeks, the resin started falling off with corresponding natural nail growth. The patient denied any adverse events.

Practice Implications

Resin nail application may serve as a temporary solution to improve cosmesis and functionality in patients with recalcitrant nail LP. As shown in our patient, the resin may fall off faster on the fingernails than the toenails, likely because of the faster growth rate of fingernails and more frequent exposure from daily activities. Further studies of resin nail application for the fingernails are needed to establish duration in patients with varying levels of activity (eg, washing dishes, woodworking).

Because the resin nail may be removed easily at any time, resin nail application does not interfere with treatments such as intralesional steroid injections. For patients using a topical medication regimen, the resin nail may be applied slightly distal to the cuticle so that the medication can still be applied by the proximal nail fold of the underlying natural nail.

The resin nail should be kept short and removed after 2 to 4 weeks for the fingernails and 6 to 8 weeks for the toenails to examine the underlying natural nail. Patients may go about their daily activities with the resin nail, including applying nail polish to the resin nail, bathing, and swimming. Resin nail application may complement medical treatments and improve quality of life for patients with nail LP.

Alopecia areata (AA) affects 4.5 million individuals in the United States, with 66% younger than 30 years.^1,2 Inflammation causes hair loss in well-circumscribed, nonscarring patches on the body with a predilection for the scalp.^3-6 The disease can devastate a patient’s self-esteem, in turn reducing quality of life.^1,7 Alopecia areata is an autoimmune T-cell–mediated disease in which hair follicles lose their immune privilege.^8-10 Several specific mechanisms in the cytokine interactions between T cells and the hair follicle have been discovered, revealing the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway as pivotal in the pathogenesis of the disease and leading to the use of JAK inhibitors for treatment.¹¹

There is no cure for AA, and the condition is managed with prolonged medical treatments and cosmetic therapies.² Although some patients may be able to manage the annual cost, the cumulative cost of AA treatment can be burdensome.¹² This cumulative cost may increase if newer, potentially expensive treatments become the standard of care. Patients with AA report dipping into their savings (41.3%) and cutting back on food or clothing expenses (33.9%) to account for the cost of alopecia treatment. Although prior estimates of the annual out-of-pocket cost of AA treatments range from $1354 to $2685, the cost burden of individual therapies is poorly understood.^12-14

Patients who must juggle expensive medical bills with basic living expenses may be lost to follow-up or fall into treatment nonadherence.¹⁵ Other patients’ out-of-pocket costs may be manageable, but the costs to the health care system may compromise care in other ways. We conducted a literature review of the recommended therapies for AA based on American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines to identify the costs of alopecia treatment and consolidate the available data for the practicing dermatologist.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE through September 15, 2022, using the terms alopecia and cost plus one of the treatments (n=21) identified by the AAD² for the treatment of AA (Figure). The reference lists of included articles were reviewed to identify other potentially relevant studies. Forty-five articles were identified.

Given the dearth of cost research in alopecia and the paucity of large prospective studies, we excluded articles that were not available in their full-text form or were not in English (n=3), articles whose primary study topic was not AA or an expert-approved alopecia treatment (n=15), and articles with no concrete cost data (n=17), which yielded 10 relevant articles that we studied using qualitative analysis.

Due to substantial differences in study methods and outcome measures, we did not compare the costs of alopecia among studies and did not perform statistical analysis. The quality of each study was investigated and assigned a level of evidence per the 2009 criteria from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.¹⁶

All cost data were converted into US dollars ($) using the conversion rate from the time of the original article’s publication.

Results

Total and Out-of-pocket Costs of AA—Li et al¹³ studied out-of-pocket health care costs for AA patients (N=675). Of these participants, 56.9% said their AA was moderately to seriously financially burdensome, and 41.3% reported using their savings to manage these expenses. Participants reported median out-of-pocket spending of $1354 (interquartile range, $537–$3300) annually. The most common categories of expenses were hair appointments (81.8%) and vitamins/supplements (67.7%).¹³

Mesinkovska et al¹⁴ studied the qualitative and quantitative financial burdens of moderate to severe AA (N=216). Fifty-seven percent of patients reported the financial impact of AA as moderately to severely burdensome with a willingness to borrow money or use savings to cover out-of-pocket costs. Patients without insurance cited cost as a major barrier to obtaining reatment. In addition to direct treatment-related expenses, AA patients spent a mean of $1961 per year on therapy to cope with the disease’s psychological burden. Lost work hours represented another source of financial burden; 61% of patients were employed, and 45% of them reported missing time from their job because of AA.¹⁴

Mostaghimi et al¹² studied health care resource utilization and all-cause direct health care costs in privately insured AA patients with or without alopecia totalis (AT) or alopecia universalis (AU)(n=14,972) matched with non-AA controls (n=44,916)(1:3 ratio). Mean total all-cause medical and pharmacy costs were higher in both AA groups compared with controls (AT/AU, $18,988 vs $11,030; non-AT/AU, $13,686 vs $9336; P<.001 for both). Out-of-pocket costs were higher for AA vs controls (AT/AU, $2685 vs $1457; non-AT/AU, $2223 vs $1341; P<.001 for both). Medical costs in the AT/AU and non-AT/AU groups largely were driven by outpatient costs (AT/AU, $10,277 vs $5713; non-AT/AU, $8078 vs $4672; P<.001 for both).¹²

Costs of Concealment—When studying the out-of-pocket costs of AA (N=675), Li et al¹³ discovered that the median yearly spending was highest on headwear or cosmetic items such as hats, wigs, and makeup ($450; interquartile range, $50–$1500). Mesinkovska et al¹⁴ reported that 49% of patients had insurance that covered AA treatment. However, 75% of patients reported that their insurance would not cover costs of concealment (eg, weave, wig, hair piece). Patients (N=112) spent a mean of $2211 per year and 10.3 hours per week on concealment.¹⁴

Minoxidil—Minoxidil solution is available over-the-counter, and its ease of access makes it a popular treatment for AA.¹⁷ Because manufacturers can sell directly to the public, minoxidil is marketed with bold claims and convincing packaging. Shrank¹⁸ noted that the product can take 4 months to work, meaning customers must incur a substantial cost burden before realizing the treatment’s benefit, which is not always obvious when purchasing minoxidil products, leaving customers—who were marketed a miracle drug—disappointed. Per Shrank,¹⁸ patients who did not experience hair regrowth after 4 months were advised to continue treatment for a year, leading them to spend hundreds of dollars for uncertain results. Those who did experience hair regrowth were advised to continue using the product twice daily 7 days per week indefinitely.¹⁸

Wehner et al¹⁹ studied the association between gender and drug cost for over-the-counter minoxidil. The price that women paid for 2% regular-strength minoxidil solutions was similar to the price that men paid for 5% extra-strength minoxidil solutions (women’s 2%, $7.63/30 mL; men’s 5%, $7.61/30 mL; P=.67). Minoxidil 5% foams with identical ingredients were priced significantly more per volume of the same product when sold as a product directed at women vs a product directed at men (men’s 5%, $8.05/30 mL; women’s 5%, $11.27/30 mL; P<.001).¹⁹

Beach²⁰ compared the cost of oral minoxidil to topical minoxidil. At $28.60 for a 3-month supply, oral minoxidil demonstrated cost savings compared to topical minoxidil ($48.30).²⁰

Diphencyprone—Bhat et al²¹ studied the cost-efficiency of diphencyprone (DPC) in patients with AA resistant to at least 2 conventional treatments (N=29). After initial sensitization with 2% DPC, patients received weekly or fortnightly treatments. Most of the annual cost burden of DPC treatment was due to staff time and overhead rather than the cost of the DPC itself: $258 for the DPC, $978 in staff time and overhead for the department, and $1233 directly charged to the patient.²¹

Lekhavat et al²² studied the economic impact of home-use vs office-use DPC in extensive AA (N=82). Both groups received weekly treatments in the hospital until DPC concentrations had been adjusted. Afterward, the home group was given training on self-applying DPC at home. The home group had monthly office visits for DPC concentration evaluation and refills, while the office group had weekly appointments for DPC treatment at the hospital. Calculated costs included those to the health care provider (ie, material, labor, capital costs) and the patient’s final out-of-pocket expense. The total cost to the health care provider was higher for the office group than the home group at 48 weeks (office, $683.52; home, $303.67; P<.001). Median out-of-pocket costs did not vary significantly between groups, which may have been due to small sample size affecting the range (office, $418.07; home, $189.69; P=.101). There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients who responded favorably to the DPC.²²

JAK Inhibitors—Chen et al²³ studied the efficacy of low-dose (5 mg) tofacitinib to treat severe AA (N=6). Compared to prior studies,^24-27 this analysis reported the efficacy of low-dose tofacitinib was not inferior to higher doses (10–20 mg), and low-dose tofacitinib reduced treatment costs by more than 50%.²³

Per the GlobalData Healthcare database, the estimated annual cost of therapy for JAK inhibitors following US Food and Drug Administration approval was $50,000. At the time of their reporting, the next most expensive immunomodulatory drug for AA was cyclosporine, with an annual cost of therapy of $1400.²⁸ Dillon²⁹ reviewed the use of JAK inhibitors for the treatment of AA. The cost estimates by Dillon²⁹ prior to FDA approval aligned with the pricing of Eli Lilly and Company for the now-approved JAK inhibitor baricitinib.³⁰ The list price of baricitinib is $2739.99 for a 30-day supply of 2-mg tablets or $5479.98 for a 30-day supply of 4-mg tablets. This amounts to $32,879.88 for an annual supply of 2-mg tablets and $65,759.76 for an annual supply for 4-mg tablets, though the out-of-pocket costs will vary.³⁰

Comment

We reviewed the global and treatment-specific costs of AA, consolidating the available data for the practicing dermatologist. Ten studies of approximately 16,000 patients with AA across a range of levels of evidence (1a to 4) were included (Table). Three of 10 articles studied global costs of AA, 1 studied costs of concealment, 3 studied costs of minoxidil, 2 studied costs of DPC, and 2 studied costs of JAK inhibitors. Only 2 studies achieved level of evidence 1a: the first assessed the economic impact of home-use vs office-use DPC,²² and the second researched the efficacy and outcomes of JAK inhibitors.²⁹

Hair-loss treatments and concealment techniques cost the average patient thousands of dollars. Spending was highest on headwear or cosmetic items, which were rarely covered by insurance.¹³ Psychosocial sequelae further increased cost via therapy charges and lost time at work.¹⁴ Patients with AA had greater all-cause medical costs than those without AA, with most of the cost driven by outpatient visits. Patients with AA also paid nearly twice as much as non-AA patients on out-of-pocket health care expenses.¹⁴ Despite the high costs and limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients reported willingness to incur debt or use savings to manage their AA. This willingness to pay reflects AA’s impact on quality of life and puts these patients at high risk for financial distress.¹³

Minoxidil solution does not require physician office visits and is available over-the-counter.¹⁷ Despite identical ingredients, minoxidil is priced more per volume when marketed to women compared with men, which reflects the larger issue of gender-based pricing that does not exist for other AAD-approved alopecia therapies but may exist for cosmetic treatments and nonapproved therapies (eg, vitamins/supplements) that are popular in the treatment of AA.¹⁹ Oral minoxidil was more cost-effective than the topical form, and gender-based pricing was a nonissue.²⁰ However, oral minoxidil requires a prescription, mandating patients incur the cost of an office visit. Patients should be wary of gender- or marketing-related surcharges for minoxidil solutions, and oral minoxidil may be a cost-effective choice.

Diphencyprone is a relatively affordable drug for AA, but the regular office visits traditionally required for its administration increase associated cost.²¹ Self-administration of DPC at home was more cost- and time-effective than in-office DPC administration and did not decrease efficacy. A regimen combining office visits for initial DPC titration, at-home DPC administration, and periodic office follow-up could minimize costs while preserving outcomes and safety.²²

Janus kinase inhibitors are cutting-edge and expensive therapies for AA. The annual cost of these medications poses a tremendous burden on the payer (list price of annual supply ritlecitinib is $49,000),³¹ be that the patient or the insurance company. Low-dose tofacitinib may be similarly efficacious and could substantially reduce treatment costs.²³ The true utility of these medications, specifically considering their steep costs, remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Alopecia areata poses a substantial and recurring cost burden on patients that is multifactorial including treatment, office visits, concealment, alternative therapies, psychosocial costs, and missed time at work. Although several treatment options exist, none of them are definitive. Oral minoxidil and at-home DPC administration can be cost-effective, though the cumulative cost is still high. The cost utility of JAK inhibitors remains unclear. When JAK inhibitors are prescribed, low-dose therapy may be used as maintenance to curb treatment costs. Concealment and therapy costs pose an additional, largely out-of-pocket financial burden. Despite the limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients incur substantial expenses to manage their AA. This willingness to pay reflects AA’s impact on quality of life and puts these patients at high risk for financial distress. There are no head-to-head studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of the different AA therapies; thus, it is unclear if one treatment is most efficacious. This topic remains an avenue for future investigation. Much of the cost burden of AA treatment falls directly on patients. Increasing coverage of AA-associated expenses, such as minoxidil therapy or wigs, could decrease the cost burden on patients. Providers also can inform patients about cost-saving tactics, such as purchasing minoxidil based on concentration and vehicle rather than marketing directed at men vs women. Finally, some patients may have insurance plans that at least partially cover the costs of wigs but may not be aware of this benefit. Querying a patient’s insurance provider can further minimize costs.

Alopecia areata (AA) affects 4.5 million individuals in the United States, with 66% younger than 30 years.^1,2 Inflammation causes hair loss in well-circumscribed, nonscarring patches on the body with a predilection for the scalp.^3-6 The disease can devastate a patient’s self-esteem, in turn reducing quality of life.^1,7 Alopecia areata is an autoimmune T-cell–mediated disease in which hair follicles lose their immune privilege.^8-10 Several specific mechanisms in the cytokine interactions between T cells and the hair follicle have been discovered, revealing the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway as pivotal in the pathogenesis of the disease and leading to the use of JAK inhibitors for treatment.¹¹

There is no cure for AA, and the condition is managed with prolonged medical treatments and cosmetic therapies.² Although some patients may be able to manage the annual cost, the cumulative cost of AA treatment can be burdensome.¹² This cumulative cost may increase if newer, potentially expensive treatments become the standard of care. Patients with AA report dipping into their savings (41.3%) and cutting back on food or clothing expenses (33.9%) to account for the cost of alopecia treatment. Although prior estimates of the annual out-of-pocket cost of AA treatments range from $1354 to $2685, the cost burden of individual therapies is poorly understood.^12-14

Patients who must juggle expensive medical bills with basic living expenses may be lost to follow-up or fall into treatment nonadherence.¹⁵ Other patients’ out-of-pocket costs may be manageable, but the costs to the health care system may compromise care in other ways. We conducted a literature review of the recommended therapies for AA based on American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines to identify the costs of alopecia treatment and consolidate the available data for the practicing dermatologist.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE through September 15, 2022, using the terms alopecia and cost plus one of the treatments (n=21) identified by the AAD² for the treatment of AA (Figure). The reference lists of included articles were reviewed to identify other potentially relevant studies. Forty-five articles were identified.

Given the dearth of cost research in alopecia and the paucity of large prospective studies, we excluded articles that were not available in their full-text form or were not in English (n=3), articles whose primary study topic was not AA or an expert-approved alopecia treatment (n=15), and articles with no concrete cost data (n=17), which yielded 10 relevant articles that we studied using qualitative analysis.

Due to substantial differences in study methods and outcome measures, we did not compare the costs of alopecia among studies and did not perform statistical analysis. The quality of each study was investigated and assigned a level of evidence per the 2009 criteria from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.¹⁶

All cost data were converted into US dollars ($) using the conversion rate from the time of the original article’s publication.

Results

Total and Out-of-pocket Costs of AA—Li et al¹³ studied out-of-pocket health care costs for AA patients (N=675). Of these participants, 56.9% said their AA was moderately to seriously financially burdensome, and 41.3% reported using their savings to manage these expenses. Participants reported median out-of-pocket spending of $1354 (interquartile range, $537–$3300) annually. The most common categories of expenses were hair appointments (81.8%) and vitamins/supplements (67.7%).¹³

Mesinkovska et al¹⁴ studied the qualitative and quantitative financial burdens of moderate to severe AA (N=216). Fifty-seven percent of patients reported the financial impact of AA as moderately to severely burdensome with a willingness to borrow money or use savings to cover out-of-pocket costs. Patients without insurance cited cost as a major barrier to obtaining reatment. In addition to direct treatment-related expenses, AA patients spent a mean of $1961 per year on therapy to cope with the disease’s psychological burden. Lost work hours represented another source of financial burden; 61% of patients were employed, and 45% of them reported missing time from their job because of AA.¹⁴

Mostaghimi et al¹² studied health care resource utilization and all-cause direct health care costs in privately insured AA patients with or without alopecia totalis (AT) or alopecia universalis (AU)(n=14,972) matched with non-AA controls (n=44,916)(1:3 ratio). Mean total all-cause medical and pharmacy costs were higher in both AA groups compared with controls (AT/AU, $18,988 vs $11,030; non-AT/AU, $13,686 vs $9336; P<.001 for both). Out-of-pocket costs were higher for AA vs controls (AT/AU, $2685 vs $1457; non-AT/AU, $2223 vs $1341; P<.001 for both). Medical costs in the AT/AU and non-AT/AU groups largely were driven by outpatient costs (AT/AU, $10,277 vs $5713; non-AT/AU, $8078 vs $4672; P<.001 for both).¹²

Costs of Concealment—When studying the out-of-pocket costs of AA (N=675), Li et al¹³ discovered that the median yearly spending was highest on headwear or cosmetic items such as hats, wigs, and makeup ($450; interquartile range, $50–$1500). Mesinkovska et al¹⁴ reported that 49% of patients had insurance that covered AA treatment. However, 75% of patients reported that their insurance would not cover costs of concealment (eg, weave, wig, hair piece). Patients (N=112) spent a mean of $2211 per year and 10.3 hours per week on concealment.¹⁴

Minoxidil—Minoxidil solution is available over-the-counter, and its ease of access makes it a popular treatment for AA.¹⁷ Because manufacturers can sell directly to the public, minoxidil is marketed with bold claims and convincing packaging. Shrank¹⁸ noted that the product can take 4 months to work, meaning customers must incur a substantial cost burden before realizing the treatment’s benefit, which is not always obvious when purchasing minoxidil products, leaving customers—who were marketed a miracle drug—disappointed. Per Shrank,¹⁸ patients who did not experience hair regrowth after 4 months were advised to continue treatment for a year, leading them to spend hundreds of dollars for uncertain results. Those who did experience hair regrowth were advised to continue using the product twice daily 7 days per week indefinitely.¹⁸

Wehner et al¹⁹ studied the association between gender and drug cost for over-the-counter minoxidil. The price that women paid for 2% regular-strength minoxidil solutions was similar to the price that men paid for 5% extra-strength minoxidil solutions (women’s 2%, $7.63/30 mL; men’s 5%, $7.61/30 mL; P=.67). Minoxidil 5% foams with identical ingredients were priced significantly more per volume of the same product when sold as a product directed at women vs a product directed at men (men’s 5%, $8.05/30 mL; women’s 5%, $11.27/30 mL; P<.001).¹⁹

Beach²⁰ compared the cost of oral minoxidil to topical minoxidil. At $28.60 for a 3-month supply, oral minoxidil demonstrated cost savings compared to topical minoxidil ($48.30).²⁰

Diphencyprone—Bhat et al²¹ studied the cost-efficiency of diphencyprone (DPC) in patients with AA resistant to at least 2 conventional treatments (N=29). After initial sensitization with 2% DPC, patients received weekly or fortnightly treatments. Most of the annual cost burden of DPC treatment was due to staff time and overhead rather than the cost of the DPC itself: $258 for the DPC, $978 in staff time and overhead for the department, and $1233 directly charged to the patient.²¹

Lekhavat et al²² studied the economic impact of home-use vs office-use DPC in extensive AA (N=82). Both groups received weekly treatments in the hospital until DPC concentrations had been adjusted. Afterward, the home group was given training on self-applying DPC at home. The home group had monthly office visits for DPC concentration evaluation and refills, while the office group had weekly appointments for DPC treatment at the hospital. Calculated costs included those to the health care provider (ie, material, labor, capital costs) and the patient’s final out-of-pocket expense. The total cost to the health care provider was higher for the office group than the home group at 48 weeks (office, $683.52; home, $303.67; P<.001). Median out-of-pocket costs did not vary significantly between groups, which may have been due to small sample size affecting the range (office, $418.07; home, $189.69; P=.101). There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients who responded favorably to the DPC.²²

JAK Inhibitors—Chen et al²³ studied the efficacy of low-dose (5 mg) tofacitinib to treat severe AA (N=6). Compared to prior studies,^24-27 this analysis reported the efficacy of low-dose tofacitinib was not inferior to higher doses (10–20 mg), and low-dose tofacitinib reduced treatment costs by more than 50%.²³

Per the GlobalData Healthcare database, the estimated annual cost of therapy for JAK inhibitors following US Food and Drug Administration approval was $50,000. At the time of their reporting, the next most expensive immunomodulatory drug for AA was cyclosporine, with an annual cost of therapy of $1400.²⁸ Dillon²⁹ reviewed the use of JAK inhibitors for the treatment of AA. The cost estimates by Dillon²⁹ prior to FDA approval aligned with the pricing of Eli Lilly and Company for the now-approved JAK inhibitor baricitinib.³⁰ The list price of baricitinib is $2739.99 for a 30-day supply of 2-mg tablets or $5479.98 for a 30-day supply of 4-mg tablets. This amounts to $32,879.88 for an annual supply of 2-mg tablets and $65,759.76 for an annual supply for 4-mg tablets, though the out-of-pocket costs will vary.³⁰

Comment

We reviewed the global and treatment-specific costs of AA, consolidating the available data for the practicing dermatologist. Ten studies of approximately 16,000 patients with AA across a range of levels of evidence (1a to 4) were included (Table). Three of 10 articles studied global costs of AA, 1 studied costs of concealment, 3 studied costs of minoxidil, 2 studied costs of DPC, and 2 studied costs of JAK inhibitors. Only 2 studies achieved level of evidence 1a: the first assessed the economic impact of home-use vs office-use DPC,²² and the second researched the efficacy and outcomes of JAK inhibitors.²⁹

Hair-loss treatments and concealment techniques cost the average patient thousands of dollars. Spending was highest on headwear or cosmetic items, which were rarely covered by insurance.¹³ Psychosocial sequelae further increased cost via therapy charges and lost time at work.¹⁴ Patients with AA had greater all-cause medical costs than those without AA, with most of the cost driven by outpatient visits. Patients with AA also paid nearly twice as much as non-AA patients on out-of-pocket health care expenses.¹⁴ Despite the high costs and limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients reported willingness to incur debt or use savings to manage their AA. This willingness to pay reflects AA’s impact on quality of life and puts these patients at high risk for financial distress.¹³

Minoxidil solution does not require physician office visits and is available over-the-counter.¹⁷ Despite identical ingredients, minoxidil is priced more per volume when marketed to women compared with men, which reflects the larger issue of gender-based pricing that does not exist for other AAD-approved alopecia therapies but may exist for cosmetic treatments and nonapproved therapies (eg, vitamins/supplements) that are popular in the treatment of AA.¹⁹ Oral minoxidil was more cost-effective than the topical form, and gender-based pricing was a nonissue.²⁰ However, oral minoxidil requires a prescription, mandating patients incur the cost of an office visit. Patients should be wary of gender- or marketing-related surcharges for minoxidil solutions, and oral minoxidil may be a cost-effective choice.

Diphencyprone is a relatively affordable drug for AA, but the regular office visits traditionally required for its administration increase associated cost.²¹ Self-administration of DPC at home was more cost- and time-effective than in-office DPC administration and did not decrease efficacy. A regimen combining office visits for initial DPC titration, at-home DPC administration, and periodic office follow-up could minimize costs while preserving outcomes and safety.²²

Janus kinase inhibitors are cutting-edge and expensive therapies for AA. The annual cost of these medications poses a tremendous burden on the payer (list price of annual supply ritlecitinib is $49,000),³¹ be that the patient or the insurance company. Low-dose tofacitinib may be similarly efficacious and could substantially reduce treatment costs.²³ The true utility of these medications, specifically considering their steep costs, remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Alopecia areata poses a substantial and recurring cost burden on patients that is multifactorial including treatment, office visits, concealment, alternative therapies, psychosocial costs, and missed time at work. Although several treatment options exist, none of them are definitive. Oral minoxidil and at-home DPC administration can be cost-effective, though the cumulative cost is still high. The cost utility of JAK inhibitors remains unclear. When JAK inhibitors are prescribed, low-dose therapy may be used as maintenance to curb treatment costs. Concealment and therapy costs pose an additional, largely out-of-pocket financial burden. Despite the limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients incur substantial expenses to manage their AA. This willingness to pay reflects AA’s impact on quality of life and puts these patients at high risk for financial distress. There are no head-to-head studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of the different AA therapies; thus, it is unclear if one treatment is most efficacious. This topic remains an avenue for future investigation. Much of the cost burden of AA treatment falls directly on patients. Increasing coverage of AA-associated expenses, such as minoxidil therapy or wigs, could decrease the cost burden on patients. Providers also can inform patients about cost-saving tactics, such as purchasing minoxidil based on concentration and vehicle rather than marketing directed at men vs women. Finally, some patients may have insurance plans that at least partially cover the costs of wigs but may not be aware of this benefit. Querying a patient’s insurance provider can further minimize costs.

Alopecia areata (AA) affects 4.5 million individuals in the United States, with 66% younger than 30 years.^1,2 Inflammation causes hair loss in well-circumscribed, nonscarring patches on the body with a predilection for the scalp.^3-6 The disease can devastate a patient’s self-esteem, in turn reducing quality of life.^1,7 Alopecia areata is an autoimmune T-cell–mediated disease in which hair follicles lose their immune privilege.^8-10 Several specific mechanisms in the cytokine interactions between T cells and the hair follicle have been discovered, revealing the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway as pivotal in the pathogenesis of the disease and leading to the use of JAK inhibitors for treatment.¹¹

There is no cure for AA, and the condition is managed with prolonged medical treatments and cosmetic therapies.² Although some patients may be able to manage the annual cost, the cumulative cost of AA treatment can be burdensome.¹² This cumulative cost may increase if newer, potentially expensive treatments become the standard of care. Patients with AA report dipping into their savings (41.3%) and cutting back on food or clothing expenses (33.9%) to account for the cost of alopecia treatment. Although prior estimates of the annual out-of-pocket cost of AA treatments range from $1354 to $2685, the cost burden of individual therapies is poorly understood.^12-14

Patients who must juggle expensive medical bills with basic living expenses may be lost to follow-up or fall into treatment nonadherence.¹⁵ Other patients’ out-of-pocket costs may be manageable, but the costs to the health care system may compromise care in other ways. We conducted a literature review of the recommended therapies for AA based on American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines to identify the costs of alopecia treatment and consolidate the available data for the practicing dermatologist.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE through September 15, 2022, using the terms alopecia and cost plus one of the treatments (n=21) identified by the AAD² for the treatment of AA (Figure). The reference lists of included articles were reviewed to identify other potentially relevant studies. Forty-five articles were identified.

Given the dearth of cost research in alopecia and the paucity of large prospective studies, we excluded articles that were not available in their full-text form or were not in English (n=3), articles whose primary study topic was not AA or an expert-approved alopecia treatment (n=15), and articles with no concrete cost data (n=17), which yielded 10 relevant articles that we studied using qualitative analysis.

Due to substantial differences in study methods and outcome measures, we did not compare the costs of alopecia among studies and did not perform statistical analysis. The quality of each study was investigated and assigned a level of evidence per the 2009 criteria from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.¹⁶

All cost data were converted into US dollars ($) using the conversion rate from the time of the original article’s publication.

Results

Total and Out-of-pocket Costs of AA—Li et al¹³ studied out-of-pocket health care costs for AA patients (N=675). Of these participants, 56.9% said their AA was moderately to seriously financially burdensome, and 41.3% reported using their savings to manage these expenses. Participants reported median out-of-pocket spending of $1354 (interquartile range, $537–$3300) annually. The most common categories of expenses were hair appointments (81.8%) and vitamins/supplements (67.7%).¹³

Mesinkovska et al¹⁴ studied the qualitative and quantitative financial burdens of moderate to severe AA (N=216). Fifty-seven percent of patients reported the financial impact of AA as moderately to severely burdensome with a willingness to borrow money or use savings to cover out-of-pocket costs. Patients without insurance cited cost as a major barrier to obtaining reatment. In addition to direct treatment-related expenses, AA patients spent a mean of $1961 per year on therapy to cope with the disease’s psychological burden. Lost work hours represented another source of financial burden; 61% of patients were employed, and 45% of them reported missing time from their job because of AA.¹⁴

Mostaghimi et al¹² studied health care resource utilization and all-cause direct health care costs in privately insured AA patients with or without alopecia totalis (AT) or alopecia universalis (AU)(n=14,972) matched with non-AA controls (n=44,916)(1:3 ratio). Mean total all-cause medical and pharmacy costs were higher in both AA groups compared with controls (AT/AU, $18,988 vs $11,030; non-AT/AU, $13,686 vs $9336; P<.001 for both). Out-of-pocket costs were higher for AA vs controls (AT/AU, $2685 vs $1457; non-AT/AU, $2223 vs $1341; P<.001 for both). Medical costs in the AT/AU and non-AT/AU groups largely were driven by outpatient costs (AT/AU, $10,277 vs $5713; non-AT/AU, $8078 vs $4672; P<.001 for both).¹²

Costs of Concealment—When studying the out-of-pocket costs of AA (N=675), Li et al¹³ discovered that the median yearly spending was highest on headwear or cosmetic items such as hats, wigs, and makeup ($450; interquartile range, $50–$1500). Mesinkovska et al¹⁴ reported that 49% of patients had insurance that covered AA treatment. However, 75% of patients reported that their insurance would not cover costs of concealment (eg, weave, wig, hair piece). Patients (N=112) spent a mean of $2211 per year and 10.3 hours per week on concealment.¹⁴

Minoxidil—Minoxidil solution is available over-the-counter, and its ease of access makes it a popular treatment for AA.¹⁷ Because manufacturers can sell directly to the public, minoxidil is marketed with bold claims and convincing packaging. Shrank¹⁸ noted that the product can take 4 months to work, meaning customers must incur a substantial cost burden before realizing the treatment’s benefit, which is not always obvious when purchasing minoxidil products, leaving customers—who were marketed a miracle drug—disappointed. Per Shrank,¹⁸ patients who did not experience hair regrowth after 4 months were advised to continue treatment for a year, leading them to spend hundreds of dollars for uncertain results. Those who did experience hair regrowth were advised to continue using the product twice daily 7 days per week indefinitely.¹⁸

Wehner et al¹⁹ studied the association between gender and drug cost for over-the-counter minoxidil. The price that women paid for 2% regular-strength minoxidil solutions was similar to the price that men paid for 5% extra-strength minoxidil solutions (women’s 2%, $7.63/30 mL; men’s 5%, $7.61/30 mL; P=.67). Minoxidil 5% foams with identical ingredients were priced significantly more per volume of the same product when sold as a product directed at women vs a product directed at men (men’s 5%, $8.05/30 mL; women’s 5%, $11.27/30 mL; P<.001).¹⁹

Beach²⁰ compared the cost of oral minoxidil to topical minoxidil. At $28.60 for a 3-month supply, oral minoxidil demonstrated cost savings compared to topical minoxidil ($48.30).²⁰

Diphencyprone—Bhat et al²¹ studied the cost-efficiency of diphencyprone (DPC) in patients with AA resistant to at least 2 conventional treatments (N=29). After initial sensitization with 2% DPC, patients received weekly or fortnightly treatments. Most of the annual cost burden of DPC treatment was due to staff time and overhead rather than the cost of the DPC itself: $258 for the DPC, $978 in staff time and overhead for the department, and $1233 directly charged to the patient.²¹

Lekhavat et al²² studied the economic impact of home-use vs office-use DPC in extensive AA (N=82). Both groups received weekly treatments in the hospital until DPC concentrations had been adjusted. Afterward, the home group was given training on self-applying DPC at home. The home group had monthly office visits for DPC concentration evaluation and refills, while the office group had weekly appointments for DPC treatment at the hospital. Calculated costs included those to the health care provider (ie, material, labor, capital costs) and the patient’s final out-of-pocket expense. The total cost to the health care provider was higher for the office group than the home group at 48 weeks (office, $683.52; home, $303.67; P<.001). Median out-of-pocket costs did not vary significantly between groups, which may have been due to small sample size affecting the range (office, $418.07; home, $189.69; P=.101). There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients who responded favorably to the DPC.²²

JAK Inhibitors—Chen et al²³ studied the efficacy of low-dose (5 mg) tofacitinib to treat severe AA (N=6). Compared to prior studies,^24-27 this analysis reported the efficacy of low-dose tofacitinib was not inferior to higher doses (10–20 mg), and low-dose tofacitinib reduced treatment costs by more than 50%.²³

Per the GlobalData Healthcare database, the estimated annual cost of therapy for JAK inhibitors following US Food and Drug Administration approval was $50,000. At the time of their reporting, the next most expensive immunomodulatory drug for AA was cyclosporine, with an annual cost of therapy of $1400.²⁸ Dillon²⁹ reviewed the use of JAK inhibitors for the treatment of AA. The cost estimates by Dillon²⁹ prior to FDA approval aligned with the pricing of Eli Lilly and Company for the now-approved JAK inhibitor baricitinib.³⁰ The list price of baricitinib is $2739.99 for a 30-day supply of 2-mg tablets or $5479.98 for a 30-day supply of 4-mg tablets. This amounts to $32,879.88 for an annual supply of 2-mg tablets and $65,759.76 for an annual supply for 4-mg tablets, though the out-of-pocket costs will vary.³⁰

Comment

We reviewed the global and treatment-specific costs of AA, consolidating the available data for the practicing dermatologist. Ten studies of approximately 16,000 patients with AA across a range of levels of evidence (1a to 4) were included (Table). Three of 10 articles studied global costs of AA, 1 studied costs of concealment, 3 studied costs of minoxidil, 2 studied costs of DPC, and 2 studied costs of JAK inhibitors. Only 2 studies achieved level of evidence 1a: the first assessed the economic impact of home-use vs office-use DPC,²² and the second researched the efficacy and outcomes of JAK inhibitors.²⁹

Hair-loss treatments and concealment techniques cost the average patient thousands of dollars. Spending was highest on headwear or cosmetic items, which were rarely covered by insurance.¹³ Psychosocial sequelae further increased cost via therapy charges and lost time at work.¹⁴ Patients with AA had greater all-cause medical costs than those without AA, with most of the cost driven by outpatient visits. Patients with AA also paid nearly twice as much as non-AA patients on out-of-pocket health care expenses.¹⁴ Despite the high costs and limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients reported willingness to incur debt or use savings to manage their AA. This willingness to pay reflects AA’s impact on quality of life and puts these patients at high risk for financial distress.¹³

Minoxidil solution does not require physician office visits and is available over-the-counter.¹⁷ Despite identical ingredients, minoxidil is priced more per volume when marketed to women compared with men, which reflects the larger issue of gender-based pricing that does not exist for other AAD-approved alopecia therapies but may exist for cosmetic treatments and nonapproved therapies (eg, vitamins/supplements) that are popular in the treatment of AA.¹⁹ Oral minoxidil was more cost-effective than the topical form, and gender-based pricing was a nonissue.²⁰ However, oral minoxidil requires a prescription, mandating patients incur the cost of an office visit. Patients should be wary of gender- or marketing-related surcharges for minoxidil solutions, and oral minoxidil may be a cost-effective choice.

Diphencyprone is a relatively affordable drug for AA, but the regular office visits traditionally required for its administration increase associated cost.²¹ Self-administration of DPC at home was more cost- and time-effective than in-office DPC administration and did not decrease efficacy. A regimen combining office visits for initial DPC titration, at-home DPC administration, and periodic office follow-up could minimize costs while preserving outcomes and safety.²²

Janus kinase inhibitors are cutting-edge and expensive therapies for AA. The annual cost of these medications poses a tremendous burden on the payer (list price of annual supply ritlecitinib is $49,000),³¹ be that the patient or the insurance company. Low-dose tofacitinib may be similarly efficacious and could substantially reduce treatment costs.²³ The true utility of these medications, specifically considering their steep costs, remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Alopecia areata poses a substantial and recurring cost burden on patients that is multifactorial including treatment, office visits, concealment, alternative therapies, psychosocial costs, and missed time at work. Although several treatment options exist, none of them are definitive. Oral minoxidil and at-home DPC administration can be cost-effective, though the cumulative cost is still high. The cost utility of JAK inhibitors remains unclear. When JAK inhibitors are prescribed, low-dose therapy may be used as maintenance to curb treatment costs. Concealment and therapy costs pose an additional, largely out-of-pocket financial burden. Despite the limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients incur substantial expenses to manage their AA. This willingness to pay reflects AA’s impact on quality of life and puts these patients at high risk for financial distress. There are no head-to-head studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of the different AA therapies; thus, it is unclear if one treatment is most efficacious. This topic remains an avenue for future investigation. Much of the cost burden of AA treatment falls directly on patients. Increasing coverage of AA-associated expenses, such as minoxidil therapy or wigs, could decrease the cost burden on patients. Providers also can inform patients about cost-saving tactics, such as purchasing minoxidil based on concentration and vehicle rather than marketing directed at men vs women. Finally, some patients may have insurance plans that at least partially cover the costs of wigs but may not be aware of this benefit. Querying a patient’s insurance provider can further minimize costs.

Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), is characterized by clonal proliferation of predominantly CD4⁺ T cells with localization to the skin.¹ Mycosis fungoides typically affects older adults with a male to female ratio of 2:1 but also can occur in children and younger adults.^2,3 Known as the great imitator, the manifestations of MF can be variable with considerable clinical and pathologic overlap with benign inflammatory skin diseases, rendering definitive diagnosis challenging.^4-7 The early stages of classic MF manifest as pruritic erythematous patches and plaques with variable scaling that can progress in later stages to ulceration and tumors.⁸ Histopathologically, classic MF is characterized by epidermotropic proliferation of small- to intermediate-sized pleomorphic lymphocytes with cerebriform nuclei and a haloed appearance; intraepidermal nests of atypical lymphocytes known as Pautrier microabscesses occasionally are observed.⁵ Mycosis fungoides typically follows an indolent clinical course, with advanced-stage MF portending a poor prognosis.^9,10 Current treatment is focused on halting disease progression, with topical therapies, phototherapy, and radiation therapy as the standard therapies for early-stage MF.^11-13 For advanced-stage MF, treatment may include systemic therapies such as interferon alfa and oral retinoids along with chemotherapies for more refractive cases.¹⁴ Allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation is the only curative treatment.¹¹

Current staging guidelines for MF do not address anatomic location as there is little known about its impact on patient outcomes.^11,15 Due to the indolent nature of MF leading to diagnostic challenges, the exact frequency of each primary disease site for MF also remains unclear, though the suggested incidence of MF of the head and neck ranges from 30% to 70%.^16,17 Involvement of the head and neck^16,18 or external ear and external auditory canal¹⁹ is associated with worse prognosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of anatomic location of primary disease site on survival in MF.

Methods

The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database includes patient records from 18 registries and encompasses approximately 48% of the US population.²⁰ Using SEER*STAT software (version 8.4.0.1), we conducted a search of patients diagnosed with MF (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition [ICD-O-3] histologic code 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]) between 2000 and 2019. For inclusion in the study, patients were required to have a known age, specified primary site, and a known cause of death (if applicable). Patients with known Sézary syndrome (SS)—an aggressive form of CTCL that is characterized by the presence of clonally related neoplastic T cells in the skin, lymph nodes, and peripheral blood—were not included because the World Health Organization/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer considers SS and MF to be separate entities^1,15; SS does not necessarily arise from preexisting MF and is associated with markedly poorer survival. This study was exempt from institutional review board approval because the data were publicly available and anonymized.

Data Collection—For age at diagnosis, patients were divided into the following categories: younger than 40 years, 40 to 59 years, 60 to 79 years, and 80 years and older. Demographics, tumor characteristics, and surgical management (if applicable) were obtained for each patient. The designations of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in the SEER database are not reliable and prone to false negatives. As such, these were excluded from analysis.

The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS), which were calculated as time from MF diagnosis to death. Although OS included all patients who died of any cause, DSS only included patients who died of MF.

Statistical Analysis—Demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), tumor characteristics (tumor size, primary site, T stage, lymph node involvement, metastasis), and surgical management (if applicable) were summarized. Overall survival and DSS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were generated to determine which prognostic factors for MF were associated with poorer OS and DSS. Only statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis were used to construct the multivariable analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their associated 95% CIs were reported. Incidence rates were calculated and age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. The SEER JoinPoint Regression program was used to determine the annual percent change (APC)—change in incidence rate over time. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted with R version 4.0.2.

 

 

Results

Patient Demographics and Tumor Characteristics—There were 4265 patients diagnosed with MF from 2000 to 2019. The overall incidence of MF was 2.55 per million (95% CI, 2.48-2.63) when age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population, which increased with time (mean APC, 0.97% per year; P=.01). The mean age at diagnosis was 56.4 years with a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. Males (3.07 per million; 95% CI, 2.94-3.20) had a higher incidence of MF than females (2.16 per million; 95% CI, 2.06-2.26), with incidence in females increasing over time (mean APC, 1.52% per year; P=.02) while incidence in males remained stable (mean APC, 1.09%; P=.37). Patients predominantly self-identified as White (73.08%). Patients with MF of the head and neck were more likely to have smaller tumors (P=.02), a more advanced T stage (P<.001), and lymph node involvement (P=.01) at the time of diagnosis. Additional demographics and tumor characteristics are summarized in eTable 1.

Survival Outcomes—The mean follow-up time was 86.9 months. The 5- and 10-year OS rates were 85.4% (95% CI, 84.2%-86.6%) and 75.0% (95% CI, 73.4%-76.7%), respectively (Figure 1)(Table). The 5- and 10-year DSS rates were 93.3% (95% CI, 92.4%-94.1%) and 89.5% (95% CI, 88.3%-90.6%), respectively. For OS, univariate analysis indicated that significant prognostic factors included increasing age (P<.001), female sex (P<.001), self-identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander (P<.001), self-identifying as Hispanic Latino (P<.001), primary tumor sites of either the head and neck or upper limb (P<.001), T3 or T4 staging (P=.001), lymph node involvement at the time of diagnosis (P<.001), and metastasis (P<.001).

For DSS, univariate analysis had similar risk factors with self-identifying as Black being an additional risk factor (P=.02), though self-identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic Latino were not significant nor was location on the lower limb. For recorded tumor size, the HR increased by 1.001 per each 1-mm increase in size (eTable 2).

Multivariate analysis showed age at diagnosis (60–79 years: HR, 23.11 [95% CI, 3.03-176.32]; P=.002; ≥80 years: HR, 92.41 [95% CI, 11.78-724.75]; P<.001), T3 staging (HR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.27]; P=.004), and metastasis (HR, 40.14 [95% CI, 4.14-389.50]; P=.001) significantly influenced OS. For DSS, multivariate analysis indicated the significant prognostic factors were age at diagnosis (60–79 years: HR, 8.94 [95% CI, 1.16-69.23]; P=.04];≥80 years: HR, 26.71; [95% CI, 3.26-218.99]; P=.002), tumor size (HR, 1.001 [95% CI, 1.000-1.002]; P=.04), T3 staging (HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 1.58-8.67]; P=.003), lymph node involvement (HR, 3.87 [95% CI, 1.11-13.50]; P=.03) and metastasis (HR, 49.76 [95% CI, 4.03-615.00]; P=.002)(Figure 2). When controlling for the aforementioned factors, the primary disease site was not significant (eTable 3).

Comment

Although the prognostic significance of primary disease sites on various types of CTCLs has been examined, limited research exists on MF due to its rarity. For the 4265 patients with MF included in our study, statistically significant prognostic factors on multivariate analysis for DSS included age at diagnosis, tumor size, T staging, lymph node involvement, and presence of metastasis. For OS, only age at diagnosis, T staging, and presence of metastasis were statistically significant predictors. Although initially statistically significant on univariate analysis for both OS and DSS, tumor location was not significant when controlling for confounders.

Our population-based analysis found that 5- and 10-year OS for patients with head and neck MF were 85.4% and 75.0%, respectively, and 5- and 10-year DSS were 93.3% and 89.5%, respectively. Our 10-year OS survival rate of 75.0% was slightly worse than the 81.6% reported by Jung et al¹⁶ in a study of 39 cases of MF of the head and neck from the Asan Medical Center database. The difference in survival rate may not only be due to differences in sample size but also because the Asan Medical Center database had a higher proportion of Asian patients as a Korean registry. In our univariate analysis, Asian/Pacific Islander race was shown to be a statistically significant predictor of worse prognosis for OS (P<.001). When comparing survival in patients with head and neck MF vs all primary tumor sites, our OS rate for head and neck MF was more favorable than the 5-year OS of 75% reported by Agar et al²¹ in their analysis of 1502 patients with MF of all locations, though their cohort also included patients with SS, which is known to have a poorer prognosis. Additionally, our 10-year OS rate of 75.0% for patients with MF with a primary tumor site of the head and neck was slightly less favorable than the 81.0% reported by a prior analysis of the SEER database for MF of all locations,²² which initially may be suggestive of worse outcomes associated with MF originating from the head and neck.

Although MF originating in the head and neck region was found to be a statistically significant prognostic factor under univariate analysis (P<.001), tumor location was not significant upon adjusting for confounders in the multivariate analysis. These results are consistent with those reported in a multivariable analysis conducted by Jung et al,¹⁶ which compared 39 cases of head and neck MF to 85 cases without head and neck involvement. The investigators found that the head and neck as the primary site was a significant prognostic factor associated with worsened rates of OS when patients had stages IA to IIA (P=.009) and T2 stage tumors (P=.012) but not in either T1 stage or advanced stage IIB to IVB tumors.¹⁶ In contrast, a study by Su et al¹⁸ evaluating patients with MF from the National Cancer Database found that patients with MF originating in the head and neck region had similar survival compared with MF originating in the lower limbs after pairwise propensity matching. It previously has been postulated that primary MF lesions originating in the head and neck region have relatively higher frequencies of biological markers believed to be associated with more aggressive tumor behavior and poorer prognosis, such as histopathologic folliculotropism, T-cell receptor gene rearrangements, and large-cell transformations.¹⁶ However, MF typically is an indolent disease with advanced-stage MF following an aggressive disease course that often is refractory to treatment. A review from a single academic center noted that 5-year DSS was 97.3% for T1a but only 37.5% for T4.²³ Similarly, a meta-analysis evaluating survival in patients with MF noted the 5-year OS for stage IB was 85.8% while for stage IVB it was only 23.3%.²⁴ As such, having advanced-stage MF influences survival to a far greater extent than the presence of head and neck involvement alone. Accordingly, the significantly higher prevalence of advanced T stage disease and increased likelihood of lymph node involvement in MF lesions originating in the head and neck region (both P<.001) may explain why previous studies noted a poorer survival rate with head and neck involvement, as they did not have the sample size to adjust for these factors. Controlling for the above factors likely explains the nonsignificance of this region as a prognostic indicator in our multivariate analysis of OS and DSS.

Similar to MF originating in the head and neck region, the upper limb as a primary tumor site initially was found to be a significant predictor of both OS and DSS on univariate analysis but not on multivariate analysis. By contrast, Su et al¹⁸ found survival outcomes were worse for patients diagnosed with MF with the upper limb as the primary tumor site compared with the lower limb on multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis but not on pairwise propensity score matching. The difference in our results compared with Su et al¹⁸ may be because the National Cancer Database only reports OS, while DSS may be more useful in determining prognostic factors associated with poorer survival, especially in an older patient population with greater comorbidities. Furthermore, the nonsignificance of the upper limb as a primary tumor site on further multivariate analysis may be due to similar reasonings as for the head and neck, including more advanced T staging and an anatomic location close to lymph nodes.

Study Limitations—The SEER database is a national registry, which lends itself to potential data heterogeneity in recording and miscoding. Additionally, there may be higher rates of unconfirmed or missing information given the retrospective nature of the SEER database; the database also does not delineate facility type, insurance status, or Charlson/Deyo comorbidity index as demographic factors, which could influence the multivariable analysis. Finally, the SEER database does not further demarcate subtypes of MF, such as the aggressive folliculotropic variant commonly seen in head and neck MF lesions, which precludes independent analysis of disease course by subtype.

Conclusion

Our study evaluated primary disease site as a prognostic factor for OS and DSS in patients with MF. Although head and neck and upper limb as primary disease sites were found to be significant on univariate analysis, they were found to be an insignificant prognostic variable for OS or DSS in our multivariable analysis, potentially due to the aggressive nature of advanced-stage MF and localization close to lymph nodes. Further research including a deeper dive into MF of all stages and subtypes is needed to fully investigate primary disease site as a prognostic indicator. Older age, larger tumor size, a higher T stage, lymph node involvement, and presence of metastasis were associated with worse DSS, and patients with these attributes should be counseled regarding expected disease course and prognosis.

Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), is characterized by clonal proliferation of predominantly CD4⁺ T cells with localization to the skin.¹ Mycosis fungoides typically affects older adults with a male to female ratio of 2:1 but also can occur in children and younger adults.^2,3 Known as the great imitator, the manifestations of MF can be variable with considerable clinical and pathologic overlap with benign inflammatory skin diseases, rendering definitive diagnosis challenging.^4-7 The early stages of classic MF manifest as pruritic erythematous patches and plaques with variable scaling that can progress in later stages to ulceration and tumors.⁸ Histopathologically, classic MF is characterized by epidermotropic proliferation of small- to intermediate-sized pleomorphic lymphocytes with cerebriform nuclei and a haloed appearance; intraepidermal nests of atypical lymphocytes known as Pautrier microabscesses occasionally are observed.⁵ Mycosis fungoides typically follows an indolent clinical course, with advanced-stage MF portending a poor prognosis.^9,10 Current treatment is focused on halting disease progression, with topical therapies, phototherapy, and radiation therapy as the standard therapies for early-stage MF.^11-13 For advanced-stage MF, treatment may include systemic therapies such as interferon alfa and oral retinoids along with chemotherapies for more refractive cases.¹⁴ Allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation is the only curative treatment.¹¹

Current staging guidelines for MF do not address anatomic location as there is little known about its impact on patient outcomes.^11,15 Due to the indolent nature of MF leading to diagnostic challenges, the exact frequency of each primary disease site for MF also remains unclear, though the suggested incidence of MF of the head and neck ranges from 30% to 70%.^16,17 Involvement of the head and neck^16,18 or external ear and external auditory canal¹⁹ is associated with worse prognosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of anatomic location of primary disease site on survival in MF.

Methods

The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database includes patient records from 18 registries and encompasses approximately 48% of the US population.²⁰ Using SEER*STAT software (version 8.4.0.1), we conducted a search of patients diagnosed with MF (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition [ICD-O-3] histologic code 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]) between 2000 and 2019. For inclusion in the study, patients were required to have a known age, specified primary site, and a known cause of death (if applicable). Patients with known Sézary syndrome (SS)—an aggressive form of CTCL that is characterized by the presence of clonally related neoplastic T cells in the skin, lymph nodes, and peripheral blood—were not included because the World Health Organization/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer considers SS and MF to be separate entities^1,15; SS does not necessarily arise from preexisting MF and is associated with markedly poorer survival. This study was exempt from institutional review board approval because the data were publicly available and anonymized.

Data Collection—For age at diagnosis, patients were divided into the following categories: younger than 40 years, 40 to 59 years, 60 to 79 years, and 80 years and older. Demographics, tumor characteristics, and surgical management (if applicable) were obtained for each patient. The designations of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in the SEER database are not reliable and prone to false negatives. As such, these were excluded from analysis.

The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS), which were calculated as time from MF diagnosis to death. Although OS included all patients who died of any cause, DSS only included patients who died of MF.

Statistical Analysis—Demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), tumor characteristics (tumor size, primary site, T stage, lymph node involvement, metastasis), and surgical management (if applicable) were summarized. Overall survival and DSS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were generated to determine which prognostic factors for MF were associated with poorer OS and DSS. Only statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis were used to construct the multivariable analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their associated 95% CIs were reported. Incidence rates were calculated and age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. The SEER JoinPoint Regression program was used to determine the annual percent change (APC)—change in incidence rate over time. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted with R version 4.0.2.

 

 

Results

Patient Demographics and Tumor Characteristics—There were 4265 patients diagnosed with MF from 2000 to 2019. The overall incidence of MF was 2.55 per million (95% CI, 2.48-2.63) when age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population, which increased with time (mean APC, 0.97% per year; P=.01). The mean age at diagnosis was 56.4 years with a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. Males (3.07 per million; 95% CI, 2.94-3.20) had a higher incidence of MF than females (2.16 per million; 95% CI, 2.06-2.26), with incidence in females increasing over time (mean APC, 1.52% per year; P=.02) while incidence in males remained stable (mean APC, 1.09%; P=.37). Patients predominantly self-identified as White (73.08%). Patients with MF of the head and neck were more likely to have smaller tumors (P=.02), a more advanced T stage (P<.001), and lymph node involvement (P=.01) at the time of diagnosis. Additional demographics and tumor characteristics are summarized in eTable 1.

Survival Outcomes—The mean follow-up time was 86.9 months. The 5- and 10-year OS rates were 85.4% (95% CI, 84.2%-86.6%) and 75.0% (95% CI, 73.4%-76.7%), respectively (Figure 1)(Table). The 5- and 10-year DSS rates were 93.3% (95% CI, 92.4%-94.1%) and 89.5% (95% CI, 88.3%-90.6%), respectively. For OS, univariate analysis indicated that significant prognostic factors included increasing age (P<.001), female sex (P<.001), self-identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander (P<.001), self-identifying as Hispanic Latino (P<.001), primary tumor sites of either the head and neck or upper limb (P<.001), T3 or T4 staging (P=.001), lymph node involvement at the time of diagnosis (P<.001), and metastasis (P<.001).

For DSS, univariate analysis had similar risk factors with self-identifying as Black being an additional risk factor (P=.02), though self-identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic Latino were not significant nor was location on the lower limb. For recorded tumor size, the HR increased by 1.001 per each 1-mm increase in size (eTable 2).

Multivariate analysis showed age at diagnosis (60–79 years: HR, 23.11 [95% CI, 3.03-176.32]; P=.002; ≥80 years: HR, 92.41 [95% CI, 11.78-724.75]; P<.001), T3 staging (HR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.27]; P=.004), and metastasis (HR, 40.14 [95% CI, 4.14-389.50]; P=.001) significantly influenced OS. For DSS, multivariate analysis indicated the significant prognostic factors were age at diagnosis (60–79 years: HR, 8.94 [95% CI, 1.16-69.23]; P=.04];≥80 years: HR, 26.71; [95% CI, 3.26-218.99]; P=.002), tumor size (HR, 1.001 [95% CI, 1.000-1.002]; P=.04), T3 staging (HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 1.58-8.67]; P=.003), lymph node involvement (HR, 3.87 [95% CI, 1.11-13.50]; P=.03) and metastasis (HR, 49.76 [95% CI, 4.03-615.00]; P=.002)(Figure 2). When controlling for the aforementioned factors, the primary disease site was not significant (eTable 3).

Comment

Although the prognostic significance of primary disease sites on various types of CTCLs has been examined, limited research exists on MF due to its rarity. For the 4265 patients with MF included in our study, statistically significant prognostic factors on multivariate analysis for DSS included age at diagnosis, tumor size, T staging, lymph node involvement, and presence of metastasis. For OS, only age at diagnosis, T staging, and presence of metastasis were statistically significant predictors. Although initially statistically significant on univariate analysis for both OS and DSS, tumor location was not significant when controlling for confounders.

Our population-based analysis found that 5- and 10-year OS for patients with head and neck MF were 85.4% and 75.0%, respectively, and 5- and 10-year DSS were 93.3% and 89.5%, respectively. Our 10-year OS survival rate of 75.0% was slightly worse than the 81.6% reported by Jung et al¹⁶ in a study of 39 cases of MF of the head and neck from the Asan Medical Center database. The difference in survival rate may not only be due to differences in sample size but also because the Asan Medical Center database had a higher proportion of Asian patients as a Korean registry. In our univariate analysis, Asian/Pacific Islander race was shown to be a statistically significant predictor of worse prognosis for OS (P<.001). When comparing survival in patients with head and neck MF vs all primary tumor sites, our OS rate for head and neck MF was more favorable than the 5-year OS of 75% reported by Agar et al²¹ in their analysis of 1502 patients with MF of all locations, though their cohort also included patients with SS, which is known to have a poorer prognosis. Additionally, our 10-year OS rate of 75.0% for patients with MF with a primary tumor site of the head and neck was slightly less favorable than the 81.0% reported by a prior analysis of the SEER database for MF of all locations,²² which initially may be suggestive of worse outcomes associated with MF originating from the head and neck.

Although MF originating in the head and neck region was found to be a statistically significant prognostic factor under univariate analysis (P<.001), tumor location was not significant upon adjusting for confounders in the multivariate analysis. These results are consistent with those reported in a multivariable analysis conducted by Jung et al,¹⁶ which compared 39 cases of head and neck MF to 85 cases without head and neck involvement. The investigators found that the head and neck as the primary site was a significant prognostic factor associated with worsened rates of OS when patients had stages IA to IIA (P=.009) and T2 stage tumors (P=.012) but not in either T1 stage or advanced stage IIB to IVB tumors.¹⁶ In contrast, a study by Su et al¹⁸ evaluating patients with MF from the National Cancer Database found that patients with MF originating in the head and neck region had similar survival compared with MF originating in the lower limbs after pairwise propensity matching. It previously has been postulated that primary MF lesions originating in the head and neck region have relatively higher frequencies of biological markers believed to be associated with more aggressive tumor behavior and poorer prognosis, such as histopathologic folliculotropism, T-cell receptor gene rearrangements, and large-cell transformations.¹⁶ However, MF typically is an indolent disease with advanced-stage MF following an aggressive disease course that often is refractory to treatment. A review from a single academic center noted that 5-year DSS was 97.3% for T1a but only 37.5% for T4.²³ Similarly, a meta-analysis evaluating survival in patients with MF noted the 5-year OS for stage IB was 85.8% while for stage IVB it was only 23.3%.²⁴ As such, having advanced-stage MF influences survival to a far greater extent than the presence of head and neck involvement alone. Accordingly, the significantly higher prevalence of advanced T stage disease and increased likelihood of lymph node involvement in MF lesions originating in the head and neck region (both P<.001) may explain why previous studies noted a poorer survival rate with head and neck involvement, as they did not have the sample size to adjust for these factors. Controlling for the above factors likely explains the nonsignificance of this region as a prognostic indicator in our multivariate analysis of OS and DSS.

Similar to MF originating in the head and neck region, the upper limb as a primary tumor site initially was found to be a significant predictor of both OS and DSS on univariate analysis but not on multivariate analysis. By contrast, Su et al¹⁸ found survival outcomes were worse for patients diagnosed with MF with the upper limb as the primary tumor site compared with the lower limb on multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis but not on pairwise propensity score matching. The difference in our results compared with Su et al¹⁸ may be because the National Cancer Database only reports OS, while DSS may be more useful in determining prognostic factors associated with poorer survival, especially in an older patient population with greater comorbidities. Furthermore, the nonsignificance of the upper limb as a primary tumor site on further multivariate analysis may be due to similar reasonings as for the head and neck, including more advanced T staging and an anatomic location close to lymph nodes.

Study Limitations—The SEER database is a national registry, which lends itself to potential data heterogeneity in recording and miscoding. Additionally, there may be higher rates of unconfirmed or missing information given the retrospective nature of the SEER database; the database also does not delineate facility type, insurance status, or Charlson/Deyo comorbidity index as demographic factors, which could influence the multivariable analysis. Finally, the SEER database does not further demarcate subtypes of MF, such as the aggressive folliculotropic variant commonly seen in head and neck MF lesions, which precludes independent analysis of disease course by subtype.

Conclusion

Our study evaluated primary disease site as a prognostic factor for OS and DSS in patients with MF. Although head and neck and upper limb as primary disease sites were found to be significant on univariate analysis, they were found to be an insignificant prognostic variable for OS or DSS in our multivariable analysis, potentially due to the aggressive nature of advanced-stage MF and localization close to lymph nodes. Further research including a deeper dive into MF of all stages and subtypes is needed to fully investigate primary disease site as a prognostic indicator. Older age, larger tumor size, a higher T stage, lymph node involvement, and presence of metastasis were associated with worse DSS, and patients with these attributes should be counseled regarding expected disease course and prognosis.

Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), is characterized by clonal proliferation of predominantly CD4⁺ T cells with localization to the skin.¹ Mycosis fungoides typically affects older adults with a male to female ratio of 2:1 but also can occur in children and younger adults.^2,3 Known as the great imitator, the manifestations of MF can be variable with considerable clinical and pathologic overlap with benign inflammatory skin diseases, rendering definitive diagnosis challenging.^4-7 The early stages of classic MF manifest as pruritic erythematous patches and plaques with variable scaling that can progress in later stages to ulceration and tumors.⁸ Histopathologically, classic MF is characterized by epidermotropic proliferation of small- to intermediate-sized pleomorphic lymphocytes with cerebriform nuclei and a haloed appearance; intraepidermal nests of atypical lymphocytes known as Pautrier microabscesses occasionally are observed.⁵ Mycosis fungoides typically follows an indolent clinical course, with advanced-stage MF portending a poor prognosis.^9,10 Current treatment is focused on halting disease progression, with topical therapies, phototherapy, and radiation therapy as the standard therapies for early-stage MF.^11-13 For advanced-stage MF, treatment may include systemic therapies such as interferon alfa and oral retinoids along with chemotherapies for more refractive cases.¹⁴ Allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation is the only curative treatment.¹¹

Current staging guidelines for MF do not address anatomic location as there is little known about its impact on patient outcomes.^11,15 Due to the indolent nature of MF leading to diagnostic challenges, the exact frequency of each primary disease site for MF also remains unclear, though the suggested incidence of MF of the head and neck ranges from 30% to 70%.^16,17 Involvement of the head and neck^16,18 or external ear and external auditory canal¹⁹ is associated with worse prognosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of anatomic location of primary disease site on survival in MF.

Methods

The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database includes patient records from 18 registries and encompasses approximately 48% of the US population.²⁰ Using SEER*STAT software (version 8.4.0.1), we conducted a search of patients diagnosed with MF (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition [ICD-O-3] histologic code 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]) between 2000 and 2019. For inclusion in the study, patients were required to have a known age, specified primary site, and a known cause of death (if applicable). Patients with known Sézary syndrome (SS)—an aggressive form of CTCL that is characterized by the presence of clonally related neoplastic T cells in the skin, lymph nodes, and peripheral blood—were not included because the World Health Organization/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer considers SS and MF to be separate entities^1,15; SS does not necessarily arise from preexisting MF and is associated with markedly poorer survival. This study was exempt from institutional review board approval because the data were publicly available and anonymized.

Data Collection—For age at diagnosis, patients were divided into the following categories: younger than 40 years, 40 to 59 years, 60 to 79 years, and 80 years and older. Demographics, tumor characteristics, and surgical management (if applicable) were obtained for each patient. The designations of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in the SEER database are not reliable and prone to false negatives. As such, these were excluded from analysis.

The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS), which were calculated as time from MF diagnosis to death. Although OS included all patients who died of any cause, DSS only included patients who died of MF.

Statistical Analysis—Demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), tumor characteristics (tumor size, primary site, T stage, lymph node involvement, metastasis), and surgical management (if applicable) were summarized. Overall survival and DSS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were generated to determine which prognostic factors for MF were associated with poorer OS and DSS. Only statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis were used to construct the multivariable analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their associated 95% CIs were reported. Incidence rates were calculated and age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. The SEER JoinPoint Regression program was used to determine the annual percent change (APC)—change in incidence rate over time. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted with R version 4.0.2.

 

 

Results

Patient Demographics and Tumor Characteristics—There were 4265 patients diagnosed with MF from 2000 to 2019. The overall incidence of MF was 2.55 per million (95% CI, 2.48-2.63) when age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population, which increased with time (mean APC, 0.97% per year; P=.01). The mean age at diagnosis was 56.4 years with a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. Males (3.07 per million; 95% CI, 2.94-3.20) had a higher incidence of MF than females (2.16 per million; 95% CI, 2.06-2.26), with incidence in females increasing over time (mean APC, 1.52% per year; P=.02) while incidence in males remained stable (mean APC, 1.09%; P=.37). Patients predominantly self-identified as White (73.08%). Patients with MF of the head and neck were more likely to have smaller tumors (P=.02), a more advanced T stage (P<.001), and lymph node involvement (P=.01) at the time of diagnosis. Additional demographics and tumor characteristics are summarized in eTable 1.

Survival Outcomes—The mean follow-up time was 86.9 months. The 5- and 10-year OS rates were 85.4% (95% CI, 84.2%-86.6%) and 75.0% (95% CI, 73.4%-76.7%), respectively (Figure 1)(Table). The 5- and 10-year DSS rates were 93.3% (95% CI, 92.4%-94.1%) and 89.5% (95% CI, 88.3%-90.6%), respectively. For OS, univariate analysis indicated that significant prognostic factors included increasing age (P<.001), female sex (P<.001), self-identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander (P<.001), self-identifying as Hispanic Latino (P<.001), primary tumor sites of either the head and neck or upper limb (P<.001), T3 or T4 staging (P=.001), lymph node involvement at the time of diagnosis (P<.001), and metastasis (P<.001).

For DSS, univariate analysis had similar risk factors with self-identifying as Black being an additional risk factor (P=.02), though self-identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic Latino were not significant nor was location on the lower limb. For recorded tumor size, the HR increased by 1.001 per each 1-mm increase in size (eTable 2).

Multivariate analysis showed age at diagnosis (60–79 years: HR, 23.11 [95% CI, 3.03-176.32]; P=.002; ≥80 years: HR, 92.41 [95% CI, 11.78-724.75]; P<.001), T3 staging (HR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.27]; P=.004), and metastasis (HR, 40.14 [95% CI, 4.14-389.50]; P=.001) significantly influenced OS. For DSS, multivariate analysis indicated the significant prognostic factors were age at diagnosis (60–79 years: HR, 8.94 [95% CI, 1.16-69.23]; P=.04];≥80 years: HR, 26.71; [95% CI, 3.26-218.99]; P=.002), tumor size (HR, 1.001 [95% CI, 1.000-1.002]; P=.04), T3 staging (HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 1.58-8.67]; P=.003), lymph node involvement (HR, 3.87 [95% CI, 1.11-13.50]; P=.03) and metastasis (HR, 49.76 [95% CI, 4.03-615.00]; P=.002)(Figure 2). When controlling for the aforementioned factors, the primary disease site was not significant (eTable 3).

Comment

Although the prognostic significance of primary disease sites on various types of CTCLs has been examined, limited research exists on MF due to its rarity. For the 4265 patients with MF included in our study, statistically significant prognostic factors on multivariate analysis for DSS included age at diagnosis, tumor size, T staging, lymph node involvement, and presence of metastasis. For OS, only age at diagnosis, T staging, and presence of metastasis were statistically significant predictors. Although initially statistically significant on univariate analysis for both OS and DSS, tumor location was not significant when controlling for confounders.

Our population-based analysis found that 5- and 10-year OS for patients with head and neck MF were 85.4% and 75.0%, respectively, and 5- and 10-year DSS were 93.3% and 89.5%, respectively. Our 10-year OS survival rate of 75.0% was slightly worse than the 81.6% reported by Jung et al¹⁶ in a study of 39 cases of MF of the head and neck from the Asan Medical Center database. The difference in survival rate may not only be due to differences in sample size but also because the Asan Medical Center database had a higher proportion of Asian patients as a Korean registry. In our univariate analysis, Asian/Pacific Islander race was shown to be a statistically significant predictor of worse prognosis for OS (P<.001). When comparing survival in patients with head and neck MF vs all primary tumor sites, our OS rate for head and neck MF was more favorable than the 5-year OS of 75% reported by Agar et al²¹ in their analysis of 1502 patients with MF of all locations, though their cohort also included patients with SS, which is known to have a poorer prognosis. Additionally, our 10-year OS rate of 75.0% for patients with MF with a primary tumor site of the head and neck was slightly less favorable than the 81.0% reported by a prior analysis of the SEER database for MF of all locations,²² which initially may be suggestive of worse outcomes associated with MF originating from the head and neck.

Although MF originating in the head and neck region was found to be a statistically significant prognostic factor under univariate analysis (P<.001), tumor location was not significant upon adjusting for confounders in the multivariate analysis. These results are consistent with those reported in a multivariable analysis conducted by Jung et al,¹⁶ which compared 39 cases of head and neck MF to 85 cases without head and neck involvement. The investigators found that the head and neck as the primary site was a significant prognostic factor associated with worsened rates of OS when patients had stages IA to IIA (P=.009) and T2 stage tumors (P=.012) but not in either T1 stage or advanced stage IIB to IVB tumors.¹⁶ In contrast, a study by Su et al¹⁸ evaluating patients with MF from the National Cancer Database found that patients with MF originating in the head and neck region had similar survival compared with MF originating in the lower limbs after pairwise propensity matching. It previously has been postulated that primary MF lesions originating in the head and neck region have relatively higher frequencies of biological markers believed to be associated with more aggressive tumor behavior and poorer prognosis, such as histopathologic folliculotropism, T-cell receptor gene rearrangements, and large-cell transformations.¹⁶ However, MF typically is an indolent disease with advanced-stage MF following an aggressive disease course that often is refractory to treatment. A review from a single academic center noted that 5-year DSS was 97.3% for T1a but only 37.5% for T4.²³ Similarly, a meta-analysis evaluating survival in patients with MF noted the 5-year OS for stage IB was 85.8% while for stage IVB it was only 23.3%.²⁴ As such, having advanced-stage MF influences survival to a far greater extent than the presence of head and neck involvement alone. Accordingly, the significantly higher prevalence of advanced T stage disease and increased likelihood of lymph node involvement in MF lesions originating in the head and neck region (both P<.001) may explain why previous studies noted a poorer survival rate with head and neck involvement, as they did not have the sample size to adjust for these factors. Controlling for the above factors likely explains the nonsignificance of this region as a prognostic indicator in our multivariate analysis of OS and DSS.

Similar to MF originating in the head and neck region, the upper limb as a primary tumor site initially was found to be a significant predictor of both OS and DSS on univariate analysis but not on multivariate analysis. By contrast, Su et al¹⁸ found survival outcomes were worse for patients diagnosed with MF with the upper limb as the primary tumor site compared with the lower limb on multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis but not on pairwise propensity score matching. The difference in our results compared with Su et al¹⁸ may be because the National Cancer Database only reports OS, while DSS may be more useful in determining prognostic factors associated with poorer survival, especially in an older patient population with greater comorbidities. Furthermore, the nonsignificance of the upper limb as a primary tumor site on further multivariate analysis may be due to similar reasonings as for the head and neck, including more advanced T staging and an anatomic location close to lymph nodes.

Study Limitations—The SEER database is a national registry, which lends itself to potential data heterogeneity in recording and miscoding. Additionally, there may be higher rates of unconfirmed or missing information given the retrospective nature of the SEER database; the database also does not delineate facility type, insurance status, or Charlson/Deyo comorbidity index as demographic factors, which could influence the multivariable analysis. Finally, the SEER database does not further demarcate subtypes of MF, such as the aggressive folliculotropic variant commonly seen in head and neck MF lesions, which precludes independent analysis of disease course by subtype.

Conclusion

Our study evaluated primary disease site as a prognostic factor for OS and DSS in patients with MF. Although head and neck and upper limb as primary disease sites were found to be significant on univariate analysis, they were found to be an insignificant prognostic variable for OS or DSS in our multivariable analysis, potentially due to the aggressive nature of advanced-stage MF and localization close to lymph nodes. Further research including a deeper dive into MF of all stages and subtypes is needed to fully investigate primary disease site as a prognostic indicator. Older age, larger tumor size, a higher T stage, lymph node involvement, and presence of metastasis were associated with worse DSS, and patients with these attributes should be counseled regarding expected disease course and prognosis.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical opinion of Jenny E. Murase, MD, caring for patients with delusional infestation — the conviction that one is infested by animate or inanimate pathogens without medical or microbiological evidence of a true infestation — puts a dermatologist’s communication skills to the ultimate test.

“The fact that delusional infestation is a fixed, false belief [means] we will never agree with patients on the etiology by definition,” Dr. Murase, a dermatologist with the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, Mountain View, California, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “But somehow, we must come to some kind of an agreement on how to approach this therapeutically.”

Patients with delusional infestation (DI) often describe a cutaneous sensation of itching or crawling, biting, stinging — a pins and needles sensation. “Formication is when there’s a crawling sensation on the surface of the skin,” she said. “That’s something we can agree on — the fact that there is a shared understanding that they’re experiencing some kind of sensation in their skin.”

First described in 1894, several different terms have been used to describe DI in the past, including acarophobia, delusions of parasitosis, Ekbom syndrome, and Morgellons disease. The current term used for DI includes other animate or inanimate pathogens besides parasites.

The average dermatologist manages two to three patients with DI every 5 years, “so it’s not uncommon,” said Dr. Murase, who also holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. Females are about 2.5 times more likely to be affected compared with males, she said, and 8%-12% of patients with DI have a friend or relative who shares the symptom, and they often accompany them to the office visit. “Initially, you’re trying to determine if this a primary condition where it’s only the cutaneous condition the patient is experiencing, or if there is a secondary condition like an underlying psychiatric disorder or medical condition or drug use that contributes to the sensation,” she said.

According to a descriptive study of 115 patients with DI, 50% had at least one drug detected in hair samples, and nearly 60% had evidence of some cognitive impairment that could not be explained by deficits in IQ. Another study of 147 patients with DI seen at the Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2007 found that 81% had a prior psychiatric condition and 26% had a shared psychotic disorder.
 

Phased Approach to Treatment

Dr. Murase discussed her phased approach to caring for patients with DI, based on a review article that she and colleagues published in the International Journal of Dermatology. Phase 1 involves preparing for the visit by asking staff to refer to patients with DI as VIPs and allowing them to talk freely about the sensation they’re experiencing. “The goal is to improve the patient’s condition, not to convince the patient that he or she is delusional,” Dr. Murase explained. “Many patients can’t distinguish between when they’re talking to the doctor and when they’re talking to a nurse or a nurse practitioner; they like to feel that they’re being heard and listened to.”

She also recommends scheduling patients with DI for the end of the day and arranging frequent follow-up visits. “Making them feel valued is the bottom line,” she emphasized. “Remember: They’re less likely to respect socially defined boundaries like time constraints, so you do have to set boundaries, and don’t take what they may say to you personally. You’re not going to be able to care for that individual unless you do that. They may appear defiant, frustrated, and angry, but the fact that they showed up in your office means that you can help that person.”

Phase 2 of care for these patients consists of building a therapeutic rapport by greeting them with a smile and positive attitude and using welcoming body language such as sitting side-by-side during the office visit as opposed to face-to-face, “so it’s a less aggressive approach,” she said. Next, ask about their goal with a question such as, “Is it more important for you to find the bug/virus or to improve your condition?”

During the visit, “you’re continually shifting from etiology — which they are desperate to understand — to a shared desire for treatment,” Dr. Murase said. “No one knows what causes DI and remember, in medicine we treat patients when the exact etiology is unknown. So, we’re not doing anything that differently. Focus on the effect that the symptoms are having on their life. Say something like, ‘it must be so miserable to be living this way. I really want to help you.’ ”

Phase 3 of care for patients with DI involves performing a thorough history and physical exam. The initial office visit should include a full body exam to rule out any underlying dermatologic condition that may be causing the sensation they’re complaining about. She cited a retrospective study of 108 patients who presented to the Mayo Clinic with DI as the main reason for their office visit. Of the 80 patients who had a biopsy, 61% had chronic dermatitis; 48% had excoriation, ulceration, or erosion; and 31% had nonspecific dermal inflammation.

Whether to perform a biopsy or not is controversial, Dr. Murase added, because it’s probably not going to change the clinical impression or diagnosis. “If you agree to do the biopsy, get a verbal contract with the patient,” she advised. “You might say, ‘We’re going to do this. You’re going to choose the site, we’re going to do a biopsy, but we are going to be in agreement here that, if we can’t find the etiology, that you will still be open to going on therapy.’ This is important because it establishes a therapeutic alliance.”

Since patients with DI often bring in their own specimens, she also recommends providing them with microscope glass slides without cover slips and asking them to use clear tape, not tape that is opaque or matted, to cover the specimen.

To rule out other illnesses and conditions that could be triggering the perceived DI, she said lab tests to consider include a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, calcium, hemoglobin A1c, vitamin B12, urinalysis, toxicology screen, HIV/hepatitis C, and rapid plasma reagin.
 

Starting Treatment

Phase 4 of care for patients with DI involves initiating therapy, which includes demonstrating empathy by reflecting on the detrimental effects of the patient’s reported sensations on their quality of life. “Emphasize that you are not questioning their experience, and that you don’t doubt that they feel things on their skin,” Dr. Murase said. “Recommend medications on an empirical or ‘trial and error’ pragmatic basis. I often tell patients, ‘I will never give up on you if you will never give up on me.’”

For treating patients with DI, her first-generation antipsychotic of choice is pimozide. She starts at a dose of 0.5 mg, building up to 2-3 mg once a day. Haloperidol is another option: 0.5 mg to start, building up to 1-5 mg every night at bedtime. “This requires monitoring for bone suppression via CBC and hypermetabolic complications via fasting lipids and HbA1c,” she said. “There is also an increased risk of prolonged QT with pimozide and risk of extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia.”

Second-generation antipsychotics to consider include risperidone (0.5 mg to start, building up to 102 mg at bedtime); olanzapine (2.5 mg to start, building up to 5-10 mg at bedtime); aripiprazole (2-5 mg to start, building up to 10-15 mg a day), and quetiapine (12.5 mg to start, building up to 200 mg at bedtime).

For all medical therapy she recommends starting patients with a low dose, increasing by 0.5 mg every 2-3 weeks, and let them be “stable and comfortable” for 3-4 months, and then taper down the dose by 0.5 mg every 2-4 weeks or more slowly. In the medical chart, Dr. Murase recommends avoiding use of the terms “psychosis” and “delusions.” Instead, “formication” (tactile hallucination of insects crawling on or within the skin) or “cutaneous dysesthesia” are better terms if patients access their records, she said.

Dr. Murase reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical opinion of Jenny E. Murase, MD, caring for patients with delusional infestation — the conviction that one is infested by animate or inanimate pathogens without medical or microbiological evidence of a true infestation — puts a dermatologist’s communication skills to the ultimate test.

“The fact that delusional infestation is a fixed, false belief [means] we will never agree with patients on the etiology by definition,” Dr. Murase, a dermatologist with the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, Mountain View, California, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “But somehow, we must come to some kind of an agreement on how to approach this therapeutically.”

Patients with delusional infestation (DI) often describe a cutaneous sensation of itching or crawling, biting, stinging — a pins and needles sensation. “Formication is when there’s a crawling sensation on the surface of the skin,” she said. “That’s something we can agree on — the fact that there is a shared understanding that they’re experiencing some kind of sensation in their skin.”

First described in 1894, several different terms have been used to describe DI in the past, including acarophobia, delusions of parasitosis, Ekbom syndrome, and Morgellons disease. The current term used for DI includes other animate or inanimate pathogens besides parasites.

The average dermatologist manages two to three patients with DI every 5 years, “so it’s not uncommon,” said Dr. Murase, who also holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. Females are about 2.5 times more likely to be affected compared with males, she said, and 8%-12% of patients with DI have a friend or relative who shares the symptom, and they often accompany them to the office visit. “Initially, you’re trying to determine if this a primary condition where it’s only the cutaneous condition the patient is experiencing, or if there is a secondary condition like an underlying psychiatric disorder or medical condition or drug use that contributes to the sensation,” she said.

According to a descriptive study of 115 patients with DI, 50% had at least one drug detected in hair samples, and nearly 60% had evidence of some cognitive impairment that could not be explained by deficits in IQ. Another study of 147 patients with DI seen at the Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2007 found that 81% had a prior psychiatric condition and 26% had a shared psychotic disorder.
 

Phased Approach to Treatment

Dr. Murase discussed her phased approach to caring for patients with DI, based on a review article that she and colleagues published in the International Journal of Dermatology. Phase 1 involves preparing for the visit by asking staff to refer to patients with DI as VIPs and allowing them to talk freely about the sensation they’re experiencing. “The goal is to improve the patient’s condition, not to convince the patient that he or she is delusional,” Dr. Murase explained. “Many patients can’t distinguish between when they’re talking to the doctor and when they’re talking to a nurse or a nurse practitioner; they like to feel that they’re being heard and listened to.”

She also recommends scheduling patients with DI for the end of the day and arranging frequent follow-up visits. “Making them feel valued is the bottom line,” she emphasized. “Remember: They’re less likely to respect socially defined boundaries like time constraints, so you do have to set boundaries, and don’t take what they may say to you personally. You’re not going to be able to care for that individual unless you do that. They may appear defiant, frustrated, and angry, but the fact that they showed up in your office means that you can help that person.”

Phase 2 of care for these patients consists of building a therapeutic rapport by greeting them with a smile and positive attitude and using welcoming body language such as sitting side-by-side during the office visit as opposed to face-to-face, “so it’s a less aggressive approach,” she said. Next, ask about their goal with a question such as, “Is it more important for you to find the bug/virus or to improve your condition?”

During the visit, “you’re continually shifting from etiology — which they are desperate to understand — to a shared desire for treatment,” Dr. Murase said. “No one knows what causes DI and remember, in medicine we treat patients when the exact etiology is unknown. So, we’re not doing anything that differently. Focus on the effect that the symptoms are having on their life. Say something like, ‘it must be so miserable to be living this way. I really want to help you.’ ”

Phase 3 of care for patients with DI involves performing a thorough history and physical exam. The initial office visit should include a full body exam to rule out any underlying dermatologic condition that may be causing the sensation they’re complaining about. She cited a retrospective study of 108 patients who presented to the Mayo Clinic with DI as the main reason for their office visit. Of the 80 patients who had a biopsy, 61% had chronic dermatitis; 48% had excoriation, ulceration, or erosion; and 31% had nonspecific dermal inflammation.

Whether to perform a biopsy or not is controversial, Dr. Murase added, because it’s probably not going to change the clinical impression or diagnosis. “If you agree to do the biopsy, get a verbal contract with the patient,” she advised. “You might say, ‘We’re going to do this. You’re going to choose the site, we’re going to do a biopsy, but we are going to be in agreement here that, if we can’t find the etiology, that you will still be open to going on therapy.’ This is important because it establishes a therapeutic alliance.”

Since patients with DI often bring in their own specimens, she also recommends providing them with microscope glass slides without cover slips and asking them to use clear tape, not tape that is opaque or matted, to cover the specimen.

To rule out other illnesses and conditions that could be triggering the perceived DI, she said lab tests to consider include a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, calcium, hemoglobin A1c, vitamin B12, urinalysis, toxicology screen, HIV/hepatitis C, and rapid plasma reagin.
 

Starting Treatment

Phase 4 of care for patients with DI involves initiating therapy, which includes demonstrating empathy by reflecting on the detrimental effects of the patient’s reported sensations on their quality of life. “Emphasize that you are not questioning their experience, and that you don’t doubt that they feel things on their skin,” Dr. Murase said. “Recommend medications on an empirical or ‘trial and error’ pragmatic basis. I often tell patients, ‘I will never give up on you if you will never give up on me.’”

For treating patients with DI, her first-generation antipsychotic of choice is pimozide. She starts at a dose of 0.5 mg, building up to 2-3 mg once a day. Haloperidol is another option: 0.5 mg to start, building up to 1-5 mg every night at bedtime. “This requires monitoring for bone suppression via CBC and hypermetabolic complications via fasting lipids and HbA1c,” she said. “There is also an increased risk of prolonged QT with pimozide and risk of extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia.”

Second-generation antipsychotics to consider include risperidone (0.5 mg to start, building up to 102 mg at bedtime); olanzapine (2.5 mg to start, building up to 5-10 mg at bedtime); aripiprazole (2-5 mg to start, building up to 10-15 mg a day), and quetiapine (12.5 mg to start, building up to 200 mg at bedtime).

For all medical therapy she recommends starting patients with a low dose, increasing by 0.5 mg every 2-3 weeks, and let them be “stable and comfortable” for 3-4 months, and then taper down the dose by 0.5 mg every 2-4 weeks or more slowly. In the medical chart, Dr. Murase recommends avoiding use of the terms “psychosis” and “delusions.” Instead, “formication” (tactile hallucination of insects crawling on or within the skin) or “cutaneous dysesthesia” are better terms if patients access their records, she said.

Dr. Murase reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical opinion of Jenny E. Murase, MD, caring for patients with delusional infestation — the conviction that one is infested by animate or inanimate pathogens without medical or microbiological evidence of a true infestation — puts a dermatologist’s communication skills to the ultimate test.

“The fact that delusional infestation is a fixed, false belief [means] we will never agree with patients on the etiology by definition,” Dr. Murase, a dermatologist with the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, Mountain View, California, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “But somehow, we must come to some kind of an agreement on how to approach this therapeutically.”

Patients with delusional infestation (DI) often describe a cutaneous sensation of itching or crawling, biting, stinging — a pins and needles sensation. “Formication is when there’s a crawling sensation on the surface of the skin,” she said. “That’s something we can agree on — the fact that there is a shared understanding that they’re experiencing some kind of sensation in their skin.”

First described in 1894, several different terms have been used to describe DI in the past, including acarophobia, delusions of parasitosis, Ekbom syndrome, and Morgellons disease. The current term used for DI includes other animate or inanimate pathogens besides parasites.

The average dermatologist manages two to three patients with DI every 5 years, “so it’s not uncommon,” said Dr. Murase, who also holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. Females are about 2.5 times more likely to be affected compared with males, she said, and 8%-12% of patients with DI have a friend or relative who shares the symptom, and they often accompany them to the office visit. “Initially, you’re trying to determine if this a primary condition where it’s only the cutaneous condition the patient is experiencing, or if there is a secondary condition like an underlying psychiatric disorder or medical condition or drug use that contributes to the sensation,” she said.

According to a descriptive study of 115 patients with DI, 50% had at least one drug detected in hair samples, and nearly 60% had evidence of some cognitive impairment that could not be explained by deficits in IQ. Another study of 147 patients with DI seen at the Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2007 found that 81% had a prior psychiatric condition and 26% had a shared psychotic disorder.
 

Phased Approach to Treatment

Dr. Murase discussed her phased approach to caring for patients with DI, based on a review article that she and colleagues published in the International Journal of Dermatology. Phase 1 involves preparing for the visit by asking staff to refer to patients with DI as VIPs and allowing them to talk freely about the sensation they’re experiencing. “The goal is to improve the patient’s condition, not to convince the patient that he or she is delusional,” Dr. Murase explained. “Many patients can’t distinguish between when they’re talking to the doctor and when they’re talking to a nurse or a nurse practitioner; they like to feel that they’re being heard and listened to.”

She also recommends scheduling patients with DI for the end of the day and arranging frequent follow-up visits. “Making them feel valued is the bottom line,” she emphasized. “Remember: They’re less likely to respect socially defined boundaries like time constraints, so you do have to set boundaries, and don’t take what they may say to you personally. You’re not going to be able to care for that individual unless you do that. They may appear defiant, frustrated, and angry, but the fact that they showed up in your office means that you can help that person.”

Phase 2 of care for these patients consists of building a therapeutic rapport by greeting them with a smile and positive attitude and using welcoming body language such as sitting side-by-side during the office visit as opposed to face-to-face, “so it’s a less aggressive approach,” she said. Next, ask about their goal with a question such as, “Is it more important for you to find the bug/virus or to improve your condition?”

During the visit, “you’re continually shifting from etiology — which they are desperate to understand — to a shared desire for treatment,” Dr. Murase said. “No one knows what causes DI and remember, in medicine we treat patients when the exact etiology is unknown. So, we’re not doing anything that differently. Focus on the effect that the symptoms are having on their life. Say something like, ‘it must be so miserable to be living this way. I really want to help you.’ ”

Phase 3 of care for patients with DI involves performing a thorough history and physical exam. The initial office visit should include a full body exam to rule out any underlying dermatologic condition that may be causing the sensation they’re complaining about. She cited a retrospective study of 108 patients who presented to the Mayo Clinic with DI as the main reason for their office visit. Of the 80 patients who had a biopsy, 61% had chronic dermatitis; 48% had excoriation, ulceration, or erosion; and 31% had nonspecific dermal inflammation.

Whether to perform a biopsy or not is controversial, Dr. Murase added, because it’s probably not going to change the clinical impression or diagnosis. “If you agree to do the biopsy, get a verbal contract with the patient,” she advised. “You might say, ‘We’re going to do this. You’re going to choose the site, we’re going to do a biopsy, but we are going to be in agreement here that, if we can’t find the etiology, that you will still be open to going on therapy.’ This is important because it establishes a therapeutic alliance.”

Since patients with DI often bring in their own specimens, she also recommends providing them with microscope glass slides without cover slips and asking them to use clear tape, not tape that is opaque or matted, to cover the specimen.

To rule out other illnesses and conditions that could be triggering the perceived DI, she said lab tests to consider include a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, calcium, hemoglobin A1c, vitamin B12, urinalysis, toxicology screen, HIV/hepatitis C, and rapid plasma reagin.
 

Starting Treatment

Phase 4 of care for patients with DI involves initiating therapy, which includes demonstrating empathy by reflecting on the detrimental effects of the patient’s reported sensations on their quality of life. “Emphasize that you are not questioning their experience, and that you don’t doubt that they feel things on their skin,” Dr. Murase said. “Recommend medications on an empirical or ‘trial and error’ pragmatic basis. I often tell patients, ‘I will never give up on you if you will never give up on me.’”

For treating patients with DI, her first-generation antipsychotic of choice is pimozide. She starts at a dose of 0.5 mg, building up to 2-3 mg once a day. Haloperidol is another option: 0.5 mg to start, building up to 1-5 mg every night at bedtime. “This requires monitoring for bone suppression via CBC and hypermetabolic complications via fasting lipids and HbA1c,” she said. “There is also an increased risk of prolonged QT with pimozide and risk of extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia.”

Second-generation antipsychotics to consider include risperidone (0.5 mg to start, building up to 102 mg at bedtime); olanzapine (2.5 mg to start, building up to 5-10 mg at bedtime); aripiprazole (2-5 mg to start, building up to 10-15 mg a day), and quetiapine (12.5 mg to start, building up to 200 mg at bedtime).

For all medical therapy she recommends starting patients with a low dose, increasing by 0.5 mg every 2-3 weeks, and let them be “stable and comfortable” for 3-4 months, and then taper down the dose by 0.5 mg every 2-4 weeks or more slowly. In the medical chart, Dr. Murase recommends avoiding use of the terms “psychosis” and “delusions.” Instead, “formication” (tactile hallucination of insects crawling on or within the skin) or “cutaneous dysesthesia” are better terms if patients access their records, she said.

Dr. Murase reported having no relevant disclosures.

TOPLINE:

A review of 22 articles found a higher incidence of “altered skin sensations” and alopecia in individuals receiving oral semaglutide than in those receiving placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Food and Drug Administration’s  has not received reports of semaglutide-related safety events, and few studies have characterized skin findings associated with oral or subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.
• In this scoping review, researchers included 22 articles (15 clinical trials, six case reports, and one retrospective cohort study), published through January 2024, of patients receiving either semaglutide or a placebo or comparator, which included reports of semaglutide-associated adverse dermatologic events in 255 participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly reported a higher incidence of altered skin sensations, such as dysesthesia (1.8% vs 0%), hyperesthesia (1.2% vs 0%), skin pain (2.4% vs 0%), paresthesia (2.7% vs 0%), and sensitive skin (2.7% vs 0%), than those receiving placebo or comparator.
• Reports of alopecia (6.9% vs 0.3%) were higher in patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly than in those on placebo, but only 0.2% of patients on 2.4 mg of subcutaneous semaglutide reported alopecia vs 0.5% of those on placebo.
• Unspecified dermatologic reactions (4.1% vs 1.5%) were reported in more patients on subcutaneous semaglutide than those on a placebo or comparator. Several case reports described isolated cases of severe skin-related adverse effects, such as bullous pemphigoid, eosinophilic fasciitis, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.
• On the contrary, injection site reactions (3.5% vs 6.7%) were less common in patients on subcutaneous semaglutide compared with in those on a placebo or comparator.

IN PRACTICE:

“Variations in dosage and administration routes could influence the types and severity of skin findings, underscoring the need for additional research,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Megan M. Tran, BS, from the Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, led this study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not adjust for confounding factors and could not establish a direct causal association between semaglutide and the adverse reactions reported.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A review of 22 articles found a higher incidence of “altered skin sensations” and alopecia in individuals receiving oral semaglutide than in those receiving placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Food and Drug Administration’s  has not received reports of semaglutide-related safety events, and few studies have characterized skin findings associated with oral or subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.
• In this scoping review, researchers included 22 articles (15 clinical trials, six case reports, and one retrospective cohort study), published through January 2024, of patients receiving either semaglutide or a placebo or comparator, which included reports of semaglutide-associated adverse dermatologic events in 255 participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly reported a higher incidence of altered skin sensations, such as dysesthesia (1.8% vs 0%), hyperesthesia (1.2% vs 0%), skin pain (2.4% vs 0%), paresthesia (2.7% vs 0%), and sensitive skin (2.7% vs 0%), than those receiving placebo or comparator.
• Reports of alopecia (6.9% vs 0.3%) were higher in patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly than in those on placebo, but only 0.2% of patients on 2.4 mg of subcutaneous semaglutide reported alopecia vs 0.5% of those on placebo.
• Unspecified dermatologic reactions (4.1% vs 1.5%) were reported in more patients on subcutaneous semaglutide than those on a placebo or comparator. Several case reports described isolated cases of severe skin-related adverse effects, such as bullous pemphigoid, eosinophilic fasciitis, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.
• On the contrary, injection site reactions (3.5% vs 6.7%) were less common in patients on subcutaneous semaglutide compared with in those on a placebo or comparator.

IN PRACTICE:

“Variations in dosage and administration routes could influence the types and severity of skin findings, underscoring the need for additional research,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Megan M. Tran, BS, from the Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, led this study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not adjust for confounding factors and could not establish a direct causal association between semaglutide and the adverse reactions reported.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A review of 22 articles found a higher incidence of “altered skin sensations” and alopecia in individuals receiving oral semaglutide than in those receiving placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Food and Drug Administration’s  has not received reports of semaglutide-related safety events, and few studies have characterized skin findings associated with oral or subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.
• In this scoping review, researchers included 22 articles (15 clinical trials, six case reports, and one retrospective cohort study), published through January 2024, of patients receiving either semaglutide or a placebo or comparator, which included reports of semaglutide-associated adverse dermatologic events in 255 participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly reported a higher incidence of altered skin sensations, such as dysesthesia (1.8% vs 0%), hyperesthesia (1.2% vs 0%), skin pain (2.4% vs 0%), paresthesia (2.7% vs 0%), and sensitive skin (2.7% vs 0%), than those receiving placebo or comparator.
• Reports of alopecia (6.9% vs 0.3%) were higher in patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly than in those on placebo, but only 0.2% of patients on 2.4 mg of subcutaneous semaglutide reported alopecia vs 0.5% of those on placebo.
• Unspecified dermatologic reactions (4.1% vs 1.5%) were reported in more patients on subcutaneous semaglutide than those on a placebo or comparator. Several case reports described isolated cases of severe skin-related adverse effects, such as bullous pemphigoid, eosinophilic fasciitis, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.
• On the contrary, injection site reactions (3.5% vs 6.7%) were less common in patients on subcutaneous semaglutide compared with in those on a placebo or comparator.

IN PRACTICE:

“Variations in dosage and administration routes could influence the types and severity of skin findings, underscoring the need for additional research,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Megan M. Tran, BS, from the Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, led this study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not adjust for confounding factors and could not establish a direct causal association between semaglutide and the adverse reactions reported.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Sporotrichosis refers to a subacute to chronic fungal infection that usually involves the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissues and is caused by the introduction of Sporothrix, a dimorphic fungus, through the skin. We present a case of chronic atypical lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis.

A 46-year-old man presented to the outpatient dermatology clinic for follow-up for a rash on the right leg that spread to the thigh and became painful and pruritic. It initially developed 8 years prior to the current presentation after he sustained trauma to the leg from an electroshock weapon. One year prior to the current presentation, he had presented to the emergency department and was prescribed doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days as well as bacitracin ointment. He also was instructed to follow up with dermatology, but a lack of health insurance and other socioeconomic barriers prevented him from seeking dermatologic care. Nine months later, he again presented to the emergency department due to a motor vehicle accident. Computed tomography (CT) of the right leg revealed exophytic dermal masses, inflammatory stranding of the subcutaneous tissue, and right inguinal lymph nodes measuring up to 1.4 cm; there was no osteoarticular involvement. At that time, the patient was applying gentian violet to the skin lesions and taking hydroxyzine 50 mg 3 times daily as needed for pruritus with minimal relief. Financial support was provided for follow-up with dermatology, which occurred almost 5 months later.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed a large annular plaque with verrucous, scaly, erythematous borders and a hypopigmented atrophic center extending from the medial aspect of the right leg to the posterior thigh. Numerous pink, scaly, crusted nodules were scattered primarily along the periphery, with some evidence of draining sinus tracts. In addition, a fibrotic pink linear plaque extended from the medial right leg to the popliteal fossa, consistent with a keloid. Violet staining along the periphery of the lesion also was appreciated secondary to the application of topical gentian violet (Figure 1).

Based on the chronic history and morphology, a diagnosis of a chronic fungal or atypical mycobacterial infection was favored. In particular, chromoblastomycosis, cutaneous tuberculosis (eg, scrofuloderma, lupus vulgaris, tuberculosis verrucosa cutis), and atypical mycobacterial infection were highest on the differential, as these conditions often exhibit annular, nodular, verrucous, and/or atrophic lesions. The nodularity, crusting, and draining sinus tracts also raised the possibility of mycetoma. Given the extension of the lesion from the lower to upper leg, a sporotrichoid infection also was considered but was thought to be less likely based on the annular configuration.

Two 4-mm punch biopsies were taken from a peripheral nodule—one for routine histology and another for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. An ­interferon-gamma release assay also was ordered to evaluate for immune responses indicative of prior Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, but the patient did not obtain this for unknown reasons. Histology demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and necrotizing granulomas, which suggested an infectious etiology, but no organisms were identified on tissue staining and all cultures were negative for growth at 6 weeks. The patient was asked to return at that point, and 4 additional scouting biopsies were performed and sent for routine histology, M tuberculosis nucleic acid amplification testing, and microbiologic cultures (ie, bacterial, mycobacterial, fungal, nocardia, actinomycetes). Within 1 week, a filamentous organism with pigmentation visible on the front and back of a Sabouraud dextrose agar plate was identified on fungal culture (Figure 2). Microscopic evaluation of this mold with lactophenol blue stain revealed thin septate hyphae with conidiophores arising at right angles that bore clusters of microconidia (Figure 3). Sequencing analysis ultimately identified this organism as Sporothrix schenckii. Routine histology demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with scattered intraepidermal collections of neutrophils (Figure 4). The dermis showed a dense, superficial, and deep infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and plasma cells with occasional neutrophils and eosinophils. A Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain revealed a cluster of ovoid yeast forms within the stratum corneum (Figure 5). The patient was referred to infectious disease for follow-up and treatment.

The patient later visited a community clinic providing dermatologic care for patients without insurance. He was started on itraconazole 200 mg daily for a total of 6 months until dermatologic clearance of the cutaneous lesions was observed. He was followed by the clinic with laboratory tests including a liver function test. At follow-up 8 months later, a repeat biopsy was performed to ensure histologic clearance of the sporotrichosis, which revealed a dermal scar and no evidence of residual infection.

Sporothrix schenckii was first isolated in 1898 by Benjamin Schenck, a student at Johns Hopkins Medicine (Baltimore, Maryland), and identified by a mycologist as sporotricha.¹ Species within the genus Sporothrix are unique in that the fungi are both dimorphic (growing as a mold at 25 °C but as a yeast at 37 °C) and dematiaceous (dark pigmentation from melanin is visible on inspection of the anterior and reverse sides of culture plates). Infection usually occurs when cutaneous or subcutaneous tissues are exposed to the fungus via microabrasions; activities thought to contribute to exposure include gardening, agricultural work, animal husbandry, and feline scratches.² Although skin trauma frequently is considered the primary route of infection, patient recall is variable, with one study noting that only 37.7% of patients recalled trauma and another study similarly demonstrating a patient recall rate of 25%.^3,4

Lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is the most common presentation of the fungal infection,⁵ and clinical cases may be classified into 1 of 4 categories: (1) lymphangitic lesions—papules at the site of inoculation with spread along the lymphatic channels; (2) localized (fixed) cutaneous lesions—1 or 2 lesions at the inoculation site; (3) disseminated (multifocal) cutaneous lesions; and (4) extracutaneous lesions.⁶ Extracutaneous manifestations of this infection most notably have been reported as pulmonary disease through inhalation of conidia or through dissemination in immunocompromised hosts.⁷ Our patient’s infection was categorized as lymphangitic lesions due to spread from the lower to upper leg, albeit in a highly atypical, annular fashion. A review of systems was otherwise negative, and CT ruled out osteoarticular involvement.

In addition to socioeconomic barriers, several factors contributed to a delayed diagnosis in this patient including the annular presentation with central hypopigmentation and atrophy, negative initial microbiological cultures and lack of visualization of organisms on histopathology, and the consequent need for repeat biopsies. For lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis, the typical presentation consists of a papule or ulcerated nodule at the site of inoculation with subsequent linear spread along lymphatic channels. This classic sporotrichoid pattern is a key diagnostic clue for identifying sporotrichosis but was absent at the time our patient presented for medical care. Rather, the sporotrichoid spread seemed to have occurred in a centrifugal fashion up the leg. Few case reports have documented an annular presentation of lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis,^8-13 and one report described central atrophy and hypopigmentation.¹⁰ Pain and pruritus, which were present in our patient, rarely are documented.⁹ Finally, the diagnosis of cutaneous fungal infections may require multiple biopsies due to the variable abundance of viable organisms in tissue specimens as well as the fastidious growth characteristics of these organisms. Furthermore, sensitivity often is low for both fungal and mycobacterial cultures, and cultures may take days to weeks to yield growth.^14,15 For these reasons, empiric therapy and repeat biopsies often are pursued if clinical suspicion is high enough.¹⁶ Our patient returned for multiple scouting biopsies after the initial tissue culture was negative and was even considered for empiric treatment against Mycobacterium prior to positive fungal cultures.

Another unique aspect of our case was the presence of a keloid. It is difficult to know if this keloid was secondary to the trauma the patient sustained in the inciting incident or formed from the fungal infection. Interestingly, it has been hypothesized that fungal infections may contribute to keloid and hypertrophic scar formation.¹⁷ In a case series of 3 patients with either keloids or hypertrophic scars and concomitant tinea infection, there was notable improvement in the appearance of the scars 2 weeks after beginning itraconazole therapy.¹⁷ However, it is not yet known if a fungal infection can contribute to the pathogenesis of keloid formation.

As with other aspects of this case, the length of time the patient went without diagnosis and treatment was unusual and may help explain the atypical presentation. Although the incubation period for S schenckii can vary, most reports identify patients as seeking medical attention within 1 year of rash onset.^18-20 In our case, the patient was not diagnosed until 8 years after his symptoms began, requiring multiple referrals, multiple health system touchpoints, and an institution-specific financial aid program. As such, this case also highlights the potential need for a multidisciplinary team approach when caring for patients with poor access to health care.

In conclusion, this case illustrates a unique presentation of lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis that may mimic other chronic infections and result in delayed diagnosis. Although lymphangitic sporotrichosis generally is recognized as having a linear distribution, mounting evidence from this report and others suggests an annular presentation also is possible. Pruritus or pain is rare but should not preclude a diagnosis of sporotrichosis if present. For patients with limited access to health care resources, it is especially important to involve multiple members of the health care team, including social workers and specialists, to prevent a protracted and severe course of disease.

To the Editor:

Sporotrichosis refers to a subacute to chronic fungal infection that usually involves the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissues and is caused by the introduction of Sporothrix, a dimorphic fungus, through the skin. We present a case of chronic atypical lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis.

A 46-year-old man presented to the outpatient dermatology clinic for follow-up for a rash on the right leg that spread to the thigh and became painful and pruritic. It initially developed 8 years prior to the current presentation after he sustained trauma to the leg from an electroshock weapon. One year prior to the current presentation, he had presented to the emergency department and was prescribed doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days as well as bacitracin ointment. He also was instructed to follow up with dermatology, but a lack of health insurance and other socioeconomic barriers prevented him from seeking dermatologic care. Nine months later, he again presented to the emergency department due to a motor vehicle accident. Computed tomography (CT) of the right leg revealed exophytic dermal masses, inflammatory stranding of the subcutaneous tissue, and right inguinal lymph nodes measuring up to 1.4 cm; there was no osteoarticular involvement. At that time, the patient was applying gentian violet to the skin lesions and taking hydroxyzine 50 mg 3 times daily as needed for pruritus with minimal relief. Financial support was provided for follow-up with dermatology, which occurred almost 5 months later.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed a large annular plaque with verrucous, scaly, erythematous borders and a hypopigmented atrophic center extending from the medial aspect of the right leg to the posterior thigh. Numerous pink, scaly, crusted nodules were scattered primarily along the periphery, with some evidence of draining sinus tracts. In addition, a fibrotic pink linear plaque extended from the medial right leg to the popliteal fossa, consistent with a keloid. Violet staining along the periphery of the lesion also was appreciated secondary to the application of topical gentian violet (Figure 1).

Based on the chronic history and morphology, a diagnosis of a chronic fungal or atypical mycobacterial infection was favored. In particular, chromoblastomycosis, cutaneous tuberculosis (eg, scrofuloderma, lupus vulgaris, tuberculosis verrucosa cutis), and atypical mycobacterial infection were highest on the differential, as these conditions often exhibit annular, nodular, verrucous, and/or atrophic lesions. The nodularity, crusting, and draining sinus tracts also raised the possibility of mycetoma. Given the extension of the lesion from the lower to upper leg, a sporotrichoid infection also was considered but was thought to be less likely based on the annular configuration.

Two 4-mm punch biopsies were taken from a peripheral nodule—one for routine histology and another for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. An ­interferon-gamma release assay also was ordered to evaluate for immune responses indicative of prior Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, but the patient did not obtain this for unknown reasons. Histology demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and necrotizing granulomas, which suggested an infectious etiology, but no organisms were identified on tissue staining and all cultures were negative for growth at 6 weeks. The patient was asked to return at that point, and 4 additional scouting biopsies were performed and sent for routine histology, M tuberculosis nucleic acid amplification testing, and microbiologic cultures (ie, bacterial, mycobacterial, fungal, nocardia, actinomycetes). Within 1 week, a filamentous organism with pigmentation visible on the front and back of a Sabouraud dextrose agar plate was identified on fungal culture (Figure 2). Microscopic evaluation of this mold with lactophenol blue stain revealed thin septate hyphae with conidiophores arising at right angles that bore clusters of microconidia (Figure 3). Sequencing analysis ultimately identified this organism as Sporothrix schenckii. Routine histology demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with scattered intraepidermal collections of neutrophils (Figure 4). The dermis showed a dense, superficial, and deep infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and plasma cells with occasional neutrophils and eosinophils. A Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain revealed a cluster of ovoid yeast forms within the stratum corneum (Figure 5). The patient was referred to infectious disease for follow-up and treatment.

The patient later visited a community clinic providing dermatologic care for patients without insurance. He was started on itraconazole 200 mg daily for a total of 6 months until dermatologic clearance of the cutaneous lesions was observed. He was followed by the clinic with laboratory tests including a liver function test. At follow-up 8 months later, a repeat biopsy was performed to ensure histologic clearance of the sporotrichosis, which revealed a dermal scar and no evidence of residual infection.

Sporothrix schenckii was first isolated in 1898 by Benjamin Schenck, a student at Johns Hopkins Medicine (Baltimore, Maryland), and identified by a mycologist as sporotricha.¹ Species within the genus Sporothrix are unique in that the fungi are both dimorphic (growing as a mold at 25 °C but as a yeast at 37 °C) and dematiaceous (dark pigmentation from melanin is visible on inspection of the anterior and reverse sides of culture plates). Infection usually occurs when cutaneous or subcutaneous tissues are exposed to the fungus via microabrasions; activities thought to contribute to exposure include gardening, agricultural work, animal husbandry, and feline scratches.² Although skin trauma frequently is considered the primary route of infection, patient recall is variable, with one study noting that only 37.7% of patients recalled trauma and another study similarly demonstrating a patient recall rate of 25%.^3,4

Lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is the most common presentation of the fungal infection,⁵ and clinical cases may be classified into 1 of 4 categories: (1) lymphangitic lesions—papules at the site of inoculation with spread along the lymphatic channels; (2) localized (fixed) cutaneous lesions—1 or 2 lesions at the inoculation site; (3) disseminated (multifocal) cutaneous lesions; and (4) extracutaneous lesions.⁶ Extracutaneous manifestations of this infection most notably have been reported as pulmonary disease through inhalation of conidia or through dissemination in immunocompromised hosts.⁷ Our patient’s infection was categorized as lymphangitic lesions due to spread from the lower to upper leg, albeit in a highly atypical, annular fashion. A review of systems was otherwise negative, and CT ruled out osteoarticular involvement.

In addition to socioeconomic barriers, several factors contributed to a delayed diagnosis in this patient including the annular presentation with central hypopigmentation and atrophy, negative initial microbiological cultures and lack of visualization of organisms on histopathology, and the consequent need for repeat biopsies. For lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis, the typical presentation consists of a papule or ulcerated nodule at the site of inoculation with subsequent linear spread along lymphatic channels. This classic sporotrichoid pattern is a key diagnostic clue for identifying sporotrichosis but was absent at the time our patient presented for medical care. Rather, the sporotrichoid spread seemed to have occurred in a centrifugal fashion up the leg. Few case reports have documented an annular presentation of lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis,^8-13 and one report described central atrophy and hypopigmentation.¹⁰ Pain and pruritus, which were present in our patient, rarely are documented.⁹ Finally, the diagnosis of cutaneous fungal infections may require multiple biopsies due to the variable abundance of viable organisms in tissue specimens as well as the fastidious growth characteristics of these organisms. Furthermore, sensitivity often is low for both fungal and mycobacterial cultures, and cultures may take days to weeks to yield growth.^14,15 For these reasons, empiric therapy and repeat biopsies often are pursued if clinical suspicion is high enough.¹⁶ Our patient returned for multiple scouting biopsies after the initial tissue culture was negative and was even considered for empiric treatment against Mycobacterium prior to positive fungal cultures.

Another unique aspect of our case was the presence of a keloid. It is difficult to know if this keloid was secondary to the trauma the patient sustained in the inciting incident or formed from the fungal infection. Interestingly, it has been hypothesized that fungal infections may contribute to keloid and hypertrophic scar formation.¹⁷ In a case series of 3 patients with either keloids or hypertrophic scars and concomitant tinea infection, there was notable improvement in the appearance of the scars 2 weeks after beginning itraconazole therapy.¹⁷ However, it is not yet known if a fungal infection can contribute to the pathogenesis of keloid formation.

As with other aspects of this case, the length of time the patient went without diagnosis and treatment was unusual and may help explain the atypical presentation. Although the incubation period for S schenckii can vary, most reports identify patients as seeking medical attention within 1 year of rash onset.^18-20 In our case, the patient was not diagnosed until 8 years after his symptoms began, requiring multiple referrals, multiple health system touchpoints, and an institution-specific financial aid program. As such, this case also highlights the potential need for a multidisciplinary team approach when caring for patients with poor access to health care.

In conclusion, this case illustrates a unique presentation of lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis that may mimic other chronic infections and result in delayed diagnosis. Although lymphangitic sporotrichosis generally is recognized as having a linear distribution, mounting evidence from this report and others suggests an annular presentation also is possible. Pruritus or pain is rare but should not preclude a diagnosis of sporotrichosis if present. For patients with limited access to health care resources, it is especially important to involve multiple members of the health care team, including social workers and specialists, to prevent a protracted and severe course of disease.

To the Editor:

Sporotrichosis refers to a subacute to chronic fungal infection that usually involves the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissues and is caused by the introduction of Sporothrix, a dimorphic fungus, through the skin. We present a case of chronic atypical lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis.

A 46-year-old man presented to the outpatient dermatology clinic for follow-up for a rash on the right leg that spread to the thigh and became painful and pruritic. It initially developed 8 years prior to the current presentation after he sustained trauma to the leg from an electroshock weapon. One year prior to the current presentation, he had presented to the emergency department and was prescribed doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days as well as bacitracin ointment. He also was instructed to follow up with dermatology, but a lack of health insurance and other socioeconomic barriers prevented him from seeking dermatologic care. Nine months later, he again presented to the emergency department due to a motor vehicle accident. Computed tomography (CT) of the right leg revealed exophytic dermal masses, inflammatory stranding of the subcutaneous tissue, and right inguinal lymph nodes measuring up to 1.4 cm; there was no osteoarticular involvement. At that time, the patient was applying gentian violet to the skin lesions and taking hydroxyzine 50 mg 3 times daily as needed for pruritus with minimal relief. Financial support was provided for follow-up with dermatology, which occurred almost 5 months later.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed a large annular plaque with verrucous, scaly, erythematous borders and a hypopigmented atrophic center extending from the medial aspect of the right leg to the posterior thigh. Numerous pink, scaly, crusted nodules were scattered primarily along the periphery, with some evidence of draining sinus tracts. In addition, a fibrotic pink linear plaque extended from the medial right leg to the popliteal fossa, consistent with a keloid. Violet staining along the periphery of the lesion also was appreciated secondary to the application of topical gentian violet (Figure 1).

Based on the chronic history and morphology, a diagnosis of a chronic fungal or atypical mycobacterial infection was favored. In particular, chromoblastomycosis, cutaneous tuberculosis (eg, scrofuloderma, lupus vulgaris, tuberculosis verrucosa cutis), and atypical mycobacterial infection were highest on the differential, as these conditions often exhibit annular, nodular, verrucous, and/or atrophic lesions. The nodularity, crusting, and draining sinus tracts also raised the possibility of mycetoma. Given the extension of the lesion from the lower to upper leg, a sporotrichoid infection also was considered but was thought to be less likely based on the annular configuration.

Two 4-mm punch biopsies were taken from a peripheral nodule—one for routine histology and another for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. An ­interferon-gamma release assay also was ordered to evaluate for immune responses indicative of prior Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, but the patient did not obtain this for unknown reasons. Histology demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and necrotizing granulomas, which suggested an infectious etiology, but no organisms were identified on tissue staining and all cultures were negative for growth at 6 weeks. The patient was asked to return at that point, and 4 additional scouting biopsies were performed and sent for routine histology, M tuberculosis nucleic acid amplification testing, and microbiologic cultures (ie, bacterial, mycobacterial, fungal, nocardia, actinomycetes). Within 1 week, a filamentous organism with pigmentation visible on the front and back of a Sabouraud dextrose agar plate was identified on fungal culture (Figure 2). Microscopic evaluation of this mold with lactophenol blue stain revealed thin septate hyphae with conidiophores arising at right angles that bore clusters of microconidia (Figure 3). Sequencing analysis ultimately identified this organism as Sporothrix schenckii. Routine histology demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with scattered intraepidermal collections of neutrophils (Figure 4). The dermis showed a dense, superficial, and deep infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and plasma cells with occasional neutrophils and eosinophils. A Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain revealed a cluster of ovoid yeast forms within the stratum corneum (Figure 5). The patient was referred to infectious disease for follow-up and treatment.

The patient later visited a community clinic providing dermatologic care for patients without insurance. He was started on itraconazole 200 mg daily for a total of 6 months until dermatologic clearance of the cutaneous lesions was observed. He was followed by the clinic with laboratory tests including a liver function test. At follow-up 8 months later, a repeat biopsy was performed to ensure histologic clearance of the sporotrichosis, which revealed a dermal scar and no evidence of residual infection.

Sporothrix schenckii was first isolated in 1898 by Benjamin Schenck, a student at Johns Hopkins Medicine (Baltimore, Maryland), and identified by a mycologist as sporotricha.¹ Species within the genus Sporothrix are unique in that the fungi are both dimorphic (growing as a mold at 25 °C but as a yeast at 37 °C) and dematiaceous (dark pigmentation from melanin is visible on inspection of the anterior and reverse sides of culture plates). Infection usually occurs when cutaneous or subcutaneous tissues are exposed to the fungus via microabrasions; activities thought to contribute to exposure include gardening, agricultural work, animal husbandry, and feline scratches.² Although skin trauma frequently is considered the primary route of infection, patient recall is variable, with one study noting that only 37.7% of patients recalled trauma and another study similarly demonstrating a patient recall rate of 25%.^3,4

Lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is the most common presentation of the fungal infection,⁵ and clinical cases may be classified into 1 of 4 categories: (1) lymphangitic lesions—papules at the site of inoculation with spread along the lymphatic channels; (2) localized (fixed) cutaneous lesions—1 or 2 lesions at the inoculation site; (3) disseminated (multifocal) cutaneous lesions; and (4) extracutaneous lesions.⁶ Extracutaneous manifestations of this infection most notably have been reported as pulmonary disease through inhalation of conidia or through dissemination in immunocompromised hosts.⁷ Our patient’s infection was categorized as lymphangitic lesions due to spread from the lower to upper leg, albeit in a highly atypical, annular fashion. A review of systems was otherwise negative, and CT ruled out osteoarticular involvement.

In addition to socioeconomic barriers, several factors contributed to a delayed diagnosis in this patient including the annular presentation with central hypopigmentation and atrophy, negative initial microbiological cultures and lack of visualization of organisms on histopathology, and the consequent need for repeat biopsies. For lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis, the typical presentation consists of a papule or ulcerated nodule at the site of inoculation with subsequent linear spread along lymphatic channels. This classic sporotrichoid pattern is a key diagnostic clue for identifying sporotrichosis but was absent at the time our patient presented for medical care. Rather, the sporotrichoid spread seemed to have occurred in a centrifugal fashion up the leg. Few case reports have documented an annular presentation of lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis,^8-13 and one report described central atrophy and hypopigmentation.¹⁰ Pain and pruritus, which were present in our patient, rarely are documented.⁹ Finally, the diagnosis of cutaneous fungal infections may require multiple biopsies due to the variable abundance of viable organisms in tissue specimens as well as the fastidious growth characteristics of these organisms. Furthermore, sensitivity often is low for both fungal and mycobacterial cultures, and cultures may take days to weeks to yield growth.^14,15 For these reasons, empiric therapy and repeat biopsies often are pursued if clinical suspicion is high enough.¹⁶ Our patient returned for multiple scouting biopsies after the initial tissue culture was negative and was even considered for empiric treatment against Mycobacterium prior to positive fungal cultures.

Another unique aspect of our case was the presence of a keloid. It is difficult to know if this keloid was secondary to the trauma the patient sustained in the inciting incident or formed from the fungal infection. Interestingly, it has been hypothesized that fungal infections may contribute to keloid and hypertrophic scar formation.¹⁷ In a case series of 3 patients with either keloids or hypertrophic scars and concomitant tinea infection, there was notable improvement in the appearance of the scars 2 weeks after beginning itraconazole therapy.¹⁷ However, it is not yet known if a fungal infection can contribute to the pathogenesis of keloid formation.

As with other aspects of this case, the length of time the patient went without diagnosis and treatment was unusual and may help explain the atypical presentation. Although the incubation period for S schenckii can vary, most reports identify patients as seeking medical attention within 1 year of rash onset.^18-20 In our case, the patient was not diagnosed until 8 years after his symptoms began, requiring multiple referrals, multiple health system touchpoints, and an institution-specific financial aid program. As such, this case also highlights the potential need for a multidisciplinary team approach when caring for patients with poor access to health care.

In conclusion, this case illustrates a unique presentation of lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis that may mimic other chronic infections and result in delayed diagnosis. Although lymphangitic sporotrichosis generally is recognized as having a linear distribution, mounting evidence from this report and others suggests an annular presentation also is possible. Pruritus or pain is rare but should not preclude a diagnosis of sporotrichosis if present. For patients with limited access to health care resources, it is especially important to involve multiple members of the health care team, including social workers and specialists, to prevent a protracted and severe course of disease.

SAN DIEGO — In the opinion of Patricia A. Treadwell, MD, providing health equity in dermatology means providing support for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances or their skin color.

It also means embracing diversity, which she defined as diversity of thinking. “If you look at the literature, diversity in higher education and health profession training settings is associated with better educational outcomes for all students,” Dr. Treadwell, professor emeritus of dermatology and pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said in a presentation on health equity during the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Each person brings a variety of experiences and perspectives. This provides a wide range of opinions and different ways to look at things. Racial and ethnic minority providers can help health organization reduce cultural and linguistic barriers and improve cultural competence.”

Dr. Treadwell

Such efforts matter, she continued, because according to the United States Census, Black individuals make up 13.6% of the population, while Latinx individuals represent 19.1% of the population. “So, melanin matters,” she said. “If you look at a dermatology textbook, a high percentage [of cases] are identified as Caucasian individuals, which results in an overrepresentation of Caucasians in photographs. That can result in delayed or missed diagnoses [in different skin types]. If you are contributing to cases in textbooks, make sure you have a variety of different skin types so that individuals who are referring to the textbooks will be more equipped.”

Practicing dermatologists can support diversity by offering opportunities to underrepresented in medicine (URM) students, “African-American students, Hispanic students, and Native American students,” said Dr. Treadwell, who was chief of pediatric dermatology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis from 1987 to 2004. “You also want to be encouraging,” she said.

Dermatologists can also support diversity by providing precepting opportunities, “because many [medical] students may not have connections and networks. Providing those opportunities is important,” she said. Another way to help is to be a mentor to young dermatologists. “I certainly have had mentors in my career who have been very helpful,” she said. “They’ve given me advice about things I was not familiar with.”

Dr. Treadwell suggested the Skin of Color Society as an organization that can assist with networking, mentoring, and research efforts. She also cited the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, formed in 2020. One of its initiatives was assembling a special issue of Pediatric Dermatology dedicated to DEI issues, which was published in November 2021.

Dr. Treadwell concluded her presentation by encouraging dermatologists to find ways to care for uninsured or underinsured patients, particularly those with skin of color. This might involve work at a county hospital “to provide access, to serve the patients ... and helping to decrease some the issues in terms of health equity,” she said.

Dr. Treadwell reported having no relevant disclosures. At the plenary session, she presented the John Kenney Jr., MD Lifetime Achievement Award and Lectureship.

SAN DIEGO — In the opinion of Patricia A. Treadwell, MD, providing health equity in dermatology means providing support for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances or their skin color.

It also means embracing diversity, which she defined as diversity of thinking. “If you look at the literature, diversity in higher education and health profession training settings is associated with better educational outcomes for all students,” Dr. Treadwell, professor emeritus of dermatology and pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said in a presentation on health equity during the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Each person brings a variety of experiences and perspectives. This provides a wide range of opinions and different ways to look at things. Racial and ethnic minority providers can help health organization reduce cultural and linguistic barriers and improve cultural competence.”

Dr. Treadwell

Such efforts matter, she continued, because according to the United States Census, Black individuals make up 13.6% of the population, while Latinx individuals represent 19.1% of the population. “So, melanin matters,” she said. “If you look at a dermatology textbook, a high percentage [of cases] are identified as Caucasian individuals, which results in an overrepresentation of Caucasians in photographs. That can result in delayed or missed diagnoses [in different skin types]. If you are contributing to cases in textbooks, make sure you have a variety of different skin types so that individuals who are referring to the textbooks will be more equipped.”

Practicing dermatologists can support diversity by offering opportunities to underrepresented in medicine (URM) students, “African-American students, Hispanic students, and Native American students,” said Dr. Treadwell, who was chief of pediatric dermatology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis from 1987 to 2004. “You also want to be encouraging,” she said.

Dermatologists can also support diversity by providing precepting opportunities, “because many [medical] students may not have connections and networks. Providing those opportunities is important,” she said. Another way to help is to be a mentor to young dermatologists. “I certainly have had mentors in my career who have been very helpful,” she said. “They’ve given me advice about things I was not familiar with.”

Dr. Treadwell suggested the Skin of Color Society as an organization that can assist with networking, mentoring, and research efforts. She also cited the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, formed in 2020. One of its initiatives was assembling a special issue of Pediatric Dermatology dedicated to DEI issues, which was published in November 2021.

Dr. Treadwell concluded her presentation by encouraging dermatologists to find ways to care for uninsured or underinsured patients, particularly those with skin of color. This might involve work at a county hospital “to provide access, to serve the patients ... and helping to decrease some the issues in terms of health equity,” she said.

Dr. Treadwell reported having no relevant disclosures. At the plenary session, she presented the John Kenney Jr., MD Lifetime Achievement Award and Lectureship.

SAN DIEGO — In the opinion of Patricia A. Treadwell, MD, providing health equity in dermatology means providing support for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances or their skin color.

It also means embracing diversity, which she defined as diversity of thinking. “If you look at the literature, diversity in higher education and health profession training settings is associated with better educational outcomes for all students,” Dr. Treadwell, professor emeritus of dermatology and pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said in a presentation on health equity during the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Each person brings a variety of experiences and perspectives. This provides a wide range of opinions and different ways to look at things. Racial and ethnic minority providers can help health organization reduce cultural and linguistic barriers and improve cultural competence.”

Dr. Treadwell

Such efforts matter, she continued, because according to the United States Census, Black individuals make up 13.6% of the population, while Latinx individuals represent 19.1% of the population. “So, melanin matters,” she said. “If you look at a dermatology textbook, a high percentage [of cases] are identified as Caucasian individuals, which results in an overrepresentation of Caucasians in photographs. That can result in delayed or missed diagnoses [in different skin types]. If you are contributing to cases in textbooks, make sure you have a variety of different skin types so that individuals who are referring to the textbooks will be more equipped.”

Practicing dermatologists can support diversity by offering opportunities to underrepresented in medicine (URM) students, “African-American students, Hispanic students, and Native American students,” said Dr. Treadwell, who was chief of pediatric dermatology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis from 1987 to 2004. “You also want to be encouraging,” she said.

Dermatologists can also support diversity by providing precepting opportunities, “because many [medical] students may not have connections and networks. Providing those opportunities is important,” she said. Another way to help is to be a mentor to young dermatologists. “I certainly have had mentors in my career who have been very helpful,” she said. “They’ve given me advice about things I was not familiar with.”

Dr. Treadwell suggested the Skin of Color Society as an organization that can assist with networking, mentoring, and research efforts. She also cited the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, formed in 2020. One of its initiatives was assembling a special issue of Pediatric Dermatology dedicated to DEI issues, which was published in November 2021.

Dr. Treadwell concluded her presentation by encouraging dermatologists to find ways to care for uninsured or underinsured patients, particularly those with skin of color. This might involve work at a county hospital “to provide access, to serve the patients ... and helping to decrease some the issues in terms of health equity,” she said.

Dr. Treadwell reported having no relevant disclosures. At the plenary session, she presented the John Kenney Jr., MD Lifetime Achievement Award and Lectureship.