To the Editor:

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a neurologic condition characterized by chronic pain and sensory changes, including allodynia and hyperalgesia, that usually affect the extremities.^1,2 The syndrome is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as a condition that appears regionally after an injury, with a variety of symptoms that often exceed the expected clinical course both in magnitude and duration, causing impairment of motor function and variable progression.³

Although CRPS most often is described following minor peripheral trauma, other precipitating causes include surgery and vascular events.⁴ Additional features of the condition include autonomic dysfunction, edema, and trophic changes.¹ Symptoms of CRPS traditionally present in 3 stages, with notable skin changes most often documented in stages II and III.²

Skin changes are a known manifestation of the syndrome, but reports in the dermatologic literature are scarce. Qureshi and Friedman⁵ identified only 23 articles in the dermatology literature since 1990 in which skin changes in CRPS were described. We present a patient with a diagnosis of CRPS who developed hyperpigmentation and sclerotic changes, including skin thickening, induration, and skin tightening.

A middle-aged Black woman presented to dermatology for evaluation of progressive hyperpigmentation, hyperhidrosis, and sclerotic changes to the skin. Approximately 3 years prior, the patient was given a diagnosis of CRPS of the hands and feet. Pain symptoms started approximately 3 years prior to the onset of symptoms. Symptoms started in the left hand and eventually spread to the right arm, left leg, and subsequently to the right leg. The first dermatologic change the patient noticed was tightening of the skin in the affected area that led to decreased mobility, which improved over time—partly on its own and partly with physical therapy.

A biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist at the initial presentation demonstrated sclerodermalike changes, which were treated with creams but without improvement. Scleroderma was later ruled out by the same dermatologist. Skin tightening improved over time, with complete resolution approximately 1 year after the onset of symptoms.

Upon presentation to our clinic, the patient reported continuing intermittent flares of CRPS; however, she said she was most concerned about diffuse hyperpigmentation, which spread to include the face, arms, abdomen, legs (Figure), and buttocks and persisted after skin tightening resolved.

To treat the hyperpigmentation, a decision was made to first focus on a localized area. Facial hyperpigmentation was chosen because it was of greatest concern to the patient. She was instructed to use azelaic acid gel 15% in the morning, tretinoin cream 0.05% at night, and sunscreen daily. The patient had mild improvement in hyperpigmentation after a 4-month period but has been inconsistent in follow-up. She continues to have intermittent flares of CRPS, which may interfere with her response to treatment. In addition to the aforementioned regimen of azelaic acid gel and tretinoin, she has continued to work with a pain specialist to better control the neurologic symptoms and pain associated with her CRPS.

Complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition characterized by chronic pain, affects women 3 times more often than men. The syndrome is more common in the fourth and fifth decades of life.^1,2

There are 2 subtypes of CRPS. Type I (also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy) is more common and occurs following minor trauma without peripheral nerve injury. Type II (otherwise known as causalgia) occurs following more notable trauma with injury to a peripheral nerve.^1,6 Onset of symptoms most often is secondary to minor peripheral trauma. More common triggers include soft-tissue injury (40%); fractures and subsequent orthopedic surgery (25%); and visceral lesions, such as myocardial infarction and cerebral vascular accident (12%).⁵ Regardless of the inciting event, prolonged immobilization of a limb has been identified as an important predisposing factor. One study found that 47% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRPS previously underwent immobilization of the same limb.⁷

The pathogenesis of CRPS has not been fully elucidated. Possible explanations include central nervous system sensitization to thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli; sympathetic dysfunction leading to vasomotor, pseudomotor, and trophic changes; and inflammatory cytokine release and microcirculatory dysfunction, causing tissue injury.^1,2,6

The diagnosis of CRPS is a based on clinical findings. Using the Budapest Criteria established to define CRPS, a clinical diagnosis can be made when all of the following criteria are met: chronic continuing pain disproportionate to any inciting event; 1 or more reported symptoms from 3 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic; 1 or more sign at the time of evaluation in 2 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic.⁸ Dermatologic findings are a common presenting feature of CRPS and are included in the Budapest Criteria used for diagnosis. In a retrospective chart review (N=26), researchers found that vascular findings were the most common dermatologic manifestation of CRPS—edema in 58% of patients and erythema in 54%.⁹ Other common manifestations included dermatitis (35%), erythematous papules (23%), and cutaneous atrophy (23%). Hyperpigmentation, which was present in our patient, was seen in 8% of patients in the chart review.⁹

Complex regional pain syndrome progresses through 3 stages; dermatologic changes are present in each stage and are more severe in later stages. Stage I lasts 2 or 3 months and is characterized by onset of pain, usually burning type, accompanied by allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early vasomotor and pseudomotor changes, such as erythema and edema, may become apparent.^1,2 Stage II lasts 3 to 6 months and is characterized by more severe edema and more obvious trophic changes. Functional limitations, such as limited range of motion and muscle weakness, begin to manifest. Stage III—the final and most severe stage—is characterized by obvious hair, skin, and nail changes, as well as functional limitations.^1,2 The waxy thickened skin changes and hyperpigmentation observed in our patient are characteristic of stage III. Furthermore, our patient experienced decreased mobility and limited range of motion secondary to tightening of the skin, a characteristic motor change of late-stage CRPS. Although chronic pain and allodynia are the most common characteristics of CRPS, skin changes also can cause notable distress and early dermatologic manifestations can be a chief concern.

Dermatologic management is focused to address the specific skin changes of CRPS. However, traditional treatment of the common dermatologic findings of CRPS is difficult and often unsuccessful; instead, the most successful treatment of skin findings involves controlling the underlying CRPS.⁹ Current treatment options include removal of any nidus of tissue trauma, sympathetic neural blockade with a local anesthetic, spinal cord stimulation to interrupt dysregulated sympathetic innervation, and physiotherapy or occupational therapy to desensitize skin.^1,10

Given the complexity of CRPS and the variability of its presentation, management of the syndrome and its associated dermatologic conditions often requires interdisciplinary care and coordination of multiple specialties. Dermatologists can play an important role in both identification of CRPS and co-management of affected patients. Early diagnosis of CRPS has been universally identified as a key prognostic factor. For that reason, dermatologists should be aware of CRPS and include the syndrome in the differential diagnosis when presented with severe cutaneous findings following trauma either with or without peripheral nerve damage, suggestive of CRPS.

To the Editor:

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a neurologic condition characterized by chronic pain and sensory changes, including allodynia and hyperalgesia, that usually affect the extremities.^1,2 The syndrome is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as a condition that appears regionally after an injury, with a variety of symptoms that often exceed the expected clinical course both in magnitude and duration, causing impairment of motor function and variable progression.³

Although CRPS most often is described following minor peripheral trauma, other precipitating causes include surgery and vascular events.⁴ Additional features of the condition include autonomic dysfunction, edema, and trophic changes.¹ Symptoms of CRPS traditionally present in 3 stages, with notable skin changes most often documented in stages II and III.²

Skin changes are a known manifestation of the syndrome, but reports in the dermatologic literature are scarce. Qureshi and Friedman⁵ identified only 23 articles in the dermatology literature since 1990 in which skin changes in CRPS were described. We present a patient with a diagnosis of CRPS who developed hyperpigmentation and sclerotic changes, including skin thickening, induration, and skin tightening.

A middle-aged Black woman presented to dermatology for evaluation of progressive hyperpigmentation, hyperhidrosis, and sclerotic changes to the skin. Approximately 3 years prior, the patient was given a diagnosis of CRPS of the hands and feet. Pain symptoms started approximately 3 years prior to the onset of symptoms. Symptoms started in the left hand and eventually spread to the right arm, left leg, and subsequently to the right leg. The first dermatologic change the patient noticed was tightening of the skin in the affected area that led to decreased mobility, which improved over time—partly on its own and partly with physical therapy.

A biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist at the initial presentation demonstrated sclerodermalike changes, which were treated with creams but without improvement. Scleroderma was later ruled out by the same dermatologist. Skin tightening improved over time, with complete resolution approximately 1 year after the onset of symptoms.

Upon presentation to our clinic, the patient reported continuing intermittent flares of CRPS; however, she said she was most concerned about diffuse hyperpigmentation, which spread to include the face, arms, abdomen, legs (Figure), and buttocks and persisted after skin tightening resolved.

To treat the hyperpigmentation, a decision was made to first focus on a localized area. Facial hyperpigmentation was chosen because it was of greatest concern to the patient. She was instructed to use azelaic acid gel 15% in the morning, tretinoin cream 0.05% at night, and sunscreen daily. The patient had mild improvement in hyperpigmentation after a 4-month period but has been inconsistent in follow-up. She continues to have intermittent flares of CRPS, which may interfere with her response to treatment. In addition to the aforementioned regimen of azelaic acid gel and tretinoin, she has continued to work with a pain specialist to better control the neurologic symptoms and pain associated with her CRPS.

Complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition characterized by chronic pain, affects women 3 times more often than men. The syndrome is more common in the fourth and fifth decades of life.^1,2

There are 2 subtypes of CRPS. Type I (also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy) is more common and occurs following minor trauma without peripheral nerve injury. Type II (otherwise known as causalgia) occurs following more notable trauma with injury to a peripheral nerve.^1,6 Onset of symptoms most often is secondary to minor peripheral trauma. More common triggers include soft-tissue injury (40%); fractures and subsequent orthopedic surgery (25%); and visceral lesions, such as myocardial infarction and cerebral vascular accident (12%).⁵ Regardless of the inciting event, prolonged immobilization of a limb has been identified as an important predisposing factor. One study found that 47% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRPS previously underwent immobilization of the same limb.⁷

The pathogenesis of CRPS has not been fully elucidated. Possible explanations include central nervous system sensitization to thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli; sympathetic dysfunction leading to vasomotor, pseudomotor, and trophic changes; and inflammatory cytokine release and microcirculatory dysfunction, causing tissue injury.^1,2,6

The diagnosis of CRPS is a based on clinical findings. Using the Budapest Criteria established to define CRPS, a clinical diagnosis can be made when all of the following criteria are met: chronic continuing pain disproportionate to any inciting event; 1 or more reported symptoms from 3 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic; 1 or more sign at the time of evaluation in 2 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic.⁸ Dermatologic findings are a common presenting feature of CRPS and are included in the Budapest Criteria used for diagnosis. In a retrospective chart review (N=26), researchers found that vascular findings were the most common dermatologic manifestation of CRPS—edema in 58% of patients and erythema in 54%.⁹ Other common manifestations included dermatitis (35%), erythematous papules (23%), and cutaneous atrophy (23%). Hyperpigmentation, which was present in our patient, was seen in 8% of patients in the chart review.⁹

Complex regional pain syndrome progresses through 3 stages; dermatologic changes are present in each stage and are more severe in later stages. Stage I lasts 2 or 3 months and is characterized by onset of pain, usually burning type, accompanied by allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early vasomotor and pseudomotor changes, such as erythema and edema, may become apparent.^1,2 Stage II lasts 3 to 6 months and is characterized by more severe edema and more obvious trophic changes. Functional limitations, such as limited range of motion and muscle weakness, begin to manifest. Stage III—the final and most severe stage—is characterized by obvious hair, skin, and nail changes, as well as functional limitations.^1,2 The waxy thickened skin changes and hyperpigmentation observed in our patient are characteristic of stage III. Furthermore, our patient experienced decreased mobility and limited range of motion secondary to tightening of the skin, a characteristic motor change of late-stage CRPS. Although chronic pain and allodynia are the most common characteristics of CRPS, skin changes also can cause notable distress and early dermatologic manifestations can be a chief concern.

Dermatologic management is focused to address the specific skin changes of CRPS. However, traditional treatment of the common dermatologic findings of CRPS is difficult and often unsuccessful; instead, the most successful treatment of skin findings involves controlling the underlying CRPS.⁹ Current treatment options include removal of any nidus of tissue trauma, sympathetic neural blockade with a local anesthetic, spinal cord stimulation to interrupt dysregulated sympathetic innervation, and physiotherapy or occupational therapy to desensitize skin.^1,10

Given the complexity of CRPS and the variability of its presentation, management of the syndrome and its associated dermatologic conditions often requires interdisciplinary care and coordination of multiple specialties. Dermatologists can play an important role in both identification of CRPS and co-management of affected patients. Early diagnosis of CRPS has been universally identified as a key prognostic factor. For that reason, dermatologists should be aware of CRPS and include the syndrome in the differential diagnosis when presented with severe cutaneous findings following trauma either with or without peripheral nerve damage, suggestive of CRPS.

To the Editor:

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a neurologic condition characterized by chronic pain and sensory changes, including allodynia and hyperalgesia, that usually affect the extremities.^1,2 The syndrome is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as a condition that appears regionally after an injury, with a variety of symptoms that often exceed the expected clinical course both in magnitude and duration, causing impairment of motor function and variable progression.³

Although CRPS most often is described following minor peripheral trauma, other precipitating causes include surgery and vascular events.⁴ Additional features of the condition include autonomic dysfunction, edema, and trophic changes.¹ Symptoms of CRPS traditionally present in 3 stages, with notable skin changes most often documented in stages II and III.²

Skin changes are a known manifestation of the syndrome, but reports in the dermatologic literature are scarce. Qureshi and Friedman⁵ identified only 23 articles in the dermatology literature since 1990 in which skin changes in CRPS were described. We present a patient with a diagnosis of CRPS who developed hyperpigmentation and sclerotic changes, including skin thickening, induration, and skin tightening.

A middle-aged Black woman presented to dermatology for evaluation of progressive hyperpigmentation, hyperhidrosis, and sclerotic changes to the skin. Approximately 3 years prior, the patient was given a diagnosis of CRPS of the hands and feet. Pain symptoms started approximately 3 years prior to the onset of symptoms. Symptoms started in the left hand and eventually spread to the right arm, left leg, and subsequently to the right leg. The first dermatologic change the patient noticed was tightening of the skin in the affected area that led to decreased mobility, which improved over time—partly on its own and partly with physical therapy.

A biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist at the initial presentation demonstrated sclerodermalike changes, which were treated with creams but without improvement. Scleroderma was later ruled out by the same dermatologist. Skin tightening improved over time, with complete resolution approximately 1 year after the onset of symptoms.

Upon presentation to our clinic, the patient reported continuing intermittent flares of CRPS; however, she said she was most concerned about diffuse hyperpigmentation, which spread to include the face, arms, abdomen, legs (Figure), and buttocks and persisted after skin tightening resolved.

To treat the hyperpigmentation, a decision was made to first focus on a localized area. Facial hyperpigmentation was chosen because it was of greatest concern to the patient. She was instructed to use azelaic acid gel 15% in the morning, tretinoin cream 0.05% at night, and sunscreen daily. The patient had mild improvement in hyperpigmentation after a 4-month period but has been inconsistent in follow-up. She continues to have intermittent flares of CRPS, which may interfere with her response to treatment. In addition to the aforementioned regimen of azelaic acid gel and tretinoin, she has continued to work with a pain specialist to better control the neurologic symptoms and pain associated with her CRPS.

Complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition characterized by chronic pain, affects women 3 times more often than men. The syndrome is more common in the fourth and fifth decades of life.^1,2

There are 2 subtypes of CRPS. Type I (also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy) is more common and occurs following minor trauma without peripheral nerve injury. Type II (otherwise known as causalgia) occurs following more notable trauma with injury to a peripheral nerve.^1,6 Onset of symptoms most often is secondary to minor peripheral trauma. More common triggers include soft-tissue injury (40%); fractures and subsequent orthopedic surgery (25%); and visceral lesions, such as myocardial infarction and cerebral vascular accident (12%).⁵ Regardless of the inciting event, prolonged immobilization of a limb has been identified as an important predisposing factor. One study found that 47% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRPS previously underwent immobilization of the same limb.⁷

The pathogenesis of CRPS has not been fully elucidated. Possible explanations include central nervous system sensitization to thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli; sympathetic dysfunction leading to vasomotor, pseudomotor, and trophic changes; and inflammatory cytokine release and microcirculatory dysfunction, causing tissue injury.^1,2,6

The diagnosis of CRPS is a based on clinical findings. Using the Budapest Criteria established to define CRPS, a clinical diagnosis can be made when all of the following criteria are met: chronic continuing pain disproportionate to any inciting event; 1 or more reported symptoms from 3 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic; 1 or more sign at the time of evaluation in 2 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic.⁸ Dermatologic findings are a common presenting feature of CRPS and are included in the Budapest Criteria used for diagnosis. In a retrospective chart review (N=26), researchers found that vascular findings were the most common dermatologic manifestation of CRPS—edema in 58% of patients and erythema in 54%.⁹ Other common manifestations included dermatitis (35%), erythematous papules (23%), and cutaneous atrophy (23%). Hyperpigmentation, which was present in our patient, was seen in 8% of patients in the chart review.⁹

Complex regional pain syndrome progresses through 3 stages; dermatologic changes are present in each stage and are more severe in later stages. Stage I lasts 2 or 3 months and is characterized by onset of pain, usually burning type, accompanied by allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early vasomotor and pseudomotor changes, such as erythema and edema, may become apparent.^1,2 Stage II lasts 3 to 6 months and is characterized by more severe edema and more obvious trophic changes. Functional limitations, such as limited range of motion and muscle weakness, begin to manifest. Stage III—the final and most severe stage—is characterized by obvious hair, skin, and nail changes, as well as functional limitations.^1,2 The waxy thickened skin changes and hyperpigmentation observed in our patient are characteristic of stage III. Furthermore, our patient experienced decreased mobility and limited range of motion secondary to tightening of the skin, a characteristic motor change of late-stage CRPS. Although chronic pain and allodynia are the most common characteristics of CRPS, skin changes also can cause notable distress and early dermatologic manifestations can be a chief concern.

Dermatologic management is focused to address the specific skin changes of CRPS. However, traditional treatment of the common dermatologic findings of CRPS is difficult and often unsuccessful; instead, the most successful treatment of skin findings involves controlling the underlying CRPS.⁹ Current treatment options include removal of any nidus of tissue trauma, sympathetic neural blockade with a local anesthetic, spinal cord stimulation to interrupt dysregulated sympathetic innervation, and physiotherapy or occupational therapy to desensitize skin.^1,10

Given the complexity of CRPS and the variability of its presentation, management of the syndrome and its associated dermatologic conditions often requires interdisciplinary care and coordination of multiple specialties. Dermatologists can play an important role in both identification of CRPS and co-management of affected patients. Early diagnosis of CRPS has been universally identified as a key prognostic factor. For that reason, dermatologists should be aware of CRPS and include the syndrome in the differential diagnosis when presented with severe cutaneous findings following trauma either with or without peripheral nerve damage, suggestive of CRPS.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Case Report

A 7-year-old girl who was otherwise healthy was referred by pediatric gastroenterology for evaluation of cutaneous Crohn disease (CD). The patient had a 4-year history of persistent lip swelling and a 3-year history of asymmetric erythematous labial swelling and perianal erythema with skin tags. She had been applying the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.03% 1 or 2 times daily to her lesions with minimal improvement. She did not have a medical history of recurrent or unusual infectious diseases. There was no family history of autoimmune disease.

The patient and her guardian reported intermittent perianal pain but denied constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and blood in the stool. She denied throat and tongue swelling, dysphagia, dyspnea, drooling, facial paralysis, and eyelid edema. She was a well-nourished child whose height and weight percentiles tracked at 30% and 25%, respectively. Physical examination revealed confluent symmetric lip swelling with mild angular cheilitis. Multiple 1- to 2-mm white pustules with pinpoint erosions covered the upper and lower labial mucosa and extended onto the buccal mucosa (Figure 1). She had symmetric erythema and swelling of the left labia majora extending to and involving the left perianal mucosa. Three perianal erythematous skin tags and a perianal fissure were identified.

The patient had been assessed 2 years earlier by pediatric dermatology and gastroenterology with an extensive evaluation that favored a diagnosis of cutaneous CD because the combination of orofacial granulomatosis (OFG), vulvar edema, and perianal skin tags is strongly associated.^1-3 Contact dermatitis affecting the mouth was considered; however, allergen testing did not demonstrate a trigger.

A trial of a benzoate- and cinnamon-free diet, which has been reported to improve OFG,⁴ did not provide symptomatic improvement. Topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus reduced the perioral erythema, but the swelling persisted. An infectious cause was considered; however, topical mupirocin had no effect, and amoxicillin resulted in oral candidiasis.

A perianal biopsy revealed a granulomatous dermatitis. Fungal and bacterial cultures were negative. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and a fecal calprotectin assay were not suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A complete blood cell count and QuantiFERON-TB Gold test measuring the immune response to tuberculosis antigens were normal. Chronic granulomatous disease, RAG1/RAG2 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, and NOD2 defects were ruled out with normal tests of dihydrorhodamine, quantitative immunoglobulins, and toll-like receptors.

Because of the discomfort associated with the patient’s lesions, she was offered treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab. These agents had been offered since the onset of symptoms; however, her parents declined systemic medication unless she developed GI involvement. Instead, the tacrolimus concentration was increased to 0.1% applied to the lips, labia, and perianal area, and fluocinonide gel 0.05% applied nightly to the oral pustules was added.

Two months later the patient had notably fewer oral pustules and diminished erythema but only slightly reduced oral, vulvar, and perianal swelling. A trial of oral metronidazole, which has been reported to clear a patient with cutaneous CD,⁵ was discontinued by her parents after 6 weeks because of a lack of interval improvement.

One year later, a pre-existing perianal skin tag doubled in size and became exquisitely tender. The calprotectin level—previously within reference range at less than 16 μg/g—was now elevated at 149 μg/g (reference range, 1–120 μg/g) and increased to 336 μg/g 3 weeks later. Testing for C-reactive protein, zinc, and stool occult blood; a comprehensive metabolic panel; and a complete blood cell count were unremarkable.

Repeat upper and lower GI endoscopy did not suggest CD. A biopsy using direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was obtained to evaluate for pyostomatitis vegetans (PSV) and rule out pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau (PVH). Biopsy of a pustule was attempted but was challenging because of the patient’s age and difficulty cooperating.

The captured biopsy did not demonstrate the intended pustule; instead, it included less-affected mucosa and was obtained during topical treatment when few pustules and erosions persisted. Pathologic analysis revealed noncaseating granulomas without an increase in microabscesses, neutrophils, or eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence staining for IgG, IgA, and C3 and indirect immunofluorescence staining for desmoglein-1 and desmoglein-3 antibodies were negative. Although the biopsy did not capture the intended pustule, diagnosis of PV was made based on clinical features and the constellation of cutaneous findings associated with IBD.

Intralesional triamcinolone, which has been of benefit for pediatric patients with orofacial granulomatosis,^1,6,7 was instituted and normalized the vulva and perianal mucosa; however, lip swelling improved only minimally.

Comment

Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by multiple white or yellow, friable, miliary pustules that rupture, leaving behind ulcerations and erosions that cause a varying degree of oral pain.⁸ The disorder can involve any area of the oral mucosa—most often the labia-attached gingiva, soft and hard palates, buccal mucosa, vestibule, and tonsillar areas—but often spares the floor of the mouth and tongue.^8-11 The term pyostomatitis vegetans was proposed in 1949 by McCarthy¹² when he noted in a patient who presented with the characteristic appearance of the oral mucosa, though cases of vaginal, nasal, and periocular involvement have been reported.^8,13,14

Histopathology—Pyostomatitis vegetans displays pseudoepithelial hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and intraepithelial or subepithelial microabscesses (or both) with neutrophils and eosinophils.^8,9,15 There are a few possible explanations for this patient’s lack of tissue eosinophilia. It has been theorized that the presence of granulomas could mask concurrent PSV¹⁶ or that tissue in PSV contains fewer eosinophils as the disorder progresses.¹¹ The oral biopsy obtained from our patient did not capture a pustule, and the condition had noticeably improved with topical tacrolimus at the time of biopsy; therefore, neither neutrophils nor eosinophils were identified. Peripheral eosinophilia, which is present in 42% to 90% of cases of PSV,^9,17 can be a diagnostic clue.¹⁸ However, PE is associated with IBD,²⁴ which usually occurs with PSV, so the absence of peripheral eosinophilia in our patient may be explained by her lack of bowel disease.

Pathogenesis—The pathogenesis of PSV is unknown. A proposed etiology includes cross-reacting antigens in the bowel and skin secondary to IBD as well as an aberrant immune response to an unidentified factor.⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans is considered by many to be the mucosal variant of pyodermatitis vegetans,^9,15,19 a neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by asymmetric, crusted, erythematous papulopustules that extend peripherally and coalesce to form large vegetating plaques. These lesions commonly manifest in the axillary folds, groin, and scalp and can involve the face, trunk, and distal extremities.^9,18 Infection has been suggested as a cause of PSV, though cultures for pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi consistently show only normal flora.²⁰ Zinc deficiency attributed to malabsorption from CD was reported in an adult with PSV.²¹ The PSV resolved after 6 weeks of zinc supplementation.

Differential Diagnosis—The main entity in the clinical differential diagnosis for PSV is PVH, which is considered a variant of pemphigus vulgaris. Pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau presents with pustules and progresses to hyperpigmented vegetative plaques with peripheral hypertrophic granulation tissue.²² The clinical and histological presentation of PVH can be similar to PSV; in PVH, however, DIF demonstrates intercellular IgG and C3 due to circulating IgG autoantibodies specific for desmoglein 3, a cell adhesion molecule.^22-24 In PSV, DIF typically is negative for IgG, IgA, and C3.⁸ Immunohistochemical findings of PSV may overlap with IgA pemphigus, IgG/IgA pemphigus, and IgG pemphigus, which has sparked debate if PSV is an autoimmune blistering disorder or a secondary finding of epithelial injury.^9,18,24

Pyostomatitis vegetans is most prevalent in patients aged 20 to 59 years²⁵ but can occur at any age.^8,19 Overall, extraintestinal symptoms, including mucocutaneous findings, are common in pediatric patients—in 30% to 71% of children with CD and 21% to 22% of children with ulcerative colitis²⁶—and can predate onset of GI symptoms in 6% of pediatric patients.²⁷

Oral disease is common in CD; manifestations are listed in the Table.^28,29 In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, 42% (20/48) had oral manifestations identified at diagnosis²⁸; in a similar study of 25 children, researchers noted that 48% (12/25) had disease-specific oral lesions.²⁹ None of these children recognized the oral findings prior to the onset of systemic symptoms.²⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans was the least common oral manifestation, reported in 1 of 73 patients in the 2 studies combined.^28,29

Two recent articles that looked at PSV in pediatric and adolescent populations identified only 9 patients with PSV.^24,30 Only 2 patients (siblings) had documented onset of PSV before 12 years of age,³¹ which suggests an underlying genetic predisposition in young children.

It has been reported that active or subclinical (ie, asymptomatic with positive endoscopic findings) IBD in adults precedes onset of PSV, which may be considered a sign of relapse.^9,30 However, PSV is incredibly rare in children and adolescents and can be an early finding of IBD in children.^16,31,32

Our patient has not developed GI involvement since her initial presentation 5 years prior, though another pediatric patient developed symptomatic CD 9 years after onset of OFG.⁵ A retrospective review of pediatric OFG without CD met criteria for CD at a median of 3.1 years (range, 0.4–6.9 years).³³ Regrettably, the early presence of PSV has been associated with future progression to CD and a complicated disease course.^12,34

Management—Pyoderma stomatitis vegetans is treated with management of underlying IBD,⁸ with scarce literature available regarding pediatric patients. Oral lesions have been treated with antiseptics and topical corticosteroids, though these have limited benefit.⁸ In an adult with IBD, topical tacrolimus initially cleared PSV; however, lesions recurred until mesalamine was initiated.³⁵ Systemic steroids were effective in a 16-year-old patient with CD and PSV,¹² but recurrence is common after corticosteroids are stopped.³⁴

Some patients benefit from steroid-sparing medications, such as dapsone, azathioprine, sulfamethoxypyridazine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors such as infliximab and adalimumab.^{8,9,15,23,34,36} A 12-year-old patient with pyodermatitis–PSV without intestinal disease was treated with prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine with improvement but not complete resolution of oral erosions after 18 weeks of treatment.³² A 15-year-old patient with CD and pyodermatitis–PSV did not show improvement on prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine but rapidly responded to infliximab.²³ Infliximab led to complete clearance of oral lesions in an adult with severe fistulizing CD who developed PSV.¹¹ However, 2 adolescent patients with CD developed PSV while on adalimumab,^6,34 though 1 did improve after increasing adalimumab from once to twice weekly.⁶

Conclusion

The case described here—PSV in a prepubertal 7-year-old with multiple cutaneous findings suggestive of CD, including OFG, perianal and vulvar edema with biopsy-proven noncaseating granulomas, anal skin tags, and an elevated calprotectin level, noted during a cutaneous flare without clinical or endoscopically identified underlying bowel involvement—is an extremely rare presentation. Literature regarding management of PSV primarily is found in the form of case reports and focuses on treating underlying IBD. In patients with intestinal disease, treatment with biologic therapy appears most effective.^6,23

ADDENDUM

Interestingly, 3 years after the patient’s original presentation to our clinic, chromosomal sequencing analysis to assess for copy number variants and whole exome gene sequencing identified a variant of unknown significance in the heat shock protein family A member 1-like gene, HSPA1L, which has an unknown mode of inheritance, but the literature suggests that both truncating and missense variants could be associated with individuals with ulcerative colitis, CD, and IBD.^37,38 Although we cannot use this information to render a molecular diagnosis, it is highly suspicious that this is the cause of her clinical findings. Additionally, the patient currently is aged 10 years with unchanged cutaneous findings and has not developed gastrointestinal findings of IBD.

Case Report

A 7-year-old girl who was otherwise healthy was referred by pediatric gastroenterology for evaluation of cutaneous Crohn disease (CD). The patient had a 4-year history of persistent lip swelling and a 3-year history of asymmetric erythematous labial swelling and perianal erythema with skin tags. She had been applying the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.03% 1 or 2 times daily to her lesions with minimal improvement. She did not have a medical history of recurrent or unusual infectious diseases. There was no family history of autoimmune disease.

The patient and her guardian reported intermittent perianal pain but denied constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and blood in the stool. She denied throat and tongue swelling, dysphagia, dyspnea, drooling, facial paralysis, and eyelid edema. She was a well-nourished child whose height and weight percentiles tracked at 30% and 25%, respectively. Physical examination revealed confluent symmetric lip swelling with mild angular cheilitis. Multiple 1- to 2-mm white pustules with pinpoint erosions covered the upper and lower labial mucosa and extended onto the buccal mucosa (Figure 1). She had symmetric erythema and swelling of the left labia majora extending to and involving the left perianal mucosa. Three perianal erythematous skin tags and a perianal fissure were identified.

The patient had been assessed 2 years earlier by pediatric dermatology and gastroenterology with an extensive evaluation that favored a diagnosis of cutaneous CD because the combination of orofacial granulomatosis (OFG), vulvar edema, and perianal skin tags is strongly associated.^1-3 Contact dermatitis affecting the mouth was considered; however, allergen testing did not demonstrate a trigger.

A trial of a benzoate- and cinnamon-free diet, which has been reported to improve OFG,⁴ did not provide symptomatic improvement. Topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus reduced the perioral erythema, but the swelling persisted. An infectious cause was considered; however, topical mupirocin had no effect, and amoxicillin resulted in oral candidiasis.

A perianal biopsy revealed a granulomatous dermatitis. Fungal and bacterial cultures were negative. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and a fecal calprotectin assay were not suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A complete blood cell count and QuantiFERON-TB Gold test measuring the immune response to tuberculosis antigens were normal. Chronic granulomatous disease, RAG1/RAG2 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, and NOD2 defects were ruled out with normal tests of dihydrorhodamine, quantitative immunoglobulins, and toll-like receptors.

Because of the discomfort associated with the patient’s lesions, she was offered treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab. These agents had been offered since the onset of symptoms; however, her parents declined systemic medication unless she developed GI involvement. Instead, the tacrolimus concentration was increased to 0.1% applied to the lips, labia, and perianal area, and fluocinonide gel 0.05% applied nightly to the oral pustules was added.

Two months later the patient had notably fewer oral pustules and diminished erythema but only slightly reduced oral, vulvar, and perianal swelling. A trial of oral metronidazole, which has been reported to clear a patient with cutaneous CD,⁵ was discontinued by her parents after 6 weeks because of a lack of interval improvement.

One year later, a pre-existing perianal skin tag doubled in size and became exquisitely tender. The calprotectin level—previously within reference range at less than 16 μg/g—was now elevated at 149 μg/g (reference range, 1–120 μg/g) and increased to 336 μg/g 3 weeks later. Testing for C-reactive protein, zinc, and stool occult blood; a comprehensive metabolic panel; and a complete blood cell count were unremarkable.

Repeat upper and lower GI endoscopy did not suggest CD. A biopsy using direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was obtained to evaluate for pyostomatitis vegetans (PSV) and rule out pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau (PVH). Biopsy of a pustule was attempted but was challenging because of the patient’s age and difficulty cooperating.

The captured biopsy did not demonstrate the intended pustule; instead, it included less-affected mucosa and was obtained during topical treatment when few pustules and erosions persisted. Pathologic analysis revealed noncaseating granulomas without an increase in microabscesses, neutrophils, or eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence staining for IgG, IgA, and C3 and indirect immunofluorescence staining for desmoglein-1 and desmoglein-3 antibodies were negative. Although the biopsy did not capture the intended pustule, diagnosis of PV was made based on clinical features and the constellation of cutaneous findings associated with IBD.

Intralesional triamcinolone, which has been of benefit for pediatric patients with orofacial granulomatosis,^1,6,7 was instituted and normalized the vulva and perianal mucosa; however, lip swelling improved only minimally.

Comment

Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by multiple white or yellow, friable, miliary pustules that rupture, leaving behind ulcerations and erosions that cause a varying degree of oral pain.⁸ The disorder can involve any area of the oral mucosa—most often the labia-attached gingiva, soft and hard palates, buccal mucosa, vestibule, and tonsillar areas—but often spares the floor of the mouth and tongue.^8-11 The term pyostomatitis vegetans was proposed in 1949 by McCarthy¹² when he noted in a patient who presented with the characteristic appearance of the oral mucosa, though cases of vaginal, nasal, and periocular involvement have been reported.^8,13,14

Histopathology—Pyostomatitis vegetans displays pseudoepithelial hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and intraepithelial or subepithelial microabscesses (or both) with neutrophils and eosinophils.^8,9,15 There are a few possible explanations for this patient’s lack of tissue eosinophilia. It has been theorized that the presence of granulomas could mask concurrent PSV¹⁶ or that tissue in PSV contains fewer eosinophils as the disorder progresses.¹¹ The oral biopsy obtained from our patient did not capture a pustule, and the condition had noticeably improved with topical tacrolimus at the time of biopsy; therefore, neither neutrophils nor eosinophils were identified. Peripheral eosinophilia, which is present in 42% to 90% of cases of PSV,^9,17 can be a diagnostic clue.¹⁸ However, PE is associated with IBD,²⁴ which usually occurs with PSV, so the absence of peripheral eosinophilia in our patient may be explained by her lack of bowel disease.

Pathogenesis—The pathogenesis of PSV is unknown. A proposed etiology includes cross-reacting antigens in the bowel and skin secondary to IBD as well as an aberrant immune response to an unidentified factor.⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans is considered by many to be the mucosal variant of pyodermatitis vegetans,^9,15,19 a neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by asymmetric, crusted, erythematous papulopustules that extend peripherally and coalesce to form large vegetating plaques. These lesions commonly manifest in the axillary folds, groin, and scalp and can involve the face, trunk, and distal extremities.^9,18 Infection has been suggested as a cause of PSV, though cultures for pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi consistently show only normal flora.²⁰ Zinc deficiency attributed to malabsorption from CD was reported in an adult with PSV.²¹ The PSV resolved after 6 weeks of zinc supplementation.

Differential Diagnosis—The main entity in the clinical differential diagnosis for PSV is PVH, which is considered a variant of pemphigus vulgaris. Pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau presents with pustules and progresses to hyperpigmented vegetative plaques with peripheral hypertrophic granulation tissue.²² The clinical and histological presentation of PVH can be similar to PSV; in PVH, however, DIF demonstrates intercellular IgG and C3 due to circulating IgG autoantibodies specific for desmoglein 3, a cell adhesion molecule.^22-24 In PSV, DIF typically is negative for IgG, IgA, and C3.⁸ Immunohistochemical findings of PSV may overlap with IgA pemphigus, IgG/IgA pemphigus, and IgG pemphigus, which has sparked debate if PSV is an autoimmune blistering disorder or a secondary finding of epithelial injury.^9,18,24

Pyostomatitis vegetans is most prevalent in patients aged 20 to 59 years²⁵ but can occur at any age.^8,19 Overall, extraintestinal symptoms, including mucocutaneous findings, are common in pediatric patients—in 30% to 71% of children with CD and 21% to 22% of children with ulcerative colitis²⁶—and can predate onset of GI symptoms in 6% of pediatric patients.²⁷

Oral disease is common in CD; manifestations are listed in the Table.^28,29 In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, 42% (20/48) had oral manifestations identified at diagnosis²⁸; in a similar study of 25 children, researchers noted that 48% (12/25) had disease-specific oral lesions.²⁹ None of these children recognized the oral findings prior to the onset of systemic symptoms.²⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans was the least common oral manifestation, reported in 1 of 73 patients in the 2 studies combined.^28,29

Two recent articles that looked at PSV in pediatric and adolescent populations identified only 9 patients with PSV.^24,30 Only 2 patients (siblings) had documented onset of PSV before 12 years of age,³¹ which suggests an underlying genetic predisposition in young children.

It has been reported that active or subclinical (ie, asymptomatic with positive endoscopic findings) IBD in adults precedes onset of PSV, which may be considered a sign of relapse.^9,30 However, PSV is incredibly rare in children and adolescents and can be an early finding of IBD in children.^16,31,32

Our patient has not developed GI involvement since her initial presentation 5 years prior, though another pediatric patient developed symptomatic CD 9 years after onset of OFG.⁵ A retrospective review of pediatric OFG without CD met criteria for CD at a median of 3.1 years (range, 0.4–6.9 years).³³ Regrettably, the early presence of PSV has been associated with future progression to CD and a complicated disease course.^12,34

Management—Pyoderma stomatitis vegetans is treated with management of underlying IBD,⁸ with scarce literature available regarding pediatric patients. Oral lesions have been treated with antiseptics and topical corticosteroids, though these have limited benefit.⁸ In an adult with IBD, topical tacrolimus initially cleared PSV; however, lesions recurred until mesalamine was initiated.³⁵ Systemic steroids were effective in a 16-year-old patient with CD and PSV,¹² but recurrence is common after corticosteroids are stopped.³⁴

Some patients benefit from steroid-sparing medications, such as dapsone, azathioprine, sulfamethoxypyridazine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors such as infliximab and adalimumab.^{8,9,15,23,34,36} A 12-year-old patient with pyodermatitis–PSV without intestinal disease was treated with prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine with improvement but not complete resolution of oral erosions after 18 weeks of treatment.³² A 15-year-old patient with CD and pyodermatitis–PSV did not show improvement on prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine but rapidly responded to infliximab.²³ Infliximab led to complete clearance of oral lesions in an adult with severe fistulizing CD who developed PSV.¹¹ However, 2 adolescent patients with CD developed PSV while on adalimumab,^6,34 though 1 did improve after increasing adalimumab from once to twice weekly.⁶

Conclusion

The case described here—PSV in a prepubertal 7-year-old with multiple cutaneous findings suggestive of CD, including OFG, perianal and vulvar edema with biopsy-proven noncaseating granulomas, anal skin tags, and an elevated calprotectin level, noted during a cutaneous flare without clinical or endoscopically identified underlying bowel involvement—is an extremely rare presentation. Literature regarding management of PSV primarily is found in the form of case reports and focuses on treating underlying IBD. In patients with intestinal disease, treatment with biologic therapy appears most effective.^6,23

ADDENDUM

Interestingly, 3 years after the patient’s original presentation to our clinic, chromosomal sequencing analysis to assess for copy number variants and whole exome gene sequencing identified a variant of unknown significance in the heat shock protein family A member 1-like gene, HSPA1L, which has an unknown mode of inheritance, but the literature suggests that both truncating and missense variants could be associated with individuals with ulcerative colitis, CD, and IBD.^37,38 Although we cannot use this information to render a molecular diagnosis, it is highly suspicious that this is the cause of her clinical findings. Additionally, the patient currently is aged 10 years with unchanged cutaneous findings and has not developed gastrointestinal findings of IBD.

Case Report

A 7-year-old girl who was otherwise healthy was referred by pediatric gastroenterology for evaluation of cutaneous Crohn disease (CD). The patient had a 4-year history of persistent lip swelling and a 3-year history of asymmetric erythematous labial swelling and perianal erythema with skin tags. She had been applying the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.03% 1 or 2 times daily to her lesions with minimal improvement. She did not have a medical history of recurrent or unusual infectious diseases. There was no family history of autoimmune disease.

The patient and her guardian reported intermittent perianal pain but denied constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and blood in the stool. She denied throat and tongue swelling, dysphagia, dyspnea, drooling, facial paralysis, and eyelid edema. She was a well-nourished child whose height and weight percentiles tracked at 30% and 25%, respectively. Physical examination revealed confluent symmetric lip swelling with mild angular cheilitis. Multiple 1- to 2-mm white pustules with pinpoint erosions covered the upper and lower labial mucosa and extended onto the buccal mucosa (Figure 1). She had symmetric erythema and swelling of the left labia majora extending to and involving the left perianal mucosa. Three perianal erythematous skin tags and a perianal fissure were identified.

The patient had been assessed 2 years earlier by pediatric dermatology and gastroenterology with an extensive evaluation that favored a diagnosis of cutaneous CD because the combination of orofacial granulomatosis (OFG), vulvar edema, and perianal skin tags is strongly associated.^1-3 Contact dermatitis affecting the mouth was considered; however, allergen testing did not demonstrate a trigger.

A trial of a benzoate- and cinnamon-free diet, which has been reported to improve OFG,⁴ did not provide symptomatic improvement. Topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus reduced the perioral erythema, but the swelling persisted. An infectious cause was considered; however, topical mupirocin had no effect, and amoxicillin resulted in oral candidiasis.

A perianal biopsy revealed a granulomatous dermatitis. Fungal and bacterial cultures were negative. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and a fecal calprotectin assay were not suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A complete blood cell count and QuantiFERON-TB Gold test measuring the immune response to tuberculosis antigens were normal. Chronic granulomatous disease, RAG1/RAG2 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, and NOD2 defects were ruled out with normal tests of dihydrorhodamine, quantitative immunoglobulins, and toll-like receptors.

Because of the discomfort associated with the patient’s lesions, she was offered treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab. These agents had been offered since the onset of symptoms; however, her parents declined systemic medication unless she developed GI involvement. Instead, the tacrolimus concentration was increased to 0.1% applied to the lips, labia, and perianal area, and fluocinonide gel 0.05% applied nightly to the oral pustules was added.

Two months later the patient had notably fewer oral pustules and diminished erythema but only slightly reduced oral, vulvar, and perianal swelling. A trial of oral metronidazole, which has been reported to clear a patient with cutaneous CD,⁵ was discontinued by her parents after 6 weeks because of a lack of interval improvement.

One year later, a pre-existing perianal skin tag doubled in size and became exquisitely tender. The calprotectin level—previously within reference range at less than 16 μg/g—was now elevated at 149 μg/g (reference range, 1–120 μg/g) and increased to 336 μg/g 3 weeks later. Testing for C-reactive protein, zinc, and stool occult blood; a comprehensive metabolic panel; and a complete blood cell count were unremarkable.

Repeat upper and lower GI endoscopy did not suggest CD. A biopsy using direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was obtained to evaluate for pyostomatitis vegetans (PSV) and rule out pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau (PVH). Biopsy of a pustule was attempted but was challenging because of the patient’s age and difficulty cooperating.

The captured biopsy did not demonstrate the intended pustule; instead, it included less-affected mucosa and was obtained during topical treatment when few pustules and erosions persisted. Pathologic analysis revealed noncaseating granulomas without an increase in microabscesses, neutrophils, or eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence staining for IgG, IgA, and C3 and indirect immunofluorescence staining for desmoglein-1 and desmoglein-3 antibodies were negative. Although the biopsy did not capture the intended pustule, diagnosis of PV was made based on clinical features and the constellation of cutaneous findings associated with IBD.

Intralesional triamcinolone, which has been of benefit for pediatric patients with orofacial granulomatosis,^1,6,7 was instituted and normalized the vulva and perianal mucosa; however, lip swelling improved only minimally.

Comment

Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by multiple white or yellow, friable, miliary pustules that rupture, leaving behind ulcerations and erosions that cause a varying degree of oral pain.⁸ The disorder can involve any area of the oral mucosa—most often the labia-attached gingiva, soft and hard palates, buccal mucosa, vestibule, and tonsillar areas—but often spares the floor of the mouth and tongue.^8-11 The term pyostomatitis vegetans was proposed in 1949 by McCarthy¹² when he noted in a patient who presented with the characteristic appearance of the oral mucosa, though cases of vaginal, nasal, and periocular involvement have been reported.^8,13,14

Histopathology—Pyostomatitis vegetans displays pseudoepithelial hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and intraepithelial or subepithelial microabscesses (or both) with neutrophils and eosinophils.^8,9,15 There are a few possible explanations for this patient’s lack of tissue eosinophilia. It has been theorized that the presence of granulomas could mask concurrent PSV¹⁶ or that tissue in PSV contains fewer eosinophils as the disorder progresses.¹¹ The oral biopsy obtained from our patient did not capture a pustule, and the condition had noticeably improved with topical tacrolimus at the time of biopsy; therefore, neither neutrophils nor eosinophils were identified. Peripheral eosinophilia, which is present in 42% to 90% of cases of PSV,^9,17 can be a diagnostic clue.¹⁸ However, PE is associated with IBD,²⁴ which usually occurs with PSV, so the absence of peripheral eosinophilia in our patient may be explained by her lack of bowel disease.

Pathogenesis—The pathogenesis of PSV is unknown. A proposed etiology includes cross-reacting antigens in the bowel and skin secondary to IBD as well as an aberrant immune response to an unidentified factor.⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans is considered by many to be the mucosal variant of pyodermatitis vegetans,^9,15,19 a neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by asymmetric, crusted, erythematous papulopustules that extend peripherally and coalesce to form large vegetating plaques. These lesions commonly manifest in the axillary folds, groin, and scalp and can involve the face, trunk, and distal extremities.^9,18 Infection has been suggested as a cause of PSV, though cultures for pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi consistently show only normal flora.²⁰ Zinc deficiency attributed to malabsorption from CD was reported in an adult with PSV.²¹ The PSV resolved after 6 weeks of zinc supplementation.

Differential Diagnosis—The main entity in the clinical differential diagnosis for PSV is PVH, which is considered a variant of pemphigus vulgaris. Pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau presents with pustules and progresses to hyperpigmented vegetative plaques with peripheral hypertrophic granulation tissue.²² The clinical and histological presentation of PVH can be similar to PSV; in PVH, however, DIF demonstrates intercellular IgG and C3 due to circulating IgG autoantibodies specific for desmoglein 3, a cell adhesion molecule.^22-24 In PSV, DIF typically is negative for IgG, IgA, and C3.⁸ Immunohistochemical findings of PSV may overlap with IgA pemphigus, IgG/IgA pemphigus, and IgG pemphigus, which has sparked debate if PSV is an autoimmune blistering disorder or a secondary finding of epithelial injury.^9,18,24

Pyostomatitis vegetans is most prevalent in patients aged 20 to 59 years²⁵ but can occur at any age.^8,19 Overall, extraintestinal symptoms, including mucocutaneous findings, are common in pediatric patients—in 30% to 71% of children with CD and 21% to 22% of children with ulcerative colitis²⁶—and can predate onset of GI symptoms in 6% of pediatric patients.²⁷

Oral disease is common in CD; manifestations are listed in the Table.^28,29 In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, 42% (20/48) had oral manifestations identified at diagnosis²⁸; in a similar study of 25 children, researchers noted that 48% (12/25) had disease-specific oral lesions.²⁹ None of these children recognized the oral findings prior to the onset of systemic symptoms.²⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans was the least common oral manifestation, reported in 1 of 73 patients in the 2 studies combined.^28,29

Two recent articles that looked at PSV in pediatric and adolescent populations identified only 9 patients with PSV.^24,30 Only 2 patients (siblings) had documented onset of PSV before 12 years of age,³¹ which suggests an underlying genetic predisposition in young children.

It has been reported that active or subclinical (ie, asymptomatic with positive endoscopic findings) IBD in adults precedes onset of PSV, which may be considered a sign of relapse.^9,30 However, PSV is incredibly rare in children and adolescents and can be an early finding of IBD in children.^16,31,32

Our patient has not developed GI involvement since her initial presentation 5 years prior, though another pediatric patient developed symptomatic CD 9 years after onset of OFG.⁵ A retrospective review of pediatric OFG without CD met criteria for CD at a median of 3.1 years (range, 0.4–6.9 years).³³ Regrettably, the early presence of PSV has been associated with future progression to CD and a complicated disease course.^12,34

Management—Pyoderma stomatitis vegetans is treated with management of underlying IBD,⁸ with scarce literature available regarding pediatric patients. Oral lesions have been treated with antiseptics and topical corticosteroids, though these have limited benefit.⁸ In an adult with IBD, topical tacrolimus initially cleared PSV; however, lesions recurred until mesalamine was initiated.³⁵ Systemic steroids were effective in a 16-year-old patient with CD and PSV,¹² but recurrence is common after corticosteroids are stopped.³⁴

Some patients benefit from steroid-sparing medications, such as dapsone, azathioprine, sulfamethoxypyridazine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors such as infliximab and adalimumab.^{8,9,15,23,34,36} A 12-year-old patient with pyodermatitis–PSV without intestinal disease was treated with prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine with improvement but not complete resolution of oral erosions after 18 weeks of treatment.³² A 15-year-old patient with CD and pyodermatitis–PSV did not show improvement on prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine but rapidly responded to infliximab.²³ Infliximab led to complete clearance of oral lesions in an adult with severe fistulizing CD who developed PSV.¹¹ However, 2 adolescent patients with CD developed PSV while on adalimumab,^6,34 though 1 did improve after increasing adalimumab from once to twice weekly.⁶

Conclusion

The case described here—PSV in a prepubertal 7-year-old with multiple cutaneous findings suggestive of CD, including OFG, perianal and vulvar edema with biopsy-proven noncaseating granulomas, anal skin tags, and an elevated calprotectin level, noted during a cutaneous flare without clinical or endoscopically identified underlying bowel involvement—is an extremely rare presentation. Literature regarding management of PSV primarily is found in the form of case reports and focuses on treating underlying IBD. In patients with intestinal disease, treatment with biologic therapy appears most effective.^6,23

ADDENDUM

Interestingly, 3 years after the patient’s original presentation to our clinic, chromosomal sequencing analysis to assess for copy number variants and whole exome gene sequencing identified a variant of unknown significance in the heat shock protein family A member 1-like gene, HSPA1L, which has an unknown mode of inheritance, but the literature suggests that both truncating and missense variants could be associated with individuals with ulcerative colitis, CD, and IBD.^37,38 Although we cannot use this information to render a molecular diagnosis, it is highly suspicious that this is the cause of her clinical findings. Additionally, the patient currently is aged 10 years with unchanged cutaneous findings and has not developed gastrointestinal findings of IBD.

New COVID-19 cases in children jumped by 66% during the first 2 weeks of December after an 8-week steady period lasting through October and November, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases reached close to 48,000 for the most recent reporting week, Dec. 9-15, after rising to just over 41,000 the previous week and totaling less than 29,000 for the week of Nov. 25 to Dec. 1. That increase of almost 19,000 cases is the largest over a 2-week period since late July, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report based on data collected from state and territorial health department websites.

[This publication has been following the AAP/CHA report since the summer of 2020 and continues to share the data for the sake of consistency, but it must be noted that a number of states are no longer updating their public COVID dashboards. As a result, there is now a considerable discrepancy between the AAP/CHA weekly figures and those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has no such limitations on state data.]

The situation involving new cases over the last 2 weeks is quite different from the CDC’s perspective. The agency does not publish a weekly count, instead offering cumulative cases, which stood at almost 16.1 million as of Dec. 14. Calculating a 2-week total puts the new-case count for Dec. 1-14 at 113,572 among children aged 0-17 years. That is higher than the AAP/CHA count (88,629) for roughly the same period, but it is actually lower than the CDC’s figure (161,832) for the last 2 weeks of November.

The CDC data, in other words, suggest that new cases have gone down in the last 2 weeks, while the AAP and CHA, with their somewhat limited perspective, announced that new cases have gone up.

One COVID-related measure from the CDC that is not contradicted by other sources is hospitalization rates, which had climbed from 0.16 new admissions in children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID per 100,000 population on Oct. 22 to 0.29 per 100,000 on Dec. 9. Visits to the emergency department with diagnosed COVID, meanwhile, have been fairly steady so far through December in children, according to the CDC.

New COVID-19 cases in children jumped by 66% during the first 2 weeks of December after an 8-week steady period lasting through October and November, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases reached close to 48,000 for the most recent reporting week, Dec. 9-15, after rising to just over 41,000 the previous week and totaling less than 29,000 for the week of Nov. 25 to Dec. 1. That increase of almost 19,000 cases is the largest over a 2-week period since late July, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report based on data collected from state and territorial health department websites.

[This publication has been following the AAP/CHA report since the summer of 2020 and continues to share the data for the sake of consistency, but it must be noted that a number of states are no longer updating their public COVID dashboards. As a result, there is now a considerable discrepancy between the AAP/CHA weekly figures and those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has no such limitations on state data.]

The situation involving new cases over the last 2 weeks is quite different from the CDC’s perspective. The agency does not publish a weekly count, instead offering cumulative cases, which stood at almost 16.1 million as of Dec. 14. Calculating a 2-week total puts the new-case count for Dec. 1-14 at 113,572 among children aged 0-17 years. That is higher than the AAP/CHA count (88,629) for roughly the same period, but it is actually lower than the CDC’s figure (161,832) for the last 2 weeks of November.

The CDC data, in other words, suggest that new cases have gone down in the last 2 weeks, while the AAP and CHA, with their somewhat limited perspective, announced that new cases have gone up.

One COVID-related measure from the CDC that is not contradicted by other sources is hospitalization rates, which had climbed from 0.16 new admissions in children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID per 100,000 population on Oct. 22 to 0.29 per 100,000 on Dec. 9. Visits to the emergency department with diagnosed COVID, meanwhile, have been fairly steady so far through December in children, according to the CDC.

New COVID-19 cases in children jumped by 66% during the first 2 weeks of December after an 8-week steady period lasting through October and November, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases reached close to 48,000 for the most recent reporting week, Dec. 9-15, after rising to just over 41,000 the previous week and totaling less than 29,000 for the week of Nov. 25 to Dec. 1. That increase of almost 19,000 cases is the largest over a 2-week period since late July, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report based on data collected from state and territorial health department websites.

[This publication has been following the AAP/CHA report since the summer of 2020 and continues to share the data for the sake of consistency, but it must be noted that a number of states are no longer updating their public COVID dashboards. As a result, there is now a considerable discrepancy between the AAP/CHA weekly figures and those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has no such limitations on state data.]

The situation involving new cases over the last 2 weeks is quite different from the CDC’s perspective. The agency does not publish a weekly count, instead offering cumulative cases, which stood at almost 16.1 million as of Dec. 14. Calculating a 2-week total puts the new-case count for Dec. 1-14 at 113,572 among children aged 0-17 years. That is higher than the AAP/CHA count (88,629) for roughly the same period, but it is actually lower than the CDC’s figure (161,832) for the last 2 weeks of November.

The CDC data, in other words, suggest that new cases have gone down in the last 2 weeks, while the AAP and CHA, with their somewhat limited perspective, announced that new cases have gone up.

One COVID-related measure from the CDC that is not contradicted by other sources is hospitalization rates, which had climbed from 0.16 new admissions in children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID per 100,000 population on Oct. 22 to 0.29 per 100,000 on Dec. 9. Visits to the emergency department with diagnosed COVID, meanwhile, have been fairly steady so far through December in children, according to the CDC.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) increase the risk for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) for hypertensive individuals but not for those without hypertension, a new MESA analysis suggests.

There are ways to test for statistical interaction, “in this case, multiplicative interaction between Lp(a) and hypertension, which suggests that Lp(a) is actually modifying the effect between blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. It’s not simply additive,” senior author Michael D. Shapiro, DO, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization.

“So that’s new and I don’t think anybody’s looked at that before.”

Although Lp(a) is recognized as an independent cause of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the significance of Lp(a) in hypertension has been “virtually untapped,” he noted. A recent prospective study reported that elevated CVD risk was present only in individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL and hypertension but it included only Chinese participants with stable coronary artery disease.

The current analysis, published online in the journal Hypertension, included 6,674 participants in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), all free of baseline ASCVD, who were recruited from six communities in the United States and had measured baseline Lp(a), blood pressure, and CVD events data over follow-up from 2000 to 2018.

Participants were stratified into four groups based on the presence or absence of hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher or the use of antihypertensive drugs) and an Lp(a) threshold of 50 mg/dL, as recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline for consideration as an ASCVD risk-enhancing factor.

Slightly more than half of participants were female (52.8%), 38.6% were White, 27.5% were African American, 22.1% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese American.

According to the researchers, 809 participants had a CVD event over an average follow-up of 13.9 years, including 7.7% of group 1 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 8.0% of group 2 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 16.2% of group 3 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and hypertension, and 18.8% of group 4 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and hypertension.

When compared with group 1 in a fully adjusted Cox proportional model, participants with elevated Lp(a) and no hypertension (group 2) did not have an increased risk of CVD events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.50).

CVD risk, however, was significantly higher in group 3 with normal Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98) and group 4 with elevated Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.63-2.62).

Among all participants with hypertension (groups 3 and 4), Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in CVD risk (HR, 1.24, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53).

“What I think is interesting here is that in the absence of hypertension, we didn’t really see an increased risk despite having an elevated Lp(a),” said Dr. Shapiro. “What it may indicate is that really for Lp(a) to be associated with risk, there may already need to be some kind of arterial damage that allows the Lp(a) to have its atherogenic impact.

“In other words, in individuals who have totally normal arterial walls, potentially, maybe that is protective enough against Lp(a) that in the absence of any other injurious factor, maybe it’s not an issue,” he said. “That’s a big hypothesis-generating [statement], but hypertension is certainly one of those risk factors that’s known to cause endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction.”

Dr. Shapiro pointed out that when first measured in MESA, Lp(a) was measured in 4,600 participants who were not on statins, which is important because statins can increase Lp(a) levels.

“When you look just at those participants, those 4,600, you actually do see a relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease,” he said. “When you look at the whole population, including the 17% who are baseline populations, even when you adjust for statin therapy, we fail to see that, at least in the long-term follow up.”

Nevertheless, he cautioned that hypertension is just one of many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that could affect the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD risk. “I don’t want to suggest that we believe there’s something specifically magical about hypertension and Lp(a). If we chose, say, diabetes or smoking or another traditional risk factor, we may or may not have seen kind of similar results.”

When the investigators stratified the analyses by sex and race/ethnicity, they found that Lp(a) was not associated with CVD risk, regardless of hypertension status. In Black participants, however, greater CVD risk was seen when both elevated Lp(a) and hypertension were present (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.34-3.21; P = .001).

Asked whether the results support one-time universal screening for Lp(a), which is almost exclusively genetically determined, Dr. Shapiro said he supports screening but that this was a secondary analysis and its numbers were modest. He added that median Lp(a) level is higher in African Americans than any other racial/ethnic group but the “most recent data has clarified that, per any absolute level of Lp(a), it appears to confer the same absolute risk in any racial or ethnic group.”

The authors acknowledge that differential loss to follow-up could have resulted in selection bias in the study and that there were relatively few CVD events in group 2, which may have limited the ability to detect differences in groups without hypertension, particularly in the subgroup analyses. Other limitations are the potential for residual confounding and participants may have developed hypertension during follow-up, resulting in misclassification bias.

Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic link between Lp(a), hypertension, and CVD, Dr. Shapiro said. Further insights also should be provided by the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial evaluating the effect of Lp(a) lowering with the investigational antisense drug, pelacarsen, on cardiovascular events in 8,324 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a). The study is expected to be completed in May 2025.

The study was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants from the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences. Dr. Shapiro reports participating in scientific advisory boards with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk, and consulting for Regeneron.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) increase the risk for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) for hypertensive individuals but not for those without hypertension, a new MESA analysis suggests.

There are ways to test for statistical interaction, “in this case, multiplicative interaction between Lp(a) and hypertension, which suggests that Lp(a) is actually modifying the effect between blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. It’s not simply additive,” senior author Michael D. Shapiro, DO, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization.

“So that’s new and I don’t think anybody’s looked at that before.”

Although Lp(a) is recognized as an independent cause of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the significance of Lp(a) in hypertension has been “virtually untapped,” he noted. A recent prospective study reported that elevated CVD risk was present only in individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL and hypertension but it included only Chinese participants with stable coronary artery disease.

The current analysis, published online in the journal Hypertension, included 6,674 participants in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), all free of baseline ASCVD, who were recruited from six communities in the United States and had measured baseline Lp(a), blood pressure, and CVD events data over follow-up from 2000 to 2018.

Participants were stratified into four groups based on the presence or absence of hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher or the use of antihypertensive drugs) and an Lp(a) threshold of 50 mg/dL, as recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline for consideration as an ASCVD risk-enhancing factor.

Slightly more than half of participants were female (52.8%), 38.6% were White, 27.5% were African American, 22.1% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese American.

According to the researchers, 809 participants had a CVD event over an average follow-up of 13.9 years, including 7.7% of group 1 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 8.0% of group 2 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 16.2% of group 3 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and hypertension, and 18.8% of group 4 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and hypertension.

When compared with group 1 in a fully adjusted Cox proportional model, participants with elevated Lp(a) and no hypertension (group 2) did not have an increased risk of CVD events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.50).

CVD risk, however, was significantly higher in group 3 with normal Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98) and group 4 with elevated Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.63-2.62).

Among all participants with hypertension (groups 3 and 4), Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in CVD risk (HR, 1.24, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53).

“What I think is interesting here is that in the absence of hypertension, we didn’t really see an increased risk despite having an elevated Lp(a),” said Dr. Shapiro. “What it may indicate is that really for Lp(a) to be associated with risk, there may already need to be some kind of arterial damage that allows the Lp(a) to have its atherogenic impact.

“In other words, in individuals who have totally normal arterial walls, potentially, maybe that is protective enough against Lp(a) that in the absence of any other injurious factor, maybe it’s not an issue,” he said. “That’s a big hypothesis-generating [statement], but hypertension is certainly one of those risk factors that’s known to cause endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction.”

Dr. Shapiro pointed out that when first measured in MESA, Lp(a) was measured in 4,600 participants who were not on statins, which is important because statins can increase Lp(a) levels.

“When you look just at those participants, those 4,600, you actually do see a relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease,” he said. “When you look at the whole population, including the 17% who are baseline populations, even when you adjust for statin therapy, we fail to see that, at least in the long-term follow up.”

Nevertheless, he cautioned that hypertension is just one of many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that could affect the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD risk. “I don’t want to suggest that we believe there’s something specifically magical about hypertension and Lp(a). If we chose, say, diabetes or smoking or another traditional risk factor, we may or may not have seen kind of similar results.”

When the investigators stratified the analyses by sex and race/ethnicity, they found that Lp(a) was not associated with CVD risk, regardless of hypertension status. In Black participants, however, greater CVD risk was seen when both elevated Lp(a) and hypertension were present (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.34-3.21; P = .001).

Asked whether the results support one-time universal screening for Lp(a), which is almost exclusively genetically determined, Dr. Shapiro said he supports screening but that this was a secondary analysis and its numbers were modest. He added that median Lp(a) level is higher in African Americans than any other racial/ethnic group but the “most recent data has clarified that, per any absolute level of Lp(a), it appears to confer the same absolute risk in any racial or ethnic group.”

The authors acknowledge that differential loss to follow-up could have resulted in selection bias in the study and that there were relatively few CVD events in group 2, which may have limited the ability to detect differences in groups without hypertension, particularly in the subgroup analyses. Other limitations are the potential for residual confounding and participants may have developed hypertension during follow-up, resulting in misclassification bias.

Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic link between Lp(a), hypertension, and CVD, Dr. Shapiro said. Further insights also should be provided by the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial evaluating the effect of Lp(a) lowering with the investigational antisense drug, pelacarsen, on cardiovascular events in 8,324 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a). The study is expected to be completed in May 2025.

The study was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants from the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences. Dr. Shapiro reports participating in scientific advisory boards with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk, and consulting for Regeneron.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) increase the risk for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) for hypertensive individuals but not for those without hypertension, a new MESA analysis suggests.

There are ways to test for statistical interaction, “in this case, multiplicative interaction between Lp(a) and hypertension, which suggests that Lp(a) is actually modifying the effect between blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. It’s not simply additive,” senior author Michael D. Shapiro, DO, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization.

“So that’s new and I don’t think anybody’s looked at that before.”

Although Lp(a) is recognized as an independent cause of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the significance of Lp(a) in hypertension has been “virtually untapped,” he noted. A recent prospective study reported that elevated CVD risk was present only in individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL and hypertension but it included only Chinese participants with stable coronary artery disease.

The current analysis, published online in the journal Hypertension, included 6,674 participants in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), all free of baseline ASCVD, who were recruited from six communities in the United States and had measured baseline Lp(a), blood pressure, and CVD events data over follow-up from 2000 to 2018.

Participants were stratified into four groups based on the presence or absence of hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher or the use of antihypertensive drugs) and an Lp(a) threshold of 50 mg/dL, as recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline for consideration as an ASCVD risk-enhancing factor.

Slightly more than half of participants were female (52.8%), 38.6% were White, 27.5% were African American, 22.1% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese American.

According to the researchers, 809 participants had a CVD event over an average follow-up of 13.9 years, including 7.7% of group 1 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 8.0% of group 2 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 16.2% of group 3 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and hypertension, and 18.8% of group 4 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and hypertension.

When compared with group 1 in a fully adjusted Cox proportional model, participants with elevated Lp(a) and no hypertension (group 2) did not have an increased risk of CVD events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.50).

CVD risk, however, was significantly higher in group 3 with normal Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98) and group 4 with elevated Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.63-2.62).

Among all participants with hypertension (groups 3 and 4), Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in CVD risk (HR, 1.24, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53).

“What I think is interesting here is that in the absence of hypertension, we didn’t really see an increased risk despite having an elevated Lp(a),” said Dr. Shapiro. “What it may indicate is that really for Lp(a) to be associated with risk, there may already need to be some kind of arterial damage that allows the Lp(a) to have its atherogenic impact.

“In other words, in individuals who have totally normal arterial walls, potentially, maybe that is protective enough against Lp(a) that in the absence of any other injurious factor, maybe it’s not an issue,” he said. “That’s a big hypothesis-generating [statement], but hypertension is certainly one of those risk factors that’s known to cause endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction.”

Dr. Shapiro pointed out that when first measured in MESA, Lp(a) was measured in 4,600 participants who were not on statins, which is important because statins can increase Lp(a) levels.

“When you look just at those participants, those 4,600, you actually do see a relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease,” he said. “When you look at the whole population, including the 17% who are baseline populations, even when you adjust for statin therapy, we fail to see that, at least in the long-term follow up.”

Nevertheless, he cautioned that hypertension is just one of many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that could affect the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD risk. “I don’t want to suggest that we believe there’s something specifically magical about hypertension and Lp(a). If we chose, say, diabetes or smoking or another traditional risk factor, we may or may not have seen kind of similar results.”

When the investigators stratified the analyses by sex and race/ethnicity, they found that Lp(a) was not associated with CVD risk, regardless of hypertension status. In Black participants, however, greater CVD risk was seen when both elevated Lp(a) and hypertension were present (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.34-3.21; P = .001).

Asked whether the results support one-time universal screening for Lp(a), which is almost exclusively genetically determined, Dr. Shapiro said he supports screening but that this was a secondary analysis and its numbers were modest. He added that median Lp(a) level is higher in African Americans than any other racial/ethnic group but the “most recent data has clarified that, per any absolute level of Lp(a), it appears to confer the same absolute risk in any racial or ethnic group.”

The authors acknowledge that differential loss to follow-up could have resulted in selection bias in the study and that there were relatively few CVD events in group 2, which may have limited the ability to detect differences in groups without hypertension, particularly in the subgroup analyses. Other limitations are the potential for residual confounding and participants may have developed hypertension during follow-up, resulting in misclassification bias.

Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic link between Lp(a), hypertension, and CVD, Dr. Shapiro said. Further insights also should be provided by the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial evaluating the effect of Lp(a) lowering with the investigational antisense drug, pelacarsen, on cardiovascular events in 8,324 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a). The study is expected to be completed in May 2025.

The study was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants from the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences. Dr. Shapiro reports participating in scientific advisory boards with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk, and consulting for Regeneron.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: Chronic exposure to heavy metals was not associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (BC) among never smokers in the general population.

Major finding: Serum levels of cobalt were inversely associated with the risk for BC (odds ratio 0.33; P = .033), with no association being observed between the risk for BC and exposure to other heavy metals.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 150 women with BC and without a smoking history and 150 matched control women without BC and smoking history.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Tuscany Region, “Bando Ricerca Salute 2018.” The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Caini S et al. Serum heavy metals and breast cancer risk: A case-control study nested in the Florence cohort of the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition) study. Sci Total Environ. 2022;160568 (Dec 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160568

Key clinical point: Chronic exposure to heavy metals was not associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (BC) among never smokers in the general population.

Major finding: Serum levels of cobalt were inversely associated with the risk for BC (odds ratio 0.33; P = .033), with no association being observed between the risk for BC and exposure to other heavy metals.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 150 women with BC and without a smoking history and 150 matched control women without BC and smoking history.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Tuscany Region, “Bando Ricerca Salute 2018.” The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Caini S et al. Serum heavy metals and breast cancer risk: A case-control study nested in the Florence cohort of the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition) study. Sci Total Environ. 2022;160568 (Dec 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160568

Key clinical point: Chronic exposure to heavy metals was not associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (BC) among never smokers in the general population.

Major finding: Serum levels of cobalt were inversely associated with the risk for BC (odds ratio 0.33; P = .033), with no association being observed between the risk for BC and exposure to other heavy metals.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 150 women with BC and without a smoking history and 150 matched control women without BC and smoking history.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Tuscany Region, “Bando Ricerca Salute 2018.” The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Caini S et al. Serum heavy metals and breast cancer risk: A case-control study nested in the Florence cohort of the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition) study. Sci Total Environ. 2022;160568 (Dec 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160568

Key clinical point: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) who had an isolated brain metastasis as their first metastatic event reported worse survival outcomes than those with concurrent progressive or stable/responding extracranial disease (ECD).

Major finding: Patients with isolated brain relapse or no evidence of ECD (28.4 months; P = .0028) reported worse overall survival from metastatic diagnosis to death than patients with concurrent progressive ECD (48.8 months) or stable/responding disease (71.5 months).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis including 126 patients with HER2+ BC, brain metastasis, and known ECD status.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Duke University Department of Medicine and other sources. Some authors declared receiving royalties or serving as consultants at various sources.

Source: Noteware L et al. Brain metastasis as the first and only metastatic relapse site portends worse survival in patients with advanced HER2 + breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Nov 20). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06799-7

Key clinical point: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) who had an isolated brain metastasis as their first metastatic event reported worse survival outcomes than those with concurrent progressive or stable/responding extracranial disease (ECD).

Major finding: Patients with isolated brain relapse or no evidence of ECD (28.4 months; P = .0028) reported worse overall survival from metastatic diagnosis to death than patients with concurrent progressive ECD (48.8 months) or stable/responding disease (71.5 months).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis including 126 patients with HER2+ BC, brain metastasis, and known ECD status.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Duke University Department of Medicine and other sources. Some authors declared receiving royalties or serving as consultants at various sources.

Source: Noteware L et al. Brain metastasis as the first and only metastatic relapse site portends worse survival in patients with advanced HER2 + breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Nov 20). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06799-7

Key clinical point: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) who had an isolated brain metastasis as their first metastatic event reported worse survival outcomes than those with concurrent progressive or stable/responding extracranial disease (ECD).

Major finding: Patients with isolated brain relapse or no evidence of ECD (28.4 months; P = .0028) reported worse overall survival from metastatic diagnosis to death than patients with concurrent progressive ECD (48.8 months) or stable/responding disease (71.5 months).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis including 126 patients with HER2+ BC, brain metastasis, and known ECD status.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Duke University Department of Medicine and other sources. Some authors declared receiving royalties or serving as consultants at various sources.

Source: Noteware L et al. Brain metastasis as the first and only metastatic relapse site portends worse survival in patients with advanced HER2 + breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Nov 20). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06799-7

Key clinical point: Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy (RT) demonstrated superior survival outcomes compared to mastectomy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MI).

Major finding: Overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.676; P < .001) and breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.565; P = .017) were significantly improved in the BCS+RT vs mastectomy group.

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 5432 patients with DCIS-MI from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, of which 52.17% of patients had received BCS+RT.

Disclosures: This study did not report a source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xia LY et al. Survival outcomes after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20132 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24630-7

Key clinical point: Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy (RT) demonstrated superior survival outcomes compared to mastectomy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MI).

Major finding: Overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.676; P < .001) and breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.565; P = .017) were significantly improved in the BCS+RT vs mastectomy group.

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 5432 patients with DCIS-MI from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, of which 52.17% of patients had received BCS+RT.

Disclosures: This study did not report a source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xia LY et al. Survival outcomes after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20132 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24630-7

Key clinical point: Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy (RT) demonstrated superior survival outcomes compared to mastectomy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MI).

Major finding: Overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.676; P < .001) and breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.565; P = .017) were significantly improved in the BCS+RT vs mastectomy group.

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 5432 patients with DCIS-MI from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, of which 52.17% of patients had received BCS+RT.

Disclosures: This study did not report a source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xia LY et al. Survival outcomes after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20132 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24630-7

Key clinical point: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all subgroups of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Median PFS was longer in patients receiving palbociclib+letrozole vs placebo+letrozole (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.69) or palbociclib+fulvestrant vs placebo+fulvestrant (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.40-0.62), with similar outcomes observed in subgroups of patients reporting a disease-free interval of ≤12 months, visceral disease, or ET resistance.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials including women with HR+/HER2− advanced BC who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole with palbociclib or placebo (n = 666; PALOMA-2) or fulvestrant with palbociclib or placebo (n = 521; PALOMA-3).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Four authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Effect of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy on time to chemotherapy across subgroups of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer: Post hoc analyses from PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3. Breast. 2022;66:324-331 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.11.005

Key clinical point: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all subgroups of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Median PFS was longer in patients receiving palbociclib+letrozole vs placebo+letrozole (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.69) or palbociclib+fulvestrant vs placebo+fulvestrant (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.40-0.62), with similar outcomes observed in subgroups of patients reporting a disease-free interval of ≤12 months, visceral disease, or ET resistance.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials including women with HR+/HER2− advanced BC who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole with palbociclib or placebo (n = 666; PALOMA-2) or fulvestrant with palbociclib or placebo (n = 521; PALOMA-3).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Four authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Effect of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy on time to chemotherapy across subgroups of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer: Post hoc analyses from PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3. Breast. 2022;66:324-331 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.11.005

Key clinical point: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all subgroups of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Median PFS was longer in patients receiving palbociclib+letrozole vs placebo+letrozole (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.69) or palbociclib+fulvestrant vs placebo+fulvestrant (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.40-0.62), with similar outcomes observed in subgroups of patients reporting a disease-free interval of ≤12 months, visceral disease, or ET resistance.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials including women with HR+/HER2− advanced BC who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole with palbociclib or placebo (n = 666; PALOMA-2) or fulvestrant with palbociclib or placebo (n = 521; PALOMA-3).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Four authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Effect of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy on time to chemotherapy across subgroups of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer: Post hoc analyses from PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3. Breast. 2022;66:324-331 (Nov 15). Doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.11.005