Case Letter

To the Editor:

Pityriasis lichenoides is a papulosquamous dermatologic disorder that is characterized by recurrent papules.¹ There is a spectrum of disease in pityriasis lichenoides that includes pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA) at one end and pityriasis lichenoides chronica at the other. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is more common in younger individuals and is characterized by erythematous papules that often crust; these lesions resolve over weeks. The lesions of pityriasis lichenoides chronica are characteristically scaly, pink to red-brown papules that tend to resolve over months.¹

Histologically, PLEVA exhibits parakeratosis, interface dermatitis, and a wedge-shaped infiltrate.¹ Necrotic keratinocytes and extravasated erythrocytes also are common features. Additionally, monoclonal T cells may be present in the infiltrate.¹

Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease (FUMHD) is a rare and severe variant of PLEVA. Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease is characterized by ulceronecrotic lesions, fever, and systemic symptoms.² Herein, we present a case of FUMHD.

A 57-year-old man presented with an eruption of painful lesions involving the face, trunk, arms, legs, and genitalia of 1 month’s duration. The patient denied oral and ocular involvement. He had soreness and swelling of the arms and legs. A prior 12-day course of prednisone prescribed by a community dermatologist failed to improve the rash. A biopsy performed by a community dermatologist was nondiagnostic. The patient denied fever but did report chills. He had no preceding illness and was not taking new medications. On physical examination, the patient was afebrile and normotensive with innumerable deep-seated pustules and crusted ulcerations on the face, palms, soles, trunk, extremities, and penis (Figures 1 and 2). There was a background morbilliform eruption on the trunk. The ocular and oral mucosae were spared. The upper and lower extremities had pitting edema.

The patient’s alanine aminotransaminase and aspartate aminotransaminase levels were elevated at 55 and 51 U/L, respectively. His white blood cell count was within reference range; however, there was an elevated absolute neutrophil count (8.7×10³/μL). No eosinophilia was noted. Laboratory evaluation showed a positive antimitochondrial antibody, and magnetic resonance imaging showed evidence of steatohepatitis. Punch biopsies from both the morbilliform eruption and a deep-seated pustule showed epidermal necrosis, parakeratosis, necrotic keratinocytes, and a lichenoid infiltrate of lymphocytes at the dermoepidermal interface. In the dermis, there was a wedge-shaped superficial and deep, perivascular infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes (Figures 3 and 4). Tissue Gram stain was negative for bacteria. Varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus immunostains were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed colloid bodies, as can be seen in lichenoid dermatitis.

At the next clinic visit, the patient reported a fever of 39.4 °C. After reviewing the patient’s histopathology and clinical picture, along with the presence of fever, a final diagnosis of FUMHD was made. The patient was started on an oral regimen of prednisone 80 mg once daily, minocycline 100 mg twice daily, and methotrexate 15 mg weekly. Unna boots (specialized compression wraps) with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% were placed weekly until the leg edema and ulcerations healed. He was maintained on methotrexate 15 mg weekly and 5 to 10 mg of prednisone once daily. The patient demonstrated residual scarring, with only rare new papulonodules that did not ulcerate when attempts were made to taper his medications. He was followed for nearly 3 years, with a recurrence of symptoms 2 years and 3 months after initial presentation to the academic dermatology clinic.

Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease is a rare and severe variant of PLEVA that can present with the rapid appearance of necrotic skin lesions, fever, and systemic manifestations, including pulmonary, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, cardiac, hematologic, and rheumatologic symptoms.^2-4 The evolution from PLEVA to FUMHD ranges from days to weeks, and patientsrarely can have an initial presentation of FUMHD.² The duration of illness has been reported to be 1 to 24 months⁵; however, the length of illness still remains unclear, as many studies of FUMHD are case reports with limited follow-up. Our patient had a disease duration of at least 27 months. The lesions of FUMHD usually are generalized with flexural prominence, and mucosal involvement occurs in approximately one-quarter of cases. Hypertrophic scarring may be seen after the ulcerated lesions heal.² The incidence of FUMHD is higher in men than in women, and it is more common in younger individuals.^2,6 There have been reported fatalities associated with FUMHD, mostly in adults.^2,4

The clinical differential diagnosis for PLEVA includes disseminated herpes zoster, varicella-zoster virus or coxsackievirus infections, lymphomatoid papulosis, angiodestructive lymphoma such as extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, drug eruption, arthropod bite, erythema multiforme, ecthyma, ecthyma gangrenosum, necrotic folliculitis, and cutaneous small vessel vasculitis. To differentiate between these diagnoses and PLEVA or FUMHD, it is important to take a strong clinical history. For example, for varicella-zoster virus and coxsackievirus infections, exposure history to the viruses and vaccination history for varicella-zoster virus can help elucidate the diagnosis.

Skin biopsy can help differentiate between these entities and PLEVA or FUMHD. The histopathology of a nonulcerated lesion of FUMHD shows parakeratosis, spongiosis, and lymphocyte exocytosis, as well as lymphocytic vasculitis—findings commonly seen in PLEVA. With the ulceronecrotic lesions of FUMHD, epidermal necrosis and ulceration can be seen microscopically.² Although skin biopsy is not absolutely necessary for making the diagnosis of PLEVA, it can be helpful.³ However, given the dramatic and extreme clinical impression with an extensive differential diagnosis that includes disorders ranging from infectious to neoplastic, biopsy of FUMHD with clinicopathologic correlation often is required.

It is important to avoid biopsying ulcerated lesions of FUMHD, as the histopathologic findings are more likely to be nonspecific. Additionally, nonspecific features often are seen with immunohistochemistry; abnormal laboratory testing may be seen in FUMHD, but there is no specific test to diagnose FUMHD.² Finally, a predominantly CD8⁺ cell infiltrate was seen in 4 of 6 cases of FUMHD, with 2 cases showing a mixed infiltrate of CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ cells.^5,7-10

Although no unified diagnostic criterion exists for FUMHD, Nofal et al² proposed criteria comprised of constant features, which are found in every case of FUMHD and can confirm the diagnosis alone, and variable features to help ensure that cases of FUMHD are not missed. The constant features include fever, acute onset of generalized ulceronecrotic papules and plaques, a course that is rapid and progressive (without a tendency for spontaneous resolution), and histopathology that is consistent with PLEVA. The variable features include history of PLEVA, involvement of mucous membranes, and systemic involvement.²

No single unifying treatment modality for all cases of FUMHD has been described. Immunosuppressive drugs (eg, systemic steroids, methotrexate), antibiotics, antivirals, phototherapy, intravenous immunoglobulin, and dapsone have been tried in patients with FUMHD.² Combination therapy with an oral medication such as erythromycin or methotrexate and psoralen plus UVA may be effective for FUMHD.³ Additionally, some authors believe that patients with FUMHD should be treated similar to burn victims with intensive supportive care.²

The etiology of PLEVA is unknown, but it is presumed to be associated with an effector cytotoxic T-cell response to either an infectious agent or a drug.¹¹Three studies have shown that most PLEVA cases (100% [3/3]; 65% [13/20]; and 57% [8/14]) demonstrate T-cell clonality,^12-14 and some have suggested that PLEVA may be a T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder.^12,13 Additionally, in a case report of 2 children with PLEVA who progressed to cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the authors suggested that PLEVA may be related to nonaggressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.¹⁵ Of note, T-cell clonality, often found through the analysis of T-cell receptor gene rearrangement, is not an absolute criterion for determining malignancy, as some benign conditions may have clonality.¹⁶ However, in another study, clonality was found in only 1 of 10 cases of PLEVA, suggesting that PLEVA stems from an inflammatory reaction to infectious or other triggering agents.¹⁷

Four cases of FUMHD with monoclonality have been reported,^4,7,8 and some researchers propose that FUMHD may be a subset of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.⁷ However, 2 other cases of FUMHD did not show monoclonality of T cells,^5,18 suggesting that FUMHD may represent an inflammatory disorder, rather than a lymphoproliferative process of T cells.¹⁸ Given the controversy surrounding the clonality of FUMHD, T-cell gene rearrangement studies were not performed in our case.

To the Editor:

Pityriasis lichenoides is a papulosquamous dermatologic disorder that is characterized by recurrent papules.¹ There is a spectrum of disease in pityriasis lichenoides that includes pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA) at one end and pityriasis lichenoides chronica at the other. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is more common in younger individuals and is characterized by erythematous papules that often crust; these lesions resolve over weeks. The lesions of pityriasis lichenoides chronica are characteristically scaly, pink to red-brown papules that tend to resolve over months.¹

Histologically, PLEVA exhibits parakeratosis, interface dermatitis, and a wedge-shaped infiltrate.¹ Necrotic keratinocytes and extravasated erythrocytes also are common features. Additionally, monoclonal T cells may be present in the infiltrate.¹

Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease (FUMHD) is a rare and severe variant of PLEVA. Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease is characterized by ulceronecrotic lesions, fever, and systemic symptoms.² Herein, we present a case of FUMHD.

A 57-year-old man presented with an eruption of painful lesions involving the face, trunk, arms, legs, and genitalia of 1 month’s duration. The patient denied oral and ocular involvement. He had soreness and swelling of the arms and legs. A prior 12-day course of prednisone prescribed by a community dermatologist failed to improve the rash. A biopsy performed by a community dermatologist was nondiagnostic. The patient denied fever but did report chills. He had no preceding illness and was not taking new medications. On physical examination, the patient was afebrile and normotensive with innumerable deep-seated pustules and crusted ulcerations on the face, palms, soles, trunk, extremities, and penis (Figures 1 and 2). There was a background morbilliform eruption on the trunk. The ocular and oral mucosae were spared. The upper and lower extremities had pitting edema.

The patient’s alanine aminotransaminase and aspartate aminotransaminase levels were elevated at 55 and 51 U/L, respectively. His white blood cell count was within reference range; however, there was an elevated absolute neutrophil count (8.7×10³/μL). No eosinophilia was noted. Laboratory evaluation showed a positive antimitochondrial antibody, and magnetic resonance imaging showed evidence of steatohepatitis. Punch biopsies from both the morbilliform eruption and a deep-seated pustule showed epidermal necrosis, parakeratosis, necrotic keratinocytes, and a lichenoid infiltrate of lymphocytes at the dermoepidermal interface. In the dermis, there was a wedge-shaped superficial and deep, perivascular infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes (Figures 3 and 4). Tissue Gram stain was negative for bacteria. Varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus immunostains were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed colloid bodies, as can be seen in lichenoid dermatitis.

At the next clinic visit, the patient reported a fever of 39.4 °C. After reviewing the patient’s histopathology and clinical picture, along with the presence of fever, a final diagnosis of FUMHD was made. The patient was started on an oral regimen of prednisone 80 mg once daily, minocycline 100 mg twice daily, and methotrexate 15 mg weekly. Unna boots (specialized compression wraps) with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% were placed weekly until the leg edema and ulcerations healed. He was maintained on methotrexate 15 mg weekly and 5 to 10 mg of prednisone once daily. The patient demonstrated residual scarring, with only rare new papulonodules that did not ulcerate when attempts were made to taper his medications. He was followed for nearly 3 years, with a recurrence of symptoms 2 years and 3 months after initial presentation to the academic dermatology clinic.

Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease is a rare and severe variant of PLEVA that can present with the rapid appearance of necrotic skin lesions, fever, and systemic manifestations, including pulmonary, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, cardiac, hematologic, and rheumatologic symptoms.^2-4 The evolution from PLEVA to FUMHD ranges from days to weeks, and patientsrarely can have an initial presentation of FUMHD.² The duration of illness has been reported to be 1 to 24 months⁵; however, the length of illness still remains unclear, as many studies of FUMHD are case reports with limited follow-up. Our patient had a disease duration of at least 27 months. The lesions of FUMHD usually are generalized with flexural prominence, and mucosal involvement occurs in approximately one-quarter of cases. Hypertrophic scarring may be seen after the ulcerated lesions heal.² The incidence of FUMHD is higher in men than in women, and it is more common in younger individuals.^2,6 There have been reported fatalities associated with FUMHD, mostly in adults.^2,4

The clinical differential diagnosis for PLEVA includes disseminated herpes zoster, varicella-zoster virus or coxsackievirus infections, lymphomatoid papulosis, angiodestructive lymphoma such as extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, drug eruption, arthropod bite, erythema multiforme, ecthyma, ecthyma gangrenosum, necrotic folliculitis, and cutaneous small vessel vasculitis. To differentiate between these diagnoses and PLEVA or FUMHD, it is important to take a strong clinical history. For example, for varicella-zoster virus and coxsackievirus infections, exposure history to the viruses and vaccination history for varicella-zoster virus can help elucidate the diagnosis.

Skin biopsy can help differentiate between these entities and PLEVA or FUMHD. The histopathology of a nonulcerated lesion of FUMHD shows parakeratosis, spongiosis, and lymphocyte exocytosis, as well as lymphocytic vasculitis—findings commonly seen in PLEVA. With the ulceronecrotic lesions of FUMHD, epidermal necrosis and ulceration can be seen microscopically.² Although skin biopsy is not absolutely necessary for making the diagnosis of PLEVA, it can be helpful.³ However, given the dramatic and extreme clinical impression with an extensive differential diagnosis that includes disorders ranging from infectious to neoplastic, biopsy of FUMHD with clinicopathologic correlation often is required.

It is important to avoid biopsying ulcerated lesions of FUMHD, as the histopathologic findings are more likely to be nonspecific. Additionally, nonspecific features often are seen with immunohistochemistry; abnormal laboratory testing may be seen in FUMHD, but there is no specific test to diagnose FUMHD.² Finally, a predominantly CD8⁺ cell infiltrate was seen in 4 of 6 cases of FUMHD, with 2 cases showing a mixed infiltrate of CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ cells.^5,7-10

Although no unified diagnostic criterion exists for FUMHD, Nofal et al² proposed criteria comprised of constant features, which are found in every case of FUMHD and can confirm the diagnosis alone, and variable features to help ensure that cases of FUMHD are not missed. The constant features include fever, acute onset of generalized ulceronecrotic papules and plaques, a course that is rapid and progressive (without a tendency for spontaneous resolution), and histopathology that is consistent with PLEVA. The variable features include history of PLEVA, involvement of mucous membranes, and systemic involvement.²

No single unifying treatment modality for all cases of FUMHD has been described. Immunosuppressive drugs (eg, systemic steroids, methotrexate), antibiotics, antivirals, phototherapy, intravenous immunoglobulin, and dapsone have been tried in patients with FUMHD.² Combination therapy with an oral medication such as erythromycin or methotrexate and psoralen plus UVA may be effective for FUMHD.³ Additionally, some authors believe that patients with FUMHD should be treated similar to burn victims with intensive supportive care.²

The etiology of PLEVA is unknown, but it is presumed to be associated with an effector cytotoxic T-cell response to either an infectious agent or a drug.¹¹Three studies have shown that most PLEVA cases (100% [3/3]; 65% [13/20]; and 57% [8/14]) demonstrate T-cell clonality,^12-14 and some have suggested that PLEVA may be a T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder.^12,13 Additionally, in a case report of 2 children with PLEVA who progressed to cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the authors suggested that PLEVA may be related to nonaggressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.¹⁵ Of note, T-cell clonality, often found through the analysis of T-cell receptor gene rearrangement, is not an absolute criterion for determining malignancy, as some benign conditions may have clonality.¹⁶ However, in another study, clonality was found in only 1 of 10 cases of PLEVA, suggesting that PLEVA stems from an inflammatory reaction to infectious or other triggering agents.¹⁷

Four cases of FUMHD with monoclonality have been reported,^4,7,8 and some researchers propose that FUMHD may be a subset of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.⁷ However, 2 other cases of FUMHD did not show monoclonality of T cells,^5,18 suggesting that FUMHD may represent an inflammatory disorder, rather than a lymphoproliferative process of T cells.¹⁸ Given the controversy surrounding the clonality of FUMHD, T-cell gene rearrangement studies were not performed in our case.

To the Editor:

Pityriasis lichenoides is a papulosquamous dermatologic disorder that is characterized by recurrent papules.¹ There is a spectrum of disease in pityriasis lichenoides that includes pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA) at one end and pityriasis lichenoides chronica at the other. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is more common in younger individuals and is characterized by erythematous papules that often crust; these lesions resolve over weeks. The lesions of pityriasis lichenoides chronica are characteristically scaly, pink to red-brown papules that tend to resolve over months.¹

Histologically, PLEVA exhibits parakeratosis, interface dermatitis, and a wedge-shaped infiltrate.¹ Necrotic keratinocytes and extravasated erythrocytes also are common features. Additionally, monoclonal T cells may be present in the infiltrate.¹

Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease (FUMHD) is a rare and severe variant of PLEVA. Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease is characterized by ulceronecrotic lesions, fever, and systemic symptoms.² Herein, we present a case of FUMHD.

A 57-year-old man presented with an eruption of painful lesions involving the face, trunk, arms, legs, and genitalia of 1 month’s duration. The patient denied oral and ocular involvement. He had soreness and swelling of the arms and legs. A prior 12-day course of prednisone prescribed by a community dermatologist failed to improve the rash. A biopsy performed by a community dermatologist was nondiagnostic. The patient denied fever but did report chills. He had no preceding illness and was not taking new medications. On physical examination, the patient was afebrile and normotensive with innumerable deep-seated pustules and crusted ulcerations on the face, palms, soles, trunk, extremities, and penis (Figures 1 and 2). There was a background morbilliform eruption on the trunk. The ocular and oral mucosae were spared. The upper and lower extremities had pitting edema.

The patient’s alanine aminotransaminase and aspartate aminotransaminase levels were elevated at 55 and 51 U/L, respectively. His white blood cell count was within reference range; however, there was an elevated absolute neutrophil count (8.7×10³/μL). No eosinophilia was noted. Laboratory evaluation showed a positive antimitochondrial antibody, and magnetic resonance imaging showed evidence of steatohepatitis. Punch biopsies from both the morbilliform eruption and a deep-seated pustule showed epidermal necrosis, parakeratosis, necrotic keratinocytes, and a lichenoid infiltrate of lymphocytes at the dermoepidermal interface. In the dermis, there was a wedge-shaped superficial and deep, perivascular infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes (Figures 3 and 4). Tissue Gram stain was negative for bacteria. Varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus immunostains were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed colloid bodies, as can be seen in lichenoid dermatitis.

At the next clinic visit, the patient reported a fever of 39.4 °C. After reviewing the patient’s histopathology and clinical picture, along with the presence of fever, a final diagnosis of FUMHD was made. The patient was started on an oral regimen of prednisone 80 mg once daily, minocycline 100 mg twice daily, and methotrexate 15 mg weekly. Unna boots (specialized compression wraps) with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% were placed weekly until the leg edema and ulcerations healed. He was maintained on methotrexate 15 mg weekly and 5 to 10 mg of prednisone once daily. The patient demonstrated residual scarring, with only rare new papulonodules that did not ulcerate when attempts were made to taper his medications. He was followed for nearly 3 years, with a recurrence of symptoms 2 years and 3 months after initial presentation to the academic dermatology clinic.

Febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease is a rare and severe variant of PLEVA that can present with the rapid appearance of necrotic skin lesions, fever, and systemic manifestations, including pulmonary, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, cardiac, hematologic, and rheumatologic symptoms.^2-4 The evolution from PLEVA to FUMHD ranges from days to weeks, and patientsrarely can have an initial presentation of FUMHD.² The duration of illness has been reported to be 1 to 24 months⁵; however, the length of illness still remains unclear, as many studies of FUMHD are case reports with limited follow-up. Our patient had a disease duration of at least 27 months. The lesions of FUMHD usually are generalized with flexural prominence, and mucosal involvement occurs in approximately one-quarter of cases. Hypertrophic scarring may be seen after the ulcerated lesions heal.² The incidence of FUMHD is higher in men than in women, and it is more common in younger individuals.^2,6 There have been reported fatalities associated with FUMHD, mostly in adults.^2,4

The clinical differential diagnosis for PLEVA includes disseminated herpes zoster, varicella-zoster virus or coxsackievirus infections, lymphomatoid papulosis, angiodestructive lymphoma such as extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, drug eruption, arthropod bite, erythema multiforme, ecthyma, ecthyma gangrenosum, necrotic folliculitis, and cutaneous small vessel vasculitis. To differentiate between these diagnoses and PLEVA or FUMHD, it is important to take a strong clinical history. For example, for varicella-zoster virus and coxsackievirus infections, exposure history to the viruses and vaccination history for varicella-zoster virus can help elucidate the diagnosis.

Skin biopsy can help differentiate between these entities and PLEVA or FUMHD. The histopathology of a nonulcerated lesion of FUMHD shows parakeratosis, spongiosis, and lymphocyte exocytosis, as well as lymphocytic vasculitis—findings commonly seen in PLEVA. With the ulceronecrotic lesions of FUMHD, epidermal necrosis and ulceration can be seen microscopically.² Although skin biopsy is not absolutely necessary for making the diagnosis of PLEVA, it can be helpful.³ However, given the dramatic and extreme clinical impression with an extensive differential diagnosis that includes disorders ranging from infectious to neoplastic, biopsy of FUMHD with clinicopathologic correlation often is required.

It is important to avoid biopsying ulcerated lesions of FUMHD, as the histopathologic findings are more likely to be nonspecific. Additionally, nonspecific features often are seen with immunohistochemistry; abnormal laboratory testing may be seen in FUMHD, but there is no specific test to diagnose FUMHD.² Finally, a predominantly CD8⁺ cell infiltrate was seen in 4 of 6 cases of FUMHD, with 2 cases showing a mixed infiltrate of CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ cells.^5,7-10

Although no unified diagnostic criterion exists for FUMHD, Nofal et al² proposed criteria comprised of constant features, which are found in every case of FUMHD and can confirm the diagnosis alone, and variable features to help ensure that cases of FUMHD are not missed. The constant features include fever, acute onset of generalized ulceronecrotic papules and plaques, a course that is rapid and progressive (without a tendency for spontaneous resolution), and histopathology that is consistent with PLEVA. The variable features include history of PLEVA, involvement of mucous membranes, and systemic involvement.²

No single unifying treatment modality for all cases of FUMHD has been described. Immunosuppressive drugs (eg, systemic steroids, methotrexate), antibiotics, antivirals, phototherapy, intravenous immunoglobulin, and dapsone have been tried in patients with FUMHD.² Combination therapy with an oral medication such as erythromycin or methotrexate and psoralen plus UVA may be effective for FUMHD.³ Additionally, some authors believe that patients with FUMHD should be treated similar to burn victims with intensive supportive care.²

The etiology of PLEVA is unknown, but it is presumed to be associated with an effector cytotoxic T-cell response to either an infectious agent or a drug.¹¹Three studies have shown that most PLEVA cases (100% [3/3]; 65% [13/20]; and 57% [8/14]) demonstrate T-cell clonality,^12-14 and some have suggested that PLEVA may be a T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder.^12,13 Additionally, in a case report of 2 children with PLEVA who progressed to cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the authors suggested that PLEVA may be related to nonaggressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.¹⁵ Of note, T-cell clonality, often found through the analysis of T-cell receptor gene rearrangement, is not an absolute criterion for determining malignancy, as some benign conditions may have clonality.¹⁶ However, in another study, clonality was found in only 1 of 10 cases of PLEVA, suggesting that PLEVA stems from an inflammatory reaction to infectious or other triggering agents.¹⁷

Four cases of FUMHD with monoclonality have been reported,^4,7,8 and some researchers propose that FUMHD may be a subset of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.⁷ However, 2 other cases of FUMHD did not show monoclonality of T cells,^5,18 suggesting that FUMHD may represent an inflammatory disorder, rather than a lymphoproliferative process of T cells.¹⁸ Given the controversy surrounding the clonality of FUMHD, T-cell gene rearrangement studies were not performed in our case.

To the Editor:

Blastomycosislike pyoderma (BLP), also commonly referred to as pyoderma vegetans, is a rare cutaneous bacterial infection that often mimics other fungal, inflammatory, or neoplastic disorders.¹ It is characterized by a collection of neutrophilic abscesses with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia that coalesce into crusted plaques.

A 15-year-old adolescent girl with a history of type 1 diabetes mellitus was admitted for diabetic ketoacidosis. The patient presented with bilateral pretibial lesions of 6 years’ duration that developed after swimming in a pool following reported trauma to the site. These pruritic plaques had grown slowly and were occasionally tender. Of note, with episodes of hyperglycemia, the lesions developed purulent drainage.

Upon admission to the hospital and subsequent dermatology consultation, physical examination revealed the right pretibial shin had a 15×5-cm, gray-brown, hyperpigmented, verrucous, tender plaque with purulent drainage and overlying crust (Figure 1). The left pretibial shin had a similar smaller lesion (Figure 2). Laboratory test results were notable for a white blood cell count of 41.84 cells/µL (reference range, 3.8–10.5 cells/µL), blood glucose level of 586 mg/dL (reference range, 70–99 mg/dL), and hemoglobin A_1c of 11.7% (reference range, 4.0%–5.6%). A biopsy specimen from the right pretibial shin was stained with hematoxylin and eosin for dermatopathologic evaluation as well as sent for tissue culture. Tissue and wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and group B Streptococcus with no fungal or acid-fast bacilli growth.

To the Editor:

Blastomycosislike pyoderma (BLP), also commonly referred to as pyoderma vegetans, is a rare cutaneous bacterial infection that often mimics other fungal, inflammatory, or neoplastic disorders.¹ It is characterized by a collection of neutrophilic abscesses with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia that coalesce into crusted plaques.

A 15-year-old adolescent girl with a history of type 1 diabetes mellitus was admitted for diabetic ketoacidosis. The patient presented with bilateral pretibial lesions of 6 years’ duration that developed after swimming in a pool following reported trauma to the site. These pruritic plaques had grown slowly and were occasionally tender. Of note, with episodes of hyperglycemia, the lesions developed purulent drainage.

Upon admission to the hospital and subsequent dermatology consultation, physical examination revealed the right pretibial shin had a 15×5-cm, gray-brown, hyperpigmented, verrucous, tender plaque with purulent drainage and overlying crust (Figure 1). The left pretibial shin had a similar smaller lesion (Figure 2). Laboratory test results were notable for a white blood cell count of 41.84 cells/µL (reference range, 3.8–10.5 cells/µL), blood glucose level of 586 mg/dL (reference range, 70–99 mg/dL), and hemoglobin A_1c of 11.7% (reference range, 4.0%–5.6%). A biopsy specimen from the right pretibial shin was stained with hematoxylin and eosin for dermatopathologic evaluation as well as sent for tissue culture. Tissue and wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and group B Streptococcus with no fungal or acid-fast bacilli growth.

To the Editor:

Blastomycosislike pyoderma (BLP), also commonly referred to as pyoderma vegetans, is a rare cutaneous bacterial infection that often mimics other fungal, inflammatory, or neoplastic disorders.¹ It is characterized by a collection of neutrophilic abscesses with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia that coalesce into crusted plaques.

A 15-year-old adolescent girl with a history of type 1 diabetes mellitus was admitted for diabetic ketoacidosis. The patient presented with bilateral pretibial lesions of 6 years’ duration that developed after swimming in a pool following reported trauma to the site. These pruritic plaques had grown slowly and were occasionally tender. Of note, with episodes of hyperglycemia, the lesions developed purulent drainage.

Upon admission to the hospital and subsequent dermatology consultation, physical examination revealed the right pretibial shin had a 15×5-cm, gray-brown, hyperpigmented, verrucous, tender plaque with purulent drainage and overlying crust (Figure 1). The left pretibial shin had a similar smaller lesion (Figure 2). Laboratory test results were notable for a white blood cell count of 41.84 cells/µL (reference range, 3.8–10.5 cells/µL), blood glucose level of 586 mg/dL (reference range, 70–99 mg/dL), and hemoglobin A_1c of 11.7% (reference range, 4.0%–5.6%). A biopsy specimen from the right pretibial shin was stained with hematoxylin and eosin for dermatopathologic evaluation as well as sent for tissue culture. Tissue and wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and group B Streptococcus with no fungal or acid-fast bacilli growth.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old pregnant woman at 5 weeks’ gestation was transferred to dermatology from an outside hospital with a full-body rash. Three days after noting a fever and generalized body aches, she developed a painful rash on the legs that had gradually spread to the arms, trunk, and face. Symptoms of eyelid pruritus and edema initially were improved with intravenous (IV) steroids at an emergency department visit, but they started to flare soon thereafter with worsening mucosal involvement and dysphagia. After a second visit to the emergency department and repeat treatment with IV steroids, she was transferred to our institution for a higher level of care.

The patient denied taking any new medications in the 2 months prior to the onset of the rash. Her medication history only consisted of over-the-counter prenatal vitamins, a single use of over-the-counter migraine medication (containing acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine as active ingredients), and a possible use of ibuprofen or acetaminophen separately. She reported ocular discomfort and blurriness, dysphagia, dysuria, and vaginal discomfort. Physical examination revealed dusky red to violaceous macules and patches that involved approximately 65% of the body surface area (BSA), with bullae involving approximately 10% BSA. The face was diffusely red and edematous with crusted erosions and scattered bullae on the cheeks. Mucosal involvement was notable for injected conjunctivae and erosions present on the upper hard palate of the mouth and lips (Figure, A). Erythematous macules with dusky centers coalescing into patches with overlying vesicles and bullae were scattered on the arms (Figure, B), hands, trunk (Figure, C), and legs. The Nikolsky sign was positive. The vulva was swollen and covered with erythematous macules with dusky centers.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old pregnant woman at 5 weeks’ gestation was transferred to dermatology from an outside hospital with a full-body rash. Three days after noting a fever and generalized body aches, she developed a painful rash on the legs that had gradually spread to the arms, trunk, and face. Symptoms of eyelid pruritus and edema initially were improved with intravenous (IV) steroids at an emergency department visit, but they started to flare soon thereafter with worsening mucosal involvement and dysphagia. After a second visit to the emergency department and repeat treatment with IV steroids, she was transferred to our institution for a higher level of care.

The patient denied taking any new medications in the 2 months prior to the onset of the rash. Her medication history only consisted of over-the-counter prenatal vitamins, a single use of over-the-counter migraine medication (containing acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine as active ingredients), and a possible use of ibuprofen or acetaminophen separately. She reported ocular discomfort and blurriness, dysphagia, dysuria, and vaginal discomfort. Physical examination revealed dusky red to violaceous macules and patches that involved approximately 65% of the body surface area (BSA), with bullae involving approximately 10% BSA. The face was diffusely red and edematous with crusted erosions and scattered bullae on the cheeks. Mucosal involvement was notable for injected conjunctivae and erosions present on the upper hard palate of the mouth and lips (Figure, A). Erythematous macules with dusky centers coalescing into patches with overlying vesicles and bullae were scattered on the arms (Figure, B), hands, trunk (Figure, C), and legs. The Nikolsky sign was positive. The vulva was swollen and covered with erythematous macules with dusky centers.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old pregnant woman at 5 weeks’ gestation was transferred to dermatology from an outside hospital with a full-body rash. Three days after noting a fever and generalized body aches, she developed a painful rash on the legs that had gradually spread to the arms, trunk, and face. Symptoms of eyelid pruritus and edema initially were improved with intravenous (IV) steroids at an emergency department visit, but they started to flare soon thereafter with worsening mucosal involvement and dysphagia. After a second visit to the emergency department and repeat treatment with IV steroids, she was transferred to our institution for a higher level of care.

The patient denied taking any new medications in the 2 months prior to the onset of the rash. Her medication history only consisted of over-the-counter prenatal vitamins, a single use of over-the-counter migraine medication (containing acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine as active ingredients), and a possible use of ibuprofen or acetaminophen separately. She reported ocular discomfort and blurriness, dysphagia, dysuria, and vaginal discomfort. Physical examination revealed dusky red to violaceous macules and patches that involved approximately 65% of the body surface area (BSA), with bullae involving approximately 10% BSA. The face was diffusely red and edematous with crusted erosions and scattered bullae on the cheeks. Mucosal involvement was notable for injected conjunctivae and erosions present on the upper hard palate of the mouth and lips (Figure, A). Erythematous macules with dusky centers coalescing into patches with overlying vesicles and bullae were scattered on the arms (Figure, B), hands, trunk (Figure, C), and legs. The Nikolsky sign was positive. The vulva was swollen and covered with erythematous macules with dusky centers.

To the Editor:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an idiopathic inflammatory myopathy characterized by bilateral, symmetrical, proximal muscle weakness and classic cutaneous manifestations.¹ Patients with antibodies directed against melanoma differentiation–associated gene 5, MDA5, have a distinct presentation due to vasculopathy with more severe cutaneous ulcerations, palmar papules, alopecia, and an elevated risk of rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease.² A ferritin level greater than 1600 ng/mL portends an increased risk for pulmonary disease and therefore can be of prognostic value.³ Further, patients with anti-MDA5 DM are at a lower risk of malignancy and are more likely to test negative for antinuclear antibodies in comparison to other patients with DM.^2,4

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), also known as hemophagocytic syndrome, is a potentially lethal condition whereby uncontrolled activation of histiocytes in the reticuloendothelial system causes hemophagocytosis and a hyperinflammatory state. Patients present with fever, splenomegaly, cytopenia, and hyperferritinemia.⁵ Autoimmune‐associated hemophagocytic syndrome (AAHS) describes HLH that develops in association with autoimmune conditions, most commonly systemic lupus erythematosus and adult-onset Still disease. Cases reported in association with DM exist but are few in number, and there is no standard-of-care treatment.⁶ We report a case of a woman with anti-MDA5 DM complicated by HLH and DM-associated liver injury.

A 50-year-old woman presented as a direct admit from the rheumatology clinic for diffuse muscle weakness of 8 months’ duration, 40-pound unintentional weight loss, pruritic rash, bilateral joint pains, dry eyes, dry mouth, and altered mental status. Four months prior, she presented to an outside hospital and was given a diagnosis of probable Sjögren syndrome and autoimmune hepatitis vs drug-induced liver injury. At that time, a workup was notable for antibodies against Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A, anti–smooth muscle antibodies, and transaminitis. Ultrasonography of the right upper quadrant revealed hepatic steatosis. The patient was started on oral prednisone and pilocarpine but had been off all medications for 1 month when she presented to our hospital.

On hospital admission, physical examination revealed a violaceous heliotrope rash; a v-sign on the chest; shawl sign; palmar papules with pits at the fingertips; and periungual erythema and ulcerations along the metacarpophalangeal joints, elbows, lateral feet, and upper eyelids (Figure 1). Laboratory workup showed the following results: white blood cell count, 4100/μL (reference range, 4000–11,000/μL); hemoglobin, 11.6 g/dL (reference range, 12–16 g/dL); platelet count, 100,000/μL (reference range, 150,000–450,000/μL); lactate dehydrogenase, 510 U/L (reference range, 80–225 U/L); alkaline phosphatase (ALP), 766 U/L (reference range, 30–120 U/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 88 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L); aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 544 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L); total bilirubin, 4.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.3–1.0 mg/dL); direct bilirubin, 3.7 mg/dL (reference range, 0.1–0.3 mg/dL); aldolase, 20.2 U/L (reference range, 1–7.5 U/L), creatine kinase, 180 U/L (reference range, 30–135 U/L); γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), 2743 U/L (reference range, 8–40 U/L); high sensitivity C-reactive protein, 122.9 mg/L (low-risk reference range, <1.0 mg/L); triglycerides, 534 mg/dL (reference range, <150 mg/dL); ferritin, 3784 ng/mL (reference range, 24–307 ng/mL); antinuclear antibody, negative titer; antimitochondrial antibody, negative titer; soluble IL-2 receptor (CD25), 7000 U/mL (reference range, 189–846 U/mL); anti-Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, positive.

To the Editor:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an idiopathic inflammatory myopathy characterized by bilateral, symmetrical, proximal muscle weakness and classic cutaneous manifestations.¹ Patients with antibodies directed against melanoma differentiation–associated gene 5, MDA5, have a distinct presentation due to vasculopathy with more severe cutaneous ulcerations, palmar papules, alopecia, and an elevated risk of rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease.² A ferritin level greater than 1600 ng/mL portends an increased risk for pulmonary disease and therefore can be of prognostic value.³ Further, patients with anti-MDA5 DM are at a lower risk of malignancy and are more likely to test negative for antinuclear antibodies in comparison to other patients with DM.^2,4

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), also known as hemophagocytic syndrome, is a potentially lethal condition whereby uncontrolled activation of histiocytes in the reticuloendothelial system causes hemophagocytosis and a hyperinflammatory state. Patients present with fever, splenomegaly, cytopenia, and hyperferritinemia.⁵ Autoimmune‐associated hemophagocytic syndrome (AAHS) describes HLH that develops in association with autoimmune conditions, most commonly systemic lupus erythematosus and adult-onset Still disease. Cases reported in association with DM exist but are few in number, and there is no standard-of-care treatment.⁶ We report a case of a woman with anti-MDA5 DM complicated by HLH and DM-associated liver injury.

A 50-year-old woman presented as a direct admit from the rheumatology clinic for diffuse muscle weakness of 8 months’ duration, 40-pound unintentional weight loss, pruritic rash, bilateral joint pains, dry eyes, dry mouth, and altered mental status. Four months prior, she presented to an outside hospital and was given a diagnosis of probable Sjögren syndrome and autoimmune hepatitis vs drug-induced liver injury. At that time, a workup was notable for antibodies against Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A, anti–smooth muscle antibodies, and transaminitis. Ultrasonography of the right upper quadrant revealed hepatic steatosis. The patient was started on oral prednisone and pilocarpine but had been off all medications for 1 month when she presented to our hospital.

On hospital admission, physical examination revealed a violaceous heliotrope rash; a v-sign on the chest; shawl sign; palmar papules with pits at the fingertips; and periungual erythema and ulcerations along the metacarpophalangeal joints, elbows, lateral feet, and upper eyelids (Figure 1). Laboratory workup showed the following results: white blood cell count, 4100/μL (reference range, 4000–11,000/μL); hemoglobin, 11.6 g/dL (reference range, 12–16 g/dL); platelet count, 100,000/μL (reference range, 150,000–450,000/μL); lactate dehydrogenase, 510 U/L (reference range, 80–225 U/L); alkaline phosphatase (ALP), 766 U/L (reference range, 30–120 U/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 88 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L); aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 544 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L); total bilirubin, 4.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.3–1.0 mg/dL); direct bilirubin, 3.7 mg/dL (reference range, 0.1–0.3 mg/dL); aldolase, 20.2 U/L (reference range, 1–7.5 U/L), creatine kinase, 180 U/L (reference range, 30–135 U/L); γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), 2743 U/L (reference range, 8–40 U/L); high sensitivity C-reactive protein, 122.9 mg/L (low-risk reference range, <1.0 mg/L); triglycerides, 534 mg/dL (reference range, <150 mg/dL); ferritin, 3784 ng/mL (reference range, 24–307 ng/mL); antinuclear antibody, negative titer; antimitochondrial antibody, negative titer; soluble IL-2 receptor (CD25), 7000 U/mL (reference range, 189–846 U/mL); anti-Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, positive.

To the Editor:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an idiopathic inflammatory myopathy characterized by bilateral, symmetrical, proximal muscle weakness and classic cutaneous manifestations.¹ Patients with antibodies directed against melanoma differentiation–associated gene 5, MDA5, have a distinct presentation due to vasculopathy with more severe cutaneous ulcerations, palmar papules, alopecia, and an elevated risk of rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease.² A ferritin level greater than 1600 ng/mL portends an increased risk for pulmonary disease and therefore can be of prognostic value.³ Further, patients with anti-MDA5 DM are at a lower risk of malignancy and are more likely to test negative for antinuclear antibodies in comparison to other patients with DM.^2,4

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), also known as hemophagocytic syndrome, is a potentially lethal condition whereby uncontrolled activation of histiocytes in the reticuloendothelial system causes hemophagocytosis and a hyperinflammatory state. Patients present with fever, splenomegaly, cytopenia, and hyperferritinemia.⁵ Autoimmune‐associated hemophagocytic syndrome (AAHS) describes HLH that develops in association with autoimmune conditions, most commonly systemic lupus erythematosus and adult-onset Still disease. Cases reported in association with DM exist but are few in number, and there is no standard-of-care treatment.⁶ We report a case of a woman with anti-MDA5 DM complicated by HLH and DM-associated liver injury.

A 50-year-old woman presented as a direct admit from the rheumatology clinic for diffuse muscle weakness of 8 months’ duration, 40-pound unintentional weight loss, pruritic rash, bilateral joint pains, dry eyes, dry mouth, and altered mental status. Four months prior, she presented to an outside hospital and was given a diagnosis of probable Sjögren syndrome and autoimmune hepatitis vs drug-induced liver injury. At that time, a workup was notable for antibodies against Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A, anti–smooth muscle antibodies, and transaminitis. Ultrasonography of the right upper quadrant revealed hepatic steatosis. The patient was started on oral prednisone and pilocarpine but had been off all medications for 1 month when she presented to our hospital.

On hospital admission, physical examination revealed a violaceous heliotrope rash; a v-sign on the chest; shawl sign; palmar papules with pits at the fingertips; and periungual erythema and ulcerations along the metacarpophalangeal joints, elbows, lateral feet, and upper eyelids (Figure 1). Laboratory workup showed the following results: white blood cell count, 4100/μL (reference range, 4000–11,000/μL); hemoglobin, 11.6 g/dL (reference range, 12–16 g/dL); platelet count, 100,000/μL (reference range, 150,000–450,000/μL); lactate dehydrogenase, 510 U/L (reference range, 80–225 U/L); alkaline phosphatase (ALP), 766 U/L (reference range, 30–120 U/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 88 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L); aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 544 U/L (reference range, 10–40 U/L); total bilirubin, 4.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.3–1.0 mg/dL); direct bilirubin, 3.7 mg/dL (reference range, 0.1–0.3 mg/dL); aldolase, 20.2 U/L (reference range, 1–7.5 U/L), creatine kinase, 180 U/L (reference range, 30–135 U/L); γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), 2743 U/L (reference range, 8–40 U/L); high sensitivity C-reactive protein, 122.9 mg/L (low-risk reference range, <1.0 mg/L); triglycerides, 534 mg/dL (reference range, <150 mg/dL); ferritin, 3784 ng/mL (reference range, 24–307 ng/mL); antinuclear antibody, negative titer; antimitochondrial antibody, negative titer; soluble IL-2 receptor (CD25), 7000 U/mL (reference range, 189–846 U/mL); anti-Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, positive.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, or drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, is a serious and potentially fatal multiorgan drug hypersensitivity reaction. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome shares many clinical features with viral exanthems and may be difficult to diagnose in the setting of atopic dermatitis (AD) in which children may have baseline eosinophilia from an atopic diathesis. The cutaneous exanthema also may be variable in presentation, further complicating diagnosis.^1,2

A 3-year-old boy with AD since infancy and a history of anaphylaxis to peanuts presented to the emergency department with reported fever, rash, sore throat, and decreased oral intake. Ten days prior, the patient was treated for cellulitis of the left foot with a 7-day course of cefdinir with complete resolution of symptoms. Four days prior to admission, the patient started developing “bumps” on the face and fevers. He was seen at an outside facility, where a rapid test for Streptococcus was negative, and the patient was treated with ibuprofen and fluids for a presumed viral exanthem. The rash subsequently spread to involve the trunk and extremities. On the day of admission, the patient had a positive rapid test for Streptococcus and was referred to the emergency department with concern for superinfected eczema and eczema herpeticum. The patient recently traveled to Puerto Rico, where he had contact with an aunt with active herpes zoster but no other sick contacts. The patient’s immunizations were reported to be up-to-date.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile but irritable and had erythematous crusted papules and patches on the face, arms, and legs, as well as erythematous dry patches on the chest, abdomen, and back (Figure). There were no conjunctival erythematous or oral erosions. The patient was admitted to the hospital for presumed superinfected AD and possible eczema herpeticum. He was started on intravenous clindamycin and acyclovir.

The following day, the patient had new facial edema and fever (temperature, 102.8 °F [39.36 °C]) in addition to palpable mobile cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymphadenopathy. He also was noted to have notably worsening eosinophilia from 1288 (14%) to 2570 (29.2%) cells/µL (reference range, 0%–5%) and new-onset transaminitis. Herpes and varicella-zoster direct fluorescent antibody tests, culture, and serum polymerase chain reaction were all negative, and acyclovir was discontinued. Repeat laboratory tests 12 hours later showed a continued uptrend in transaminitis. Serologies for acute and chronic cytomegalovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and hepatitis A, B, and C were all nonreactive. The patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for suspected DRESS syndrome likely due to cefdinir.

The patient’s eosinophilia completely resolved (from approximately 2600 to 100 cells/µL) after 1 dose of steroids, and his transaminitis trended down over the next few days. He remained afebrile for the remainder of his admission, and his facial swelling and rash continued to improve. Bacterial culture from the skin grew oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus pyogenes. A blood culture was negative. The patient was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of clindamycin and was given topical steroids for the eczema. He continued on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for 10 days, after which the dose was tapered down for a total 1-month course of systemic corticosteroids. At 1-month follow-up after completing the course of steroids, he was doing well with normal hepatic enzyme levels and no recurrence of fever, facial edema, or rash. He continues to be followed for management of the AD.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a serious systemic adverse drug reaction, with high morbidity and even mortality, estimated at 10% in the adult population, though more specific pediatric mortality data are not available.^1,2 The exact pathogenesis of DRESS syndrome has not been elucidated. Certain human leukocyte antigen class I alleles are predisposed to the development of DRESS syndrome, but there has not been a human leukocyte antigen subtype identified with beta-lactam–associated DRESS syndrome. Some studies have demonstrated a reactivation of human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, and Epstein-Barr virus.³ One study involving 40 patients with DRESS syndrome identified viremia in 76% (29/38) of patients and identified CD8⁺ T-cell populations directed toward viral epitopes.³ Finally, DRESS syndrome may be related to the slow detoxification and elimination of intermediary products of offending medications that serve as an immunogenic stimulus for the inflammatory cascade.²

In adults, DRESS syndrome was first identified in association with phenytoin, but more recently other drugs have been identified, including other aromatic anticonvulsants (ie, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, carbamazepine), allopurinol, sulfonamides, antiretrovirals (particularly abacavir), and minocycline.² In a 3-year pediatric prospective study, 11 cases of DRESS syndrome were identified: 4 cases due to lamotrigine, and 3 caused by penicillins.⁴ The trigger in our patient’s case was the beta-lactam, third-generation cephalosporin cefdinir, and his symptoms developed within 6 days of starting the medication. Many articles report that beta-lactams are a rare cause of DRESS syndrome, with only a handful of cases reported.^1,5,6

The diagnosis of DRESS syndrome often can be delayed, as children present acutely febrile and toxic appearing. Unlike many adverse drug reactions, DRESS syndrome does not show rapid resolution with withdrawal of the causative agent, further complicating the diagnosis. The typical onset of DRESS syndrome generally ranges from 2 to 6 weeks after the initiation of the offending drug; however, faster onset of symptoms, similar to our case, has been noted in antibiotic-triggered cases. In the prospective pediatric series by Sasidharanpillai et al,⁴ the average time to onset among 3 antibiotic-triggered DRESS cases was 5.8 days vs 23.9 days among the 4 cases of lamotrigine-associated DRESS syndrome.

Our patient demonstrated the classic features of DRESS syndrome, including fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, facial edema, peripheral eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and hepatitis. Based on the proposed RegiSCAR scoring system, our patient was classified as a “definite” case of DRESS syndrome.^1,7 Other hematologic findings in DRESS syndrome may include thrombocytopenia and anemia. The liver is the most commonly affected internal organ in DRESS syndrome, with pneumonitis, carditis, and nephritis reported less frequently.¹ The pattern of liver injury in our patient was mixed (hepatocellular and cholestatic), the second most common pattern in patients with DRESS syndrome (the cholestatic pattern is most common).⁸

The exanthem of DRESS syndrome can vary in morphology, with up to 7% of patients reported to have eczemalike lesions in the multinational prospective RegiSCAR study.¹ Other entities in the differential diagnosis for our patient included Kawasaki disease, where conjunctivitis and strawberry tongue are classically present, as well as erythrodermic AD, where internal organ involvement is not common.² Our patient’s exanthem initially was considered to be a flare of AD with superimposed bacterial infection and possible eczema herpeticum. Although bacterial cultures did grow Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, viral studies were all negative, and this alone would not have explained the facial edema, rapidly rising eosinophil count, and transaminitis. The dramatic drop in his eosinophil count and decrease in hepatic enzymes after 1 dose of intravenous methylprednisolone also supported the diagnosis of DRESS syndrome.

Treatment recommendations remain largely anecdotal. Early systemic steroids generally are accepted as the first line of therapy, with a slow taper. Although the average required duration of systemic steroids in 1 series of adults was reported at 50.1 days,⁹ the duration was shorter (21–35 days) in a series of pediatric patients.⁴ Our patient’s clinical symptoms and laboratory values normalized after completing a 1-month steroid taper. Other therapies have been tried for recalcitrant cases, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, rituximab, and valganciclovir.²

Early clinical recognition of the signs and symptoms of DRESS syndrome in the setting of a new medication can decrease morbidity and mortality. Although DRESS syndrome in pediatric patients presents with many similar clinical features as in adults, it may be a greater diagnostic challenge. As in adult cases, timely administration of systemic corticosteroids and tapering based on clinical signs and symptoms can lead to resolution of the hypersensitivity syndrome.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, or drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, is a serious and potentially fatal multiorgan drug hypersensitivity reaction. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome shares many clinical features with viral exanthems and may be difficult to diagnose in the setting of atopic dermatitis (AD) in which children may have baseline eosinophilia from an atopic diathesis. The cutaneous exanthema also may be variable in presentation, further complicating diagnosis.^1,2

A 3-year-old boy with AD since infancy and a history of anaphylaxis to peanuts presented to the emergency department with reported fever, rash, sore throat, and decreased oral intake. Ten days prior, the patient was treated for cellulitis of the left foot with a 7-day course of cefdinir with complete resolution of symptoms. Four days prior to admission, the patient started developing “bumps” on the face and fevers. He was seen at an outside facility, where a rapid test for Streptococcus was negative, and the patient was treated with ibuprofen and fluids for a presumed viral exanthem. The rash subsequently spread to involve the trunk and extremities. On the day of admission, the patient had a positive rapid test for Streptococcus and was referred to the emergency department with concern for superinfected eczema and eczema herpeticum. The patient recently traveled to Puerto Rico, where he had contact with an aunt with active herpes zoster but no other sick contacts. The patient’s immunizations were reported to be up-to-date.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile but irritable and had erythematous crusted papules and patches on the face, arms, and legs, as well as erythematous dry patches on the chest, abdomen, and back (Figure). There were no conjunctival erythematous or oral erosions. The patient was admitted to the hospital for presumed superinfected AD and possible eczema herpeticum. He was started on intravenous clindamycin and acyclovir.

The following day, the patient had new facial edema and fever (temperature, 102.8 °F [39.36 °C]) in addition to palpable mobile cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymphadenopathy. He also was noted to have notably worsening eosinophilia from 1288 (14%) to 2570 (29.2%) cells/µL (reference range, 0%–5%) and new-onset transaminitis. Herpes and varicella-zoster direct fluorescent antibody tests, culture, and serum polymerase chain reaction were all negative, and acyclovir was discontinued. Repeat laboratory tests 12 hours later showed a continued uptrend in transaminitis. Serologies for acute and chronic cytomegalovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and hepatitis A, B, and C were all nonreactive. The patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for suspected DRESS syndrome likely due to cefdinir.

The patient’s eosinophilia completely resolved (from approximately 2600 to 100 cells/µL) after 1 dose of steroids, and his transaminitis trended down over the next few days. He remained afebrile for the remainder of his admission, and his facial swelling and rash continued to improve. Bacterial culture from the skin grew oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus pyogenes. A blood culture was negative. The patient was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of clindamycin and was given topical steroids for the eczema. He continued on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for 10 days, after which the dose was tapered down for a total 1-month course of systemic corticosteroids. At 1-month follow-up after completing the course of steroids, he was doing well with normal hepatic enzyme levels and no recurrence of fever, facial edema, or rash. He continues to be followed for management of the AD.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a serious systemic adverse drug reaction, with high morbidity and even mortality, estimated at 10% in the adult population, though more specific pediatric mortality data are not available.^1,2 The exact pathogenesis of DRESS syndrome has not been elucidated. Certain human leukocyte antigen class I alleles are predisposed to the development of DRESS syndrome, but there has not been a human leukocyte antigen subtype identified with beta-lactam–associated DRESS syndrome. Some studies have demonstrated a reactivation of human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, and Epstein-Barr virus.³ One study involving 40 patients with DRESS syndrome identified viremia in 76% (29/38) of patients and identified CD8⁺ T-cell populations directed toward viral epitopes.³ Finally, DRESS syndrome may be related to the slow detoxification and elimination of intermediary products of offending medications that serve as an immunogenic stimulus for the inflammatory cascade.²

In adults, DRESS syndrome was first identified in association with phenytoin, but more recently other drugs have been identified, including other aromatic anticonvulsants (ie, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, carbamazepine), allopurinol, sulfonamides, antiretrovirals (particularly abacavir), and minocycline.² In a 3-year pediatric prospective study, 11 cases of DRESS syndrome were identified: 4 cases due to lamotrigine, and 3 caused by penicillins.⁴ The trigger in our patient’s case was the beta-lactam, third-generation cephalosporin cefdinir, and his symptoms developed within 6 days of starting the medication. Many articles report that beta-lactams are a rare cause of DRESS syndrome, with only a handful of cases reported.^1,5,6

The diagnosis of DRESS syndrome often can be delayed, as children present acutely febrile and toxic appearing. Unlike many adverse drug reactions, DRESS syndrome does not show rapid resolution with withdrawal of the causative agent, further complicating the diagnosis. The typical onset of DRESS syndrome generally ranges from 2 to 6 weeks after the initiation of the offending drug; however, faster onset of symptoms, similar to our case, has been noted in antibiotic-triggered cases. In the prospective pediatric series by Sasidharanpillai et al,⁴ the average time to onset among 3 antibiotic-triggered DRESS cases was 5.8 days vs 23.9 days among the 4 cases of lamotrigine-associated DRESS syndrome.

Our patient demonstrated the classic features of DRESS syndrome, including fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, facial edema, peripheral eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and hepatitis. Based on the proposed RegiSCAR scoring system, our patient was classified as a “definite” case of DRESS syndrome.^1,7 Other hematologic findings in DRESS syndrome may include thrombocytopenia and anemia. The liver is the most commonly affected internal organ in DRESS syndrome, with pneumonitis, carditis, and nephritis reported less frequently.¹ The pattern of liver injury in our patient was mixed (hepatocellular and cholestatic), the second most common pattern in patients with DRESS syndrome (the cholestatic pattern is most common).⁸

The exanthem of DRESS syndrome can vary in morphology, with up to 7% of patients reported to have eczemalike lesions in the multinational prospective RegiSCAR study.¹ Other entities in the differential diagnosis for our patient included Kawasaki disease, where conjunctivitis and strawberry tongue are classically present, as well as erythrodermic AD, where internal organ involvement is not common.² Our patient’s exanthem initially was considered to be a flare of AD with superimposed bacterial infection and possible eczema herpeticum. Although bacterial cultures did grow Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, viral studies were all negative, and this alone would not have explained the facial edema, rapidly rising eosinophil count, and transaminitis. The dramatic drop in his eosinophil count and decrease in hepatic enzymes after 1 dose of intravenous methylprednisolone also supported the diagnosis of DRESS syndrome.

Treatment recommendations remain largely anecdotal. Early systemic steroids generally are accepted as the first line of therapy, with a slow taper. Although the average required duration of systemic steroids in 1 series of adults was reported at 50.1 days,⁹ the duration was shorter (21–35 days) in a series of pediatric patients.⁴ Our patient’s clinical symptoms and laboratory values normalized after completing a 1-month steroid taper. Other therapies have been tried for recalcitrant cases, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, rituximab, and valganciclovir.²

Early clinical recognition of the signs and symptoms of DRESS syndrome in the setting of a new medication can decrease morbidity and mortality. Although DRESS syndrome in pediatric patients presents with many similar clinical features as in adults, it may be a greater diagnostic challenge. As in adult cases, timely administration of systemic corticosteroids and tapering based on clinical signs and symptoms can lead to resolution of the hypersensitivity syndrome.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, or drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, is a serious and potentially fatal multiorgan drug hypersensitivity reaction. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome shares many clinical features with viral exanthems and may be difficult to diagnose in the setting of atopic dermatitis (AD) in which children may have baseline eosinophilia from an atopic diathesis. The cutaneous exanthema also may be variable in presentation, further complicating diagnosis.^1,2

A 3-year-old boy with AD since infancy and a history of anaphylaxis to peanuts presented to the emergency department with reported fever, rash, sore throat, and decreased oral intake. Ten days prior, the patient was treated for cellulitis of the left foot with a 7-day course of cefdinir with complete resolution of symptoms. Four days prior to admission, the patient started developing “bumps” on the face and fevers. He was seen at an outside facility, where a rapid test for Streptococcus was negative, and the patient was treated with ibuprofen and fluids for a presumed viral exanthem. The rash subsequently spread to involve the trunk and extremities. On the day of admission, the patient had a positive rapid test for Streptococcus and was referred to the emergency department with concern for superinfected eczema and eczema herpeticum. The patient recently traveled to Puerto Rico, where he had contact with an aunt with active herpes zoster but no other sick contacts. The patient’s immunizations were reported to be up-to-date.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile but irritable and had erythematous crusted papules and patches on the face, arms, and legs, as well as erythematous dry patches on the chest, abdomen, and back (Figure). There were no conjunctival erythematous or oral erosions. The patient was admitted to the hospital for presumed superinfected AD and possible eczema herpeticum. He was started on intravenous clindamycin and acyclovir.

The following day, the patient had new facial edema and fever (temperature, 102.8 °F [39.36 °C]) in addition to palpable mobile cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymphadenopathy. He also was noted to have notably worsening eosinophilia from 1288 (14%) to 2570 (29.2%) cells/µL (reference range, 0%–5%) and new-onset transaminitis. Herpes and varicella-zoster direct fluorescent antibody tests, culture, and serum polymerase chain reaction were all negative, and acyclovir was discontinued. Repeat laboratory tests 12 hours later showed a continued uptrend in transaminitis. Serologies for acute and chronic cytomegalovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and hepatitis A, B, and C were all nonreactive. The patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for suspected DRESS syndrome likely due to cefdinir.

The patient’s eosinophilia completely resolved (from approximately 2600 to 100 cells/µL) after 1 dose of steroids, and his transaminitis trended down over the next few days. He remained afebrile for the remainder of his admission, and his facial swelling and rash continued to improve. Bacterial culture from the skin grew oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus pyogenes. A blood culture was negative. The patient was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of clindamycin and was given topical steroids for the eczema. He continued on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for 10 days, after which the dose was tapered down for a total 1-month course of systemic corticosteroids. At 1-month follow-up after completing the course of steroids, he was doing well with normal hepatic enzyme levels and no recurrence of fever, facial edema, or rash. He continues to be followed for management of the AD.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a serious systemic adverse drug reaction, with high morbidity and even mortality, estimated at 10% in the adult population, though more specific pediatric mortality data are not available.^1,2 The exact pathogenesis of DRESS syndrome has not been elucidated. Certain human leukocyte antigen class I alleles are predisposed to the development of DRESS syndrome, but there has not been a human leukocyte antigen subtype identified with beta-lactam–associated DRESS syndrome. Some studies have demonstrated a reactivation of human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, and Epstein-Barr virus.³ One study involving 40 patients with DRESS syndrome identified viremia in 76% (29/38) of patients and identified CD8⁺ T-cell populations directed toward viral epitopes.³ Finally, DRESS syndrome may be related to the slow detoxification and elimination of intermediary products of offending medications that serve as an immunogenic stimulus for the inflammatory cascade.²

In adults, DRESS syndrome was first identified in association with phenytoin, but more recently other drugs have been identified, including other aromatic anticonvulsants (ie, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, carbamazepine), allopurinol, sulfonamides, antiretrovirals (particularly abacavir), and minocycline.² In a 3-year pediatric prospective study, 11 cases of DRESS syndrome were identified: 4 cases due to lamotrigine, and 3 caused by penicillins.⁴ The trigger in our patient’s case was the beta-lactam, third-generation cephalosporin cefdinir, and his symptoms developed within 6 days of starting the medication. Many articles report that beta-lactams are a rare cause of DRESS syndrome, with only a handful of cases reported.^1,5,6

The diagnosis of DRESS syndrome often can be delayed, as children present acutely febrile and toxic appearing. Unlike many adverse drug reactions, DRESS syndrome does not show rapid resolution with withdrawal of the causative agent, further complicating the diagnosis. The typical onset of DRESS syndrome generally ranges from 2 to 6 weeks after the initiation of the offending drug; however, faster onset of symptoms, similar to our case, has been noted in antibiotic-triggered cases. In the prospective pediatric series by Sasidharanpillai et al,⁴ the average time to onset among 3 antibiotic-triggered DRESS cases was 5.8 days vs 23.9 days among the 4 cases of lamotrigine-associated DRESS syndrome.

Our patient demonstrated the classic features of DRESS syndrome, including fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, facial edema, peripheral eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and hepatitis. Based on the proposed RegiSCAR scoring system, our patient was classified as a “definite” case of DRESS syndrome.^1,7 Other hematologic findings in DRESS syndrome may include thrombocytopenia and anemia. The liver is the most commonly affected internal organ in DRESS syndrome, with pneumonitis, carditis, and nephritis reported less frequently.¹ The pattern of liver injury in our patient was mixed (hepatocellular and cholestatic), the second most common pattern in patients with DRESS syndrome (the cholestatic pattern is most common).⁸

The exanthem of DRESS syndrome can vary in morphology, with up to 7% of patients reported to have eczemalike lesions in the multinational prospective RegiSCAR study.¹ Other entities in the differential diagnosis for our patient included Kawasaki disease, where conjunctivitis and strawberry tongue are classically present, as well as erythrodermic AD, where internal organ involvement is not common.² Our patient’s exanthem initially was considered to be a flare of AD with superimposed bacterial infection and possible eczema herpeticum. Although bacterial cultures did grow Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, viral studies were all negative, and this alone would not have explained the facial edema, rapidly rising eosinophil count, and transaminitis. The dramatic drop in his eosinophil count and decrease in hepatic enzymes after 1 dose of intravenous methylprednisolone also supported the diagnosis of DRESS syndrome.

Treatment recommendations remain largely anecdotal. Early systemic steroids generally are accepted as the first line of therapy, with a slow taper. Although the average required duration of systemic steroids in 1 series of adults was reported at 50.1 days,⁹ the duration was shorter (21–35 days) in a series of pediatric patients.⁴ Our patient’s clinical symptoms and laboratory values normalized after completing a 1-month steroid taper. Other therapies have been tried for recalcitrant cases, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, rituximab, and valganciclovir.²

Early clinical recognition of the signs and symptoms of DRESS syndrome in the setting of a new medication can decrease morbidity and mortality. Although DRESS syndrome in pediatric patients presents with many similar clinical features as in adults, it may be a greater diagnostic challenge. As in adult cases, timely administration of systemic corticosteroids and tapering based on clinical signs and symptoms can lead to resolution of the hypersensitivity syndrome.

To the Editor:

Minocycline is a commonly prescribed semisynthetic tetracycline derivative used for long-term treatment of acne vulgaris.¹ Given the continued popularity of minocycline and other tetracyclines in treating acne, more adverse side effects are being reported. We report a patient who experienced acute severe urticaria with angioedema from minocycline.

A 35-year-old woman with a history of acne vulgaris presented to the emergency department with urticaria and associated angioedema. Fifteen days after starting minocycline, she awoke with diffuse hives sparing only the abdomen that resolved with diphenhydramine. Later that day, she developed generalized pruritus, hives, and lip swelling. She received intravenous methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, and famotidine in the emergency department. She returned to the emergency department the next day due to facial and lip swelling, diffuse urticaria that was most pronounced on the arms, and throat irritation. Intramuscular epinephrine was administered first followed by methylprednisolone, famotidine, and cetirizine. She was discharged and advised to start daily prednisone 50 mg and cetirizine 20 mg every evening.

She returned to the emergency department the following morning due to worsening generalized urticaria and angioedema of the lips. She denied any associated respiratory, joint, or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. She had several urticarial plaques on the scalp, face, and body (Figure), only sparing the abdomen. Her hives were erythematous, raised, pruritic, and blanching. There was no residual purpura, ecchymosis, or hyperpigmentation associated with the urticaria, and each lesion was present for less than 24 hours. There was no swelling on examination. Additionally, she was afebrile. The C4 level was 18 mg/dL (reference range, 15–45 mg/dL). She did not develop eosinophilia (absolute eosinophil count, 0/µL [reference range, 50–500/µL]), lymphocytosis (absolute lymphocyte count, 1300/µL [reference range, 1000–4800/µL]), or abnormal liver or renal function. She was hospitalized for 3 days with severe urticaria and required 7 days of prednisone 40 to 50 mg, fexofenadine 360 mg, and cetirizine 20 mg. A viral infection was considered as a possible etiology; however, she had no supporting signs or symptoms of an upper respiratory illness or other viral illness.

The patient’s minocycline use was considered the most likely etiology, as an oral contraceptive was the only other medication. She was labelled allergic to minocycline and discharged with intramuscular epinephrine. She was evaluated in the outpatient allergy immunology clinic 9 days later, and all her symptoms had resolved. Due to the severity of our patient’s reaction and the possibility of further severe reactions, an oral challenge was not carried out. Our patient was not interested in pursuing any further minocycline or other tetracycline-based therapy for her acne. She also was not interested in pursuing any minocycline skin-prick testing or oral challenge. One limitation to this case is our patient declining a confirmatory drug challenge; however, given the severity of the symptoms, the physicians involved agreed the patient's safety outweighed the benefits of confirmatory testing.

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and a Google Scholar search using the terms minocycline, drug hypersensitivity, urticaria, anaphylaxis, minocycline allergy, and angioedema yielded only 16 articles and correspondences. Reported adverse effects of minocycline included drug-induced lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, nausea, photosensitivity, and DRESS-like (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome) conditions. Three case reports of anaphylaxis/anaphylactoid reactions have been published,^2-4 but cases of urticaria attributable to minocycline appear to be exceedingly rare.^2,3 Reports of serum sickness in patients aged 15 to 62 years were rare. Women were noted to experience a higher frequency of adverse effects compared to men.⁵ Symptoms typically presented 3 to 28 days after initiation of minocycline. Data currently suggest that the pathogenesis of hypersensitivity reactions to minocycline remains unknown⁶; however, one hypothesis is that minocycline or its metabolites act as a superantigen, resulting in lymphocyte overactivation and massive cytokine release.⁷

Minocycline generally is well tolerated by patients. Physicians should be aware that minocycline is a possible causative agent of allergic drug reactions. Our patient’s presentation of severe acute urticaria with angioedema of the face and lips is a rarity.

To the Editor:

Minocycline is a commonly prescribed semisynthetic tetracycline derivative used for long-term treatment of acne vulgaris.¹ Given the continued popularity of minocycline and other tetracyclines in treating acne, more adverse side effects are being reported. We report a patient who experienced acute severe urticaria with angioedema from minocycline.

A 35-year-old woman with a history of acne vulgaris presented to the emergency department with urticaria and associated angioedema. Fifteen days after starting minocycline, she awoke with diffuse hives sparing only the abdomen that resolved with diphenhydramine. Later that day, she developed generalized pruritus, hives, and lip swelling. She received intravenous methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, and famotidine in the emergency department. She returned to the emergency department the next day due to facial and lip swelling, diffuse urticaria that was most pronounced on the arms, and throat irritation. Intramuscular epinephrine was administered first followed by methylprednisolone, famotidine, and cetirizine. She was discharged and advised to start daily prednisone 50 mg and cetirizine 20 mg every evening.

She returned to the emergency department the following morning due to worsening generalized urticaria and angioedema of the lips. She denied any associated respiratory, joint, or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. She had several urticarial plaques on the scalp, face, and body (Figure), only sparing the abdomen. Her hives were erythematous, raised, pruritic, and blanching. There was no residual purpura, ecchymosis, or hyperpigmentation associated with the urticaria, and each lesion was present for less than 24 hours. There was no swelling on examination. Additionally, she was afebrile. The C4 level was 18 mg/dL (reference range, 15–45 mg/dL). She did not develop eosinophilia (absolute eosinophil count, 0/µL [reference range, 50–500/µL]), lymphocytosis (absolute lymphocyte count, 1300/µL [reference range, 1000–4800/µL]), or abnormal liver or renal function. She was hospitalized for 3 days with severe urticaria and required 7 days of prednisone 40 to 50 mg, fexofenadine 360 mg, and cetirizine 20 mg. A viral infection was considered as a possible etiology; however, she had no supporting signs or symptoms of an upper respiratory illness or other viral illness.

The patient’s minocycline use was considered the most likely etiology, as an oral contraceptive was the only other medication. She was labelled allergic to minocycline and discharged with intramuscular epinephrine. She was evaluated in the outpatient allergy immunology clinic 9 days later, and all her symptoms had resolved. Due to the severity of our patient’s reaction and the possibility of further severe reactions, an oral challenge was not carried out. Our patient was not interested in pursuing any further minocycline or other tetracycline-based therapy for her acne. She also was not interested in pursuing any minocycline skin-prick testing or oral challenge. One limitation to this case is our patient declining a confirmatory drug challenge; however, given the severity of the symptoms, the physicians involved agreed the patient's safety outweighed the benefits of confirmatory testing.

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and a Google Scholar search using the terms minocycline, drug hypersensitivity, urticaria, anaphylaxis, minocycline allergy, and angioedema yielded only 16 articles and correspondences. Reported adverse effects of minocycline included drug-induced lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, nausea, photosensitivity, and DRESS-like (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome) conditions. Three case reports of anaphylaxis/anaphylactoid reactions have been published,^2-4 but cases of urticaria attributable to minocycline appear to be exceedingly rare.^2,3 Reports of serum sickness in patients aged 15 to 62 years were rare. Women were noted to experience a higher frequency of adverse effects compared to men.⁵ Symptoms typically presented 3 to 28 days after initiation of minocycline. Data currently suggest that the pathogenesis of hypersensitivity reactions to minocycline remains unknown⁶; however, one hypothesis is that minocycline or its metabolites act as a superantigen, resulting in lymphocyte overactivation and massive cytokine release.⁷

Minocycline generally is well tolerated by patients. Physicians should be aware that minocycline is a possible causative agent of allergic drug reactions. Our patient’s presentation of severe acute urticaria with angioedema of the face and lips is a rarity.

To the Editor:

Minocycline is a commonly prescribed semisynthetic tetracycline derivative used for long-term treatment of acne vulgaris.¹ Given the continued popularity of minocycline and other tetracyclines in treating acne, more adverse side effects are being reported. We report a patient who experienced acute severe urticaria with angioedema from minocycline.

A 35-year-old woman with a history of acne vulgaris presented to the emergency department with urticaria and associated angioedema. Fifteen days after starting minocycline, she awoke with diffuse hives sparing only the abdomen that resolved with diphenhydramine. Later that day, she developed generalized pruritus, hives, and lip swelling. She received intravenous methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, and famotidine in the emergency department. She returned to the emergency department the next day due to facial and lip swelling, diffuse urticaria that was most pronounced on the arms, and throat irritation. Intramuscular epinephrine was administered first followed by methylprednisolone, famotidine, and cetirizine. She was discharged and advised to start daily prednisone 50 mg and cetirizine 20 mg every evening.

She returned to the emergency department the following morning due to worsening generalized urticaria and angioedema of the lips. She denied any associated respiratory, joint, or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. She had several urticarial plaques on the scalp, face, and body (Figure), only sparing the abdomen. Her hives were erythematous, raised, pruritic, and blanching. There was no residual purpura, ecchymosis, or hyperpigmentation associated with the urticaria, and each lesion was present for less than 24 hours. There was no swelling on examination. Additionally, she was afebrile. The C4 level was 18 mg/dL (reference range, 15–45 mg/dL). She did not develop eosinophilia (absolute eosinophil count, 0/µL [reference range, 50–500/µL]), lymphocytosis (absolute lymphocyte count, 1300/µL [reference range, 1000–4800/µL]), or abnormal liver or renal function. She was hospitalized for 3 days with severe urticaria and required 7 days of prednisone 40 to 50 mg, fexofenadine 360 mg, and cetirizine 20 mg. A viral infection was considered as a possible etiology; however, she had no supporting signs or symptoms of an upper respiratory illness or other viral illness.

The patient’s minocycline use was considered the most likely etiology, as an oral contraceptive was the only other medication. She was labelled allergic to minocycline and discharged with intramuscular epinephrine. She was evaluated in the outpatient allergy immunology clinic 9 days later, and all her symptoms had resolved. Due to the severity of our patient’s reaction and the possibility of further severe reactions, an oral challenge was not carried out. Our patient was not interested in pursuing any further minocycline or other tetracycline-based therapy for her acne. She also was not interested in pursuing any minocycline skin-prick testing or oral challenge. One limitation to this case is our patient declining a confirmatory drug challenge; however, given the severity of the symptoms, the physicians involved agreed the patient's safety outweighed the benefits of confirmatory testing.

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and a Google Scholar search using the terms minocycline, drug hypersensitivity, urticaria, anaphylaxis, minocycline allergy, and angioedema yielded only 16 articles and correspondences. Reported adverse effects of minocycline included drug-induced lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, nausea, photosensitivity, and DRESS-like (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome) conditions. Three case reports of anaphylaxis/anaphylactoid reactions have been published,^2-4 but cases of urticaria attributable to minocycline appear to be exceedingly rare.^2,3 Reports of serum sickness in patients aged 15 to 62 years were rare. Women were noted to experience a higher frequency of adverse effects compared to men.⁵ Symptoms typically presented 3 to 28 days after initiation of minocycline. Data currently suggest that the pathogenesis of hypersensitivity reactions to minocycline remains unknown⁶; however, one hypothesis is that minocycline or its metabolites act as a superantigen, resulting in lymphocyte overactivation and massive cytokine release.⁷

Minocycline generally is well tolerated by patients. Physicians should be aware that minocycline is a possible causative agent of allergic drug reactions. Our patient’s presentation of severe acute urticaria with angioedema of the face and lips is a rarity.

To the Editor:

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous dermatosis characterized by tense subepidermal blisters. It primarily affects older individuals who typically report pruritus in the affected area. Subepidermal blisters are caused by a humoral and cellular autoimmune attack directed against 2 BP antigens—BP180 and BP230—which are 2 critical components of the hemidesmosome whose primary function is to anchor the epidermis to the underlying dermis. Although tense bullae typically prompt immediate consideration of BP in the differential diagnosis, early disease often is characterized by urticarial plaques that require a high degree of suspicion to make the appropriate diagnosis. Locus minoris resistentiae is a term used to describe the phenomenon of skin disease occurring at the point of least resistance.¹

A 79-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension was referred to the dermatology clinic due to concern for allergic contact dermatitis limited to the area of and adjacent to a well-healed surgical wound. History and examination revealed that the patient had sustained a left femoral neck fracture 10 months prior to presentation that required closed reduction and surgical pinning. The surgical site healed well postoperatively; however, 7 months after surgery, she began to develop edema and erythema within and immediately adjacent to the surgical scar. She subsequently developed areas of superficial erosion within the erythema and was evaluated by her surgeon who was concerned for suture granuloma. Superficial wound debridement of the area was performed without improvement. Approximately 9 months after surgery, the patient developed bullae along the old surgical site, which raised concern for an allergic reaction to the implanted screws. Orthopedics elected to remove the hardware but also sent intraoperative tissue for pathologic examination, which revealed subepidermal bullae containing eosinophils and neutrophils, most consistent with a bullous drug eruption. During the ensuing weeks after hardware removal, the plaque spread along the old surgical wound, and several bullous lesions began to appear. The patient’s primary care physician became concerned for allergic contact dermatitis, possibly to the surgical scrub employed during hardware removal. He prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and referred the patient to dermatology.

Upon presentation to dermatology, the patient noted stinging pain and intense pruritus of the affected area. Examination revealed a pink edematous plaque distributed along a well-healed surgical wound (Figure). Numerous fluid-filled tense bullae were superimposed on this plaque as well as areas of superficial erosion with serum crust. An expanded examination revealed similar smaller lesions on the upper arms, inner thighs, and lateral breasts. A 4-mm punch biopsy of lesional and perilesional skin was sent for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence, which demonstrated a subepidermal bullous dermatosis with a predominance of neutrophilic inflammation as well as a band of linear IgG deposition at the dermal-epidermal junction. The patient was diagnosed with BP exhibiting a locus minoris resistentiae phenomenon within the surgical site. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and demonstrated rapid improvement.

Although the tense bullae seen in well-developed BP are fairly characteristic, the prodromal phase of this disease can present with urticarial plaques that are nonspecific. This progression is well described, but our case demonstrates the difficulty of considering BP when a patient presents with an urticarial plaque. As lesions progress to the bullous phase, they may be inappropriately diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis, an error that may lead to unnecessary interventions (eg, removal of an implicated prosthesis). This case is a reminder that not all cutaneous eruptions in and around postsurgical scars are allergic in nature.

This case also depicts BP appearing in the locus minoris resistentiae, a well-healed surgical wound in our patient. Although many diseases have been shown to exhibit this type of isomorphic response, this phenomenon may pose diagnostic and management conundrums. Locus minoris resistentiae has been reported in many different diseases, both cutaneous and otherwise, but there likely are distinct disease- and case-specific mechanisms via which this occurs. Local phenomena reported to trigger BP include contact dermatitis, vaccination, radiation therapy, phototherapy, infection, and surgery.² We suspect that the mechanism of locus minoris resistentiae in our patient was disruption of the architecture of the dermal-epidermal basement membrane zone due to surgical trauma. Disruption of this architecture may have resulted in exposure of previously occult antigens, recognition by T cells, T-cell stimulation of autoantibody production by B cells, binding of autoantibodies to BP180, complement deposition, recruitment of inflammatory cells, release of proteinases, and degradation of BP180 and extracellular matrix proteins.²

To the Editor:

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous dermatosis characterized by tense subepidermal blisters. It primarily affects older individuals who typically report pruritus in the affected area. Subepidermal blisters are caused by a humoral and cellular autoimmune attack directed against 2 BP antigens—BP180 and BP230—which are 2 critical components of the hemidesmosome whose primary function is to anchor the epidermis to the underlying dermis. Although tense bullae typically prompt immediate consideration of BP in the differential diagnosis, early disease often is characterized by urticarial plaques that require a high degree of suspicion to make the appropriate diagnosis. Locus minoris resistentiae is a term used to describe the phenomenon of skin disease occurring at the point of least resistance.¹

A 79-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension was referred to the dermatology clinic due to concern for allergic contact dermatitis limited to the area of and adjacent to a well-healed surgical wound. History and examination revealed that the patient had sustained a left femoral neck fracture 10 months prior to presentation that required closed reduction and surgical pinning. The surgical site healed well postoperatively; however, 7 months after surgery, she began to develop edema and erythema within and immediately adjacent to the surgical scar. She subsequently developed areas of superficial erosion within the erythema and was evaluated by her surgeon who was concerned for suture granuloma. Superficial wound debridement of the area was performed without improvement. Approximately 9 months after surgery, the patient developed bullae along the old surgical site, which raised concern for an allergic reaction to the implanted screws. Orthopedics elected to remove the hardware but also sent intraoperative tissue for pathologic examination, which revealed subepidermal bullae containing eosinophils and neutrophils, most consistent with a bullous drug eruption. During the ensuing weeks after hardware removal, the plaque spread along the old surgical wound, and several bullous lesions began to appear. The patient’s primary care physician became concerned for allergic contact dermatitis, possibly to the surgical scrub employed during hardware removal. He prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and referred the patient to dermatology.

Upon presentation to dermatology, the patient noted stinging pain and intense pruritus of the affected area. Examination revealed a pink edematous plaque distributed along a well-healed surgical wound (Figure). Numerous fluid-filled tense bullae were superimposed on this plaque as well as areas of superficial erosion with serum crust. An expanded examination revealed similar smaller lesions on the upper arms, inner thighs, and lateral breasts. A 4-mm punch biopsy of lesional and perilesional skin was sent for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence, which demonstrated a subepidermal bullous dermatosis with a predominance of neutrophilic inflammation as well as a band of linear IgG deposition at the dermal-epidermal junction. The patient was diagnosed with BP exhibiting a locus minoris resistentiae phenomenon within the surgical site. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and demonstrated rapid improvement.

Although the tense bullae seen in well-developed BP are fairly characteristic, the prodromal phase of this disease can present with urticarial plaques that are nonspecific. This progression is well described, but our case demonstrates the difficulty of considering BP when a patient presents with an urticarial plaque. As lesions progress to the bullous phase, they may be inappropriately diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis, an error that may lead to unnecessary interventions (eg, removal of an implicated prosthesis). This case is a reminder that not all cutaneous eruptions in and around postsurgical scars are allergic in nature.

This case also depicts BP appearing in the locus minoris resistentiae, a well-healed surgical wound in our patient. Although many diseases have been shown to exhibit this type of isomorphic response, this phenomenon may pose diagnostic and management conundrums. Locus minoris resistentiae has been reported in many different diseases, both cutaneous and otherwise, but there likely are distinct disease- and case-specific mechanisms via which this occurs. Local phenomena reported to trigger BP include contact dermatitis, vaccination, radiation therapy, phototherapy, infection, and surgery.² We suspect that the mechanism of locus minoris resistentiae in our patient was disruption of the architecture of the dermal-epidermal basement membrane zone due to surgical trauma. Disruption of this architecture may have resulted in exposure of previously occult antigens, recognition by T cells, T-cell stimulation of autoantibody production by B cells, binding of autoantibodies to BP180, complement deposition, recruitment of inflammatory cells, release of proteinases, and degradation of BP180 and extracellular matrix proteins.²

To the Editor:

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous dermatosis characterized by tense subepidermal blisters. It primarily affects older individuals who typically report pruritus in the affected area. Subepidermal blisters are caused by a humoral and cellular autoimmune attack directed against 2 BP antigens—BP180 and BP230—which are 2 critical components of the hemidesmosome whose primary function is to anchor the epidermis to the underlying dermis. Although tense bullae typically prompt immediate consideration of BP in the differential diagnosis, early disease often is characterized by urticarial plaques that require a high degree of suspicion to make the appropriate diagnosis. Locus minoris resistentiae is a term used to describe the phenomenon of skin disease occurring at the point of least resistance.¹

A 79-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension was referred to the dermatology clinic due to concern for allergic contact dermatitis limited to the area of and adjacent to a well-healed surgical wound. History and examination revealed that the patient had sustained a left femoral neck fracture 10 months prior to presentation that required closed reduction and surgical pinning. The surgical site healed well postoperatively; however, 7 months after surgery, she began to develop edema and erythema within and immediately adjacent to the surgical scar. She subsequently developed areas of superficial erosion within the erythema and was evaluated by her surgeon who was concerned for suture granuloma. Superficial wound debridement of the area was performed without improvement. Approximately 9 months after surgery, the patient developed bullae along the old surgical site, which raised concern for an allergic reaction to the implanted screws. Orthopedics elected to remove the hardware but also sent intraoperative tissue for pathologic examination, which revealed subepidermal bullae containing eosinophils and neutrophils, most consistent with a bullous drug eruption. During the ensuing weeks after hardware removal, the plaque spread along the old surgical wound, and several bullous lesions began to appear. The patient’s primary care physician became concerned for allergic contact dermatitis, possibly to the surgical scrub employed during hardware removal. He prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and referred the patient to dermatology.

Upon presentation to dermatology, the patient noted stinging pain and intense pruritus of the affected area. Examination revealed a pink edematous plaque distributed along a well-healed surgical wound (Figure). Numerous fluid-filled tense bullae were superimposed on this plaque as well as areas of superficial erosion with serum crust. An expanded examination revealed similar smaller lesions on the upper arms, inner thighs, and lateral breasts. A 4-mm punch biopsy of lesional and perilesional skin was sent for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence, which demonstrated a subepidermal bullous dermatosis with a predominance of neutrophilic inflammation as well as a band of linear IgG deposition at the dermal-epidermal junction. The patient was diagnosed with BP exhibiting a locus minoris resistentiae phenomenon within the surgical site. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and demonstrated rapid improvement.

Although the tense bullae seen in well-developed BP are fairly characteristic, the prodromal phase of this disease can present with urticarial plaques that are nonspecific. This progression is well described, but our case demonstrates the difficulty of considering BP when a patient presents with an urticarial plaque. As lesions progress to the bullous phase, they may be inappropriately diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis, an error that may lead to unnecessary interventions (eg, removal of an implicated prosthesis). This case is a reminder that not all cutaneous eruptions in and around postsurgical scars are allergic in nature.

This case also depicts BP appearing in the locus minoris resistentiae, a well-healed surgical wound in our patient. Although many diseases have been shown to exhibit this type of isomorphic response, this phenomenon may pose diagnostic and management conundrums. Locus minoris resistentiae has been reported in many different diseases, both cutaneous and otherwise, but there likely are distinct disease- and case-specific mechanisms via which this occurs. Local phenomena reported to trigger BP include contact dermatitis, vaccination, radiation therapy, phototherapy, infection, and surgery.² We suspect that the mechanism of locus minoris resistentiae in our patient was disruption of the architecture of the dermal-epidermal basement membrane zone due to surgical trauma. Disruption of this architecture may have resulted in exposure of previously occult antigens, recognition by T cells, T-cell stimulation of autoantibody production by B cells, binding of autoantibodies to BP180, complement deposition, recruitment of inflammatory cells, release of proteinases, and degradation of BP180 and extracellular matrix proteins.²

To the Editor:

There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.¹ Magro et al² reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.

Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.

Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,² we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues²), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,³ a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.⁴

COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.

Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.

To the Editor:

There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.¹ Magro et al² reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.

Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.

Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,² we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues²), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,³ a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.⁴

COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.

Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.

To the Editor:

There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.¹ Magro et al² reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.

Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.

Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,² we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues²), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,³ a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.⁴

COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.

Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of opioid abuse and splenectomy decades prior due to a motor vehicle accident was brought to an outside emergency department with confusion, slurred speech, and difficulty breathing. Over the next few days, he became febrile and hypotensive, requiring vasopressors. Clinical laboratory testing revealed a urine drug screen positive for opioids and a low platelet count in the setting of a rapidly evolving retiform purpuric rash.

The patient was transferred to our institution 6 days after initial presentation with primary diagnoses of septic shock with multiorgan failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Blood cultures were positive for gram-negative rods. After several days of broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care, cultures were reported as positive for Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Upon further questioning, the patient’s wife reported that the couple had a new puppy and that the patient often allowed the dog to bite him playfully and lick abrasions on his hands and legs. He had not received medical treatment for any of the dog’s bites.

On initial examination at the time of transfer, the patient’s skin was remarkable for diffuse areas of stellate and retiform purpura with dusky centers and necrosis of the nasal tip and earlobes. Both hands were purpuric, with necrosis of the fingertips (Figure 1A). The flank was marked by large areas of full-thickness sloughing of the skin (Figure 1B). The lower extremities were edematous, with some areas of stellate purpura and numerous large bullae that drained straw-colored fluid (Figure 1C). Lower extremity pulses were found with Doppler ultrasonography.

Given the presence of rapidly developing retiform purpura in the clinical context of severe sepsis, purpura fulminans (PF) was the primary consideration in the differential diagnosis. Levamisole-induced necrosis syndrome also was considered because of necrosis of the ears and nose as well as the history of substance use; however, the patient was not known to have a history of cocaine abuse, and a test of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody was negative.

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed intravascular thrombi with epidermal and sweat gland necrosis, consistent with PF (Figure 2). Gram, Giemsa, and Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for organisms. Tissue culture remained negative. Repeat blood cultures demonstrated Candida parapsilosis fungemia. Respiratory culture was positive for budding yeast.

The patient was treated with antimicrobials, intravenous argatroban, and subcutaneous heparin. Purpura and bullae on the trunk slowly resolved with systemic therapy and wound care with petrolatum and nonadherent dressings. However, lesions on the nasal tip, all fingers of both hands, and several toes evolved into dry gangrene. The hospital course was complicated by renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support; and elevated levels of liver enzymes, consistent with involvement of the hepatic microvasculature.

The patient was in the medical intensive care unit at our institution for 2 weeks and was transferred to a burn center for specialized wound care. At transfer, he was still on a ventilator and receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Subsequently, the patient required a left above-the-knee amputation, right below-the-knee amputation, and amputation of several digits of the upper extremities. In the months after the amputations, he required multiple stump revisions and experienced surgical site infections that complicated healing.

Purpura fulminans is an uncommon syndrome characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic infarction of the skin. The condition commonly is associated with septic shock, causing vascular collapse and DIC. It often develops rapidly.

Because of associated high mortality, it is important to differentiate PF from other causes of cutaneous retiform purpura, including other causes of thrombosis and large vessel vasculitis. Leading causes of PF include infection and hereditary or acquired deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin III. Regardless of cause, biopsy results demonstrate vascular thrombosis out of proportion to vasculitis. The mortality rate is 42% to 50%. The incidence of postinfectious sepsis sequelae in PF is higher than in survivors of sepsis only, especially amputation.^1-3 Most patients do not die from complications of sepsis but from sequelae of the hypercoagulable and prothrombotic state associated with PF.⁴ Hemorrhagic infarction can affect the kidneys, brain, lungs, heart, eyes, and adrenal glands (ie, necrosis, namely Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome).⁵

The most common infectious cause of PF is sepsis secondary to Neisseria meningitidis, with as many as 25% of infected patients developing PF.⁶Streptococcus pneumoniae is another common cause. Other important causative organisms include Streptococcus pyogenes; Staphylococcus aureus (in the setting of intravenous substance use); Klebsiella oxytoca; Klebsiella aerogenes; rickettsial organisms; and viruses, including cytomegalovirus and varicella-zoster virus.^2,7-13 Two earlier cases associated with Capnocytophaga were characterized by concomitant renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hemolytic anemia, and DIC.¹⁴

It is estimated that Capnocytophaga causes 11% to 46% of all cases of sepsis¹⁵; sepsis resulting from Capnocytophaga has extremely poor outcomes, with mortality reaching as high as 60%. The organism is part of the normal oral flora of cats and dogs, and a bite (less often, a scratch) is the cause of most Capnocytophaga infections. The clinical spectrum of C canimorsus infection associated with dog saliva exposure more commonly includes cellulitis at or around the site of inoculation, meningitis, and endocarditis.¹⁶

Although patients affected by PF can be young and healthy, several risk factors for PF have been identified^2,6,16: asplenia, an immunocompromised state, systemic corticosteroid use, cirrhosis, and alcoholism. Asplenic patients have been shown to be particularly susceptible to systemic Capnocytophaga infection; when bitten by a dog, they should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics to cover Capnocytophaga.¹⁷ Immunocompetent patients rarely develop severe infection with Capnocytophaga.^16,18,19 The complement system in particular is critically important in defending against C canimorsus.²⁰

The underlying pathophysiology of acute infectious PF is multifactorial, encompassing increased expression of procoagulant tissue factor by monocytes and endothelial cells in the presence of bacterial pathogens. Dysfunction of protein C, an anticoagulant component of the coagulation cascade, often is cited as a crucial derangement leading to the development of a prothrombotic state in acute infectious PF.²¹ Serum protein S and antithrombin deficiency also can play a role.²² Specific in vitro examination of C canimorsus has revealed a protease that catalyzes N-terminal cleavage of procoagulant factor X, resulting in loss of function.¹⁵

Retiform purpura is a hallmark feature of PF, often beginning as nonblanching erythema with localized edema and petechiae before evolving into the characteristic stellate lesions with hemorrhagic bullae and subsequent necrosis.²³ Pathologic examination reveals microthrombi involving arterioles and smaller vessels.²⁴ There typically is laboratory evidence of DIC in PF, including elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and a decreased fibrinogen level.^6,23

Capnocytophaga bacteria are challenging to grow on standard culture media. Optimal media for growth include 5% sheep’s blood and chocolate agar.¹⁶ Polymerase chain reaction can identify Capnocytophaga; in cases in which blood culture does not produce growth, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of tissue from skin biopsy has identified the pathogen.²⁵

Some Capnocytophaga isolates have been shown to produce beta-lactamase; individual strains can be resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and imipenem.²⁶ Factors associated with an increased risk for death include decreased leukocyte and platelet counts and an increased level of arterial lactate.²⁷

Empiric antibiotic therapy for Capnocytophaga sepsis should include a beta-lactam and beta-lactamase inhibitor, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. Management of DIC can include therapeutic heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and prophylactic platelet transfusion to maintain a pre-established value.^28-30 Debridement should be conservative; it is important to wait for definite delineation between viable and necrotic tissue,³¹ which might take several months.³² Human skin allografts, in addition to artificial skin, are utilized as supplemental therapy for more rapid wound closure after removal of necrotic tissue.^33,34 Hyperoxygenated fatty acids have been noted to aid in more rapid wound healing in infants with PF.³⁵

Fresh frozen plasma is one method to replace missing factors, but it contains little protein C.³⁶ Outcomes with recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alfa) are mixed, and studies have shown no benefit in reducing the risk for death.^37,38 Protein C concentrate has shown therapeutic benefit in some case reports and small retrospective studies.⁴ In one case report, protein C concentrate and heparin were utilized in combination with antithrombin III.²¹

Hyperbaric O₂ might be of benefit when initiated within 5 days after onset of PF. However, hyperbaric O₂ does carry risk; O₂ toxicity, barotrauma, and barriers to timely resuscitation when the patient is inside the pressurized chamber can occur.²

There is a single report of successful use of the vasodilator iloprost for meningococcal PF without need for surgical intervention; the team also utilized topical nitroglycerin patches on the fingers to avoid digital amputation.³⁹ Epoprostenol, tissue plasminogen activator, and antithrombin have been utilized in cases of extensive PF. Fibrinolytic therapy might have some utility, but only in a setting of malignancy-associated DIC.⁴⁰

Treatment of acute infectious PF lacks a high level of evidence. Options include replacement of anticoagulant factors, anticoagulant therapy, hyperbaric O₂, topical and systemic vasodilators, and, in the setting of underlying cancer, fibrinolytics. Even with therapy, prognosis is guarded.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of opioid abuse and splenectomy decades prior due to a motor vehicle accident was brought to an outside emergency department with confusion, slurred speech, and difficulty breathing. Over the next few days, he became febrile and hypotensive, requiring vasopressors. Clinical laboratory testing revealed a urine drug screen positive for opioids and a low platelet count in the setting of a rapidly evolving retiform purpuric rash.

The patient was transferred to our institution 6 days after initial presentation with primary diagnoses of septic shock with multiorgan failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Blood cultures were positive for gram-negative rods. After several days of broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care, cultures were reported as positive for Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Upon further questioning, the patient’s wife reported that the couple had a new puppy and that the patient often allowed the dog to bite him playfully and lick abrasions on his hands and legs. He had not received medical treatment for any of the dog’s bites.

On initial examination at the time of transfer, the patient’s skin was remarkable for diffuse areas of stellate and retiform purpura with dusky centers and necrosis of the nasal tip and earlobes. Both hands were purpuric, with necrosis of the fingertips (Figure 1A). The flank was marked by large areas of full-thickness sloughing of the skin (Figure 1B). The lower extremities were edematous, with some areas of stellate purpura and numerous large bullae that drained straw-colored fluid (Figure 1C). Lower extremity pulses were found with Doppler ultrasonography.

Given the presence of rapidly developing retiform purpura in the clinical context of severe sepsis, purpura fulminans (PF) was the primary consideration in the differential diagnosis. Levamisole-induced necrosis syndrome also was considered because of necrosis of the ears and nose as well as the history of substance use; however, the patient was not known to have a history of cocaine abuse, and a test of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody was negative.

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed intravascular thrombi with epidermal and sweat gland necrosis, consistent with PF (Figure 2). Gram, Giemsa, and Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for organisms. Tissue culture remained negative. Repeat blood cultures demonstrated Candida parapsilosis fungemia. Respiratory culture was positive for budding yeast.

The patient was treated with antimicrobials, intravenous argatroban, and subcutaneous heparin. Purpura and bullae on the trunk slowly resolved with systemic therapy and wound care with petrolatum and nonadherent dressings. However, lesions on the nasal tip, all fingers of both hands, and several toes evolved into dry gangrene. The hospital course was complicated by renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support; and elevated levels of liver enzymes, consistent with involvement of the hepatic microvasculature.

The patient was in the medical intensive care unit at our institution for 2 weeks and was transferred to a burn center for specialized wound care. At transfer, he was still on a ventilator and receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Subsequently, the patient required a left above-the-knee amputation, right below-the-knee amputation, and amputation of several digits of the upper extremities. In the months after the amputations, he required multiple stump revisions and experienced surgical site infections that complicated healing.

Purpura fulminans is an uncommon syndrome characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic infarction of the skin. The condition commonly is associated with septic shock, causing vascular collapse and DIC. It often develops rapidly.

Because of associated high mortality, it is important to differentiate PF from other causes of cutaneous retiform purpura, including other causes of thrombosis and large vessel vasculitis. Leading causes of PF include infection and hereditary or acquired deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin III. Regardless of cause, biopsy results demonstrate vascular thrombosis out of proportion to vasculitis. The mortality rate is 42% to 50%. The incidence of postinfectious sepsis sequelae in PF is higher than in survivors of sepsis only, especially amputation.^1-3 Most patients do not die from complications of sepsis but from sequelae of the hypercoagulable and prothrombotic state associated with PF.⁴ Hemorrhagic infarction can affect the kidneys, brain, lungs, heart, eyes, and adrenal glands (ie, necrosis, namely Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome).⁵

The most common infectious cause of PF is sepsis secondary to Neisseria meningitidis, with as many as 25% of infected patients developing PF.⁶Streptococcus pneumoniae is another common cause. Other important causative organisms include Streptococcus pyogenes; Staphylococcus aureus (in the setting of intravenous substance use); Klebsiella oxytoca; Klebsiella aerogenes; rickettsial organisms; and viruses, including cytomegalovirus and varicella-zoster virus.^2,7-13 Two earlier cases associated with Capnocytophaga were characterized by concomitant renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hemolytic anemia, and DIC.¹⁴

It is estimated that Capnocytophaga causes 11% to 46% of all cases of sepsis¹⁵; sepsis resulting from Capnocytophaga has extremely poor outcomes, with mortality reaching as high as 60%. The organism is part of the normal oral flora of cats and dogs, and a bite (less often, a scratch) is the cause of most Capnocytophaga infections. The clinical spectrum of C canimorsus infection associated with dog saliva exposure more commonly includes cellulitis at or around the site of inoculation, meningitis, and endocarditis.¹⁶

Although patients affected by PF can be young and healthy, several risk factors for PF have been identified^2,6,16: asplenia, an immunocompromised state, systemic corticosteroid use, cirrhosis, and alcoholism. Asplenic patients have been shown to be particularly susceptible to systemic Capnocytophaga infection; when bitten by a dog, they should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics to cover Capnocytophaga.¹⁷ Immunocompetent patients rarely develop severe infection with Capnocytophaga.^16,18,19 The complement system in particular is critically important in defending against C canimorsus.²⁰

The underlying pathophysiology of acute infectious PF is multifactorial, encompassing increased expression of procoagulant tissue factor by monocytes and endothelial cells in the presence of bacterial pathogens. Dysfunction of protein C, an anticoagulant component of the coagulation cascade, often is cited as a crucial derangement leading to the development of a prothrombotic state in acute infectious PF.²¹ Serum protein S and antithrombin deficiency also can play a role.²² Specific in vitro examination of C canimorsus has revealed a protease that catalyzes N-terminal cleavage of procoagulant factor X, resulting in loss of function.¹⁵

Retiform purpura is a hallmark feature of PF, often beginning as nonblanching erythema with localized edema and petechiae before evolving into the characteristic stellate lesions with hemorrhagic bullae and subsequent necrosis.²³ Pathologic examination reveals microthrombi involving arterioles and smaller vessels.²⁴ There typically is laboratory evidence of DIC in PF, including elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and a decreased fibrinogen level.^6,23

Capnocytophaga bacteria are challenging to grow on standard culture media. Optimal media for growth include 5% sheep’s blood and chocolate agar.¹⁶ Polymerase chain reaction can identify Capnocytophaga; in cases in which blood culture does not produce growth, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of tissue from skin biopsy has identified the pathogen.²⁵

Some Capnocytophaga isolates have been shown to produce beta-lactamase; individual strains can be resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and imipenem.²⁶ Factors associated with an increased risk for death include decreased leukocyte and platelet counts and an increased level of arterial lactate.²⁷

Empiric antibiotic therapy for Capnocytophaga sepsis should include a beta-lactam and beta-lactamase inhibitor, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. Management of DIC can include therapeutic heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and prophylactic platelet transfusion to maintain a pre-established value.^28-30 Debridement should be conservative; it is important to wait for definite delineation between viable and necrotic tissue,³¹ which might take several months.³² Human skin allografts, in addition to artificial skin, are utilized as supplemental therapy for more rapid wound closure after removal of necrotic tissue.^33,34 Hyperoxygenated fatty acids have been noted to aid in more rapid wound healing in infants with PF.³⁵

Fresh frozen plasma is one method to replace missing factors, but it contains little protein C.³⁶ Outcomes with recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alfa) are mixed, and studies have shown no benefit in reducing the risk for death.^37,38 Protein C concentrate has shown therapeutic benefit in some case reports and small retrospective studies.⁴ In one case report, protein C concentrate and heparin were utilized in combination with antithrombin III.²¹

Hyperbaric O₂ might be of benefit when initiated within 5 days after onset of PF. However, hyperbaric O₂ does carry risk; O₂ toxicity, barotrauma, and barriers to timely resuscitation when the patient is inside the pressurized chamber can occur.²

There is a single report of successful use of the vasodilator iloprost for meningococcal PF without need for surgical intervention; the team also utilized topical nitroglycerin patches on the fingers to avoid digital amputation.³⁹ Epoprostenol, tissue plasminogen activator, and antithrombin have been utilized in cases of extensive PF. Fibrinolytic therapy might have some utility, but only in a setting of malignancy-associated DIC.⁴⁰

Treatment of acute infectious PF lacks a high level of evidence. Options include replacement of anticoagulant factors, anticoagulant therapy, hyperbaric O₂, topical and systemic vasodilators, and, in the setting of underlying cancer, fibrinolytics. Even with therapy, prognosis is guarded.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of opioid abuse and splenectomy decades prior due to a motor vehicle accident was brought to an outside emergency department with confusion, slurred speech, and difficulty breathing. Over the next few days, he became febrile and hypotensive, requiring vasopressors. Clinical laboratory testing revealed a urine drug screen positive for opioids and a low platelet count in the setting of a rapidly evolving retiform purpuric rash.

The patient was transferred to our institution 6 days after initial presentation with primary diagnoses of septic shock with multiorgan failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Blood cultures were positive for gram-negative rods. After several days of broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care, cultures were reported as positive for Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Upon further questioning, the patient’s wife reported that the couple had a new puppy and that the patient often allowed the dog to bite him playfully and lick abrasions on his hands and legs. He had not received medical treatment for any of the dog’s bites.

On initial examination at the time of transfer, the patient’s skin was remarkable for diffuse areas of stellate and retiform purpura with dusky centers and necrosis of the nasal tip and earlobes. Both hands were purpuric, with necrosis of the fingertips (Figure 1A). The flank was marked by large areas of full-thickness sloughing of the skin (Figure 1B). The lower extremities were edematous, with some areas of stellate purpura and numerous large bullae that drained straw-colored fluid (Figure 1C). Lower extremity pulses were found with Doppler ultrasonography.

Given the presence of rapidly developing retiform purpura in the clinical context of severe sepsis, purpura fulminans (PF) was the primary consideration in the differential diagnosis. Levamisole-induced necrosis syndrome also was considered because of necrosis of the ears and nose as well as the history of substance use; however, the patient was not known to have a history of cocaine abuse, and a test of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody was negative.

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed intravascular thrombi with epidermal and sweat gland necrosis, consistent with PF (Figure 2). Gram, Giemsa, and Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for organisms. Tissue culture remained negative. Repeat blood cultures demonstrated Candida parapsilosis fungemia. Respiratory culture was positive for budding yeast.

The patient was treated with antimicrobials, intravenous argatroban, and subcutaneous heparin. Purpura and bullae on the trunk slowly resolved with systemic therapy and wound care with petrolatum and nonadherent dressings. However, lesions on the nasal tip, all fingers of both hands, and several toes evolved into dry gangrene. The hospital course was complicated by renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support; and elevated levels of liver enzymes, consistent with involvement of the hepatic microvasculature.

The patient was in the medical intensive care unit at our institution for 2 weeks and was transferred to a burn center for specialized wound care. At transfer, he was still on a ventilator and receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Subsequently, the patient required a left above-the-knee amputation, right below-the-knee amputation, and amputation of several digits of the upper extremities. In the months after the amputations, he required multiple stump revisions and experienced surgical site infections that complicated healing.

Purpura fulminans is an uncommon syndrome characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic infarction of the skin. The condition commonly is associated with septic shock, causing vascular collapse and DIC. It often develops rapidly.

Because of associated high mortality, it is important to differentiate PF from other causes of cutaneous retiform purpura, including other causes of thrombosis and large vessel vasculitis. Leading causes of PF include infection and hereditary or acquired deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin III. Regardless of cause, biopsy results demonstrate vascular thrombosis out of proportion to vasculitis. The mortality rate is 42% to 50%. The incidence of postinfectious sepsis sequelae in PF is higher than in survivors of sepsis only, especially amputation.^1-3 Most patients do not die from complications of sepsis but from sequelae of the hypercoagulable and prothrombotic state associated with PF.⁴ Hemorrhagic infarction can affect the kidneys, brain, lungs, heart, eyes, and adrenal glands (ie, necrosis, namely Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome).⁵

The most common infectious cause of PF is sepsis secondary to Neisseria meningitidis, with as many as 25% of infected patients developing PF.⁶Streptococcus pneumoniae is another common cause. Other important causative organisms include Streptococcus pyogenes; Staphylococcus aureus (in the setting of intravenous substance use); Klebsiella oxytoca; Klebsiella aerogenes; rickettsial organisms; and viruses, including cytomegalovirus and varicella-zoster virus.^2,7-13 Two earlier cases associated with Capnocytophaga were characterized by concomitant renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hemolytic anemia, and DIC.¹⁴

It is estimated that Capnocytophaga causes 11% to 46% of all cases of sepsis¹⁵; sepsis resulting from Capnocytophaga has extremely poor outcomes, with mortality reaching as high as 60%. The organism is part of the normal oral flora of cats and dogs, and a bite (less often, a scratch) is the cause of most Capnocytophaga infections. The clinical spectrum of C canimorsus infection associated with dog saliva exposure more commonly includes cellulitis at or around the site of inoculation, meningitis, and endocarditis.¹⁶

Although patients affected by PF can be young and healthy, several risk factors for PF have been identified^2,6,16: asplenia, an immunocompromised state, systemic corticosteroid use, cirrhosis, and alcoholism. Asplenic patients have been shown to be particularly susceptible to systemic Capnocytophaga infection; when bitten by a dog, they should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics to cover Capnocytophaga.¹⁷ Immunocompetent patients rarely develop severe infection with Capnocytophaga.^16,18,19 The complement system in particular is critically important in defending against C canimorsus.²⁰

The underlying pathophysiology of acute infectious PF is multifactorial, encompassing increased expression of procoagulant tissue factor by monocytes and endothelial cells in the presence of bacterial pathogens. Dysfunction of protein C, an anticoagulant component of the coagulation cascade, often is cited as a crucial derangement leading to the development of a prothrombotic state in acute infectious PF.²¹ Serum protein S and antithrombin deficiency also can play a role.²² Specific in vitro examination of C canimorsus has revealed a protease that catalyzes N-terminal cleavage of procoagulant factor X, resulting in loss of function.¹⁵

Retiform purpura is a hallmark feature of PF, often beginning as nonblanching erythema with localized edema and petechiae before evolving into the characteristic stellate lesions with hemorrhagic bullae and subsequent necrosis.²³ Pathologic examination reveals microthrombi involving arterioles and smaller vessels.²⁴ There typically is laboratory evidence of DIC in PF, including elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and a decreased fibrinogen level.^6,23

Capnocytophaga bacteria are challenging to grow on standard culture media. Optimal media for growth include 5% sheep’s blood and chocolate agar.¹⁶ Polymerase chain reaction can identify Capnocytophaga; in cases in which blood culture does not produce growth, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of tissue from skin biopsy has identified the pathogen.²⁵

Some Capnocytophaga isolates have been shown to produce beta-lactamase; individual strains can be resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and imipenem.²⁶ Factors associated with an increased risk for death include decreased leukocyte and platelet counts and an increased level of arterial lactate.²⁷

Empiric antibiotic therapy for Capnocytophaga sepsis should include a beta-lactam and beta-lactamase inhibitor, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. Management of DIC can include therapeutic heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and prophylactic platelet transfusion to maintain a pre-established value.^28-30 Debridement should be conservative; it is important to wait for definite delineation between viable and necrotic tissue,³¹ which might take several months.³² Human skin allografts, in addition to artificial skin, are utilized as supplemental therapy for more rapid wound closure after removal of necrotic tissue.^33,34 Hyperoxygenated fatty acids have been noted to aid in more rapid wound healing in infants with PF.³⁵

Fresh frozen plasma is one method to replace missing factors, but it contains little protein C.³⁶ Outcomes with recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alfa) are mixed, and studies have shown no benefit in reducing the risk for death.^37,38 Protein C concentrate has shown therapeutic benefit in some case reports and small retrospective studies.⁴ In one case report, protein C concentrate and heparin were utilized in combination with antithrombin III.²¹

Hyperbaric O₂ might be of benefit when initiated within 5 days after onset of PF. However, hyperbaric O₂ does carry risk; O₂ toxicity, barotrauma, and barriers to timely resuscitation when the patient is inside the pressurized chamber can occur.²

There is a single report of successful use of the vasodilator iloprost for meningococcal PF without need for surgical intervention; the team also utilized topical nitroglycerin patches on the fingers to avoid digital amputation.³⁹ Epoprostenol, tissue plasminogen activator, and antithrombin have been utilized in cases of extensive PF. Fibrinolytic therapy might have some utility, but only in a setting of malignancy-associated DIC.⁴⁰

Treatment of acute infectious PF lacks a high level of evidence. Options include replacement of anticoagulant factors, anticoagulant therapy, hyperbaric O₂, topical and systemic vasodilators, and, in the setting of underlying cancer, fibrinolytics. Even with therapy, prognosis is guarded.

To the Editor:

Purpura fulminans (PF) is an acute, life-threatening condition characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic necrosis of the skin. It classically presents as retiform purpura with branched or angular purpuric lesions. Purpura fulminans often occurs in the setting of disseminated intravascular coagulation, secondary to sepsis, trauma, malignancy, autoimmune disease, and congenital or acquired protein C or S deficiency, among other abnormalities.¹ Rapid identification and treatment of the underlying cause are mainstays of management. We report a case of PF secondary to Vibrio vulnificus infection and highlight the importance of timely consideration of this etiologic agent due to the high mortality rate and specific treatment required.

A 58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis B virus presented with pain, swelling, and localized erythema affecting both legs as well as a fever. He reported vomiting blood and an episode of bloody diarrhea over the preceding 24 hours. He denied exposure to sick contacts or a history of autoimmune disease. At initial presentation to the emergency department, physical examination revealed few scattered, sharply demarcated, erythematous to violaceous patches that rapidly progressed overnight to hemorrhagic bullae and widespread retiform purpuric patches on both legs (Figure 1). As the patient’s skin condition worsened, he had a blood pressure of 80/50 mm Hg and a pulse rate of 110/min. Serum analysis was notable for mild leukocytosis (10.74×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.8–10.8×10⁹/L), thrombocytopenia (39×10⁹/L [reference range, 150–450×10⁹/L]), and decreased C3 (25 mg/dL [reference range, 81–157 mg/dL]) and C4 (8 mg/dL [reference range, 13–39 mg/dL]). Laboratory findings also were remarkable for prothrombin time (23.3 seconds [reference range, 8.8–12.3 seconds]), partial thromboplastin time (52.5 seconds [reference range, 23.6–35.8 seconds]), and international normalized ratio (2.01 [reference range, 0.8–1.13]). Aspartate transaminase (237 U/L [reference range, 11–39 U/L]) and alanine transaminase (80 U/L [reference range, 11–35 U/L]) were elevated, while antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, serum immunoglobulin, and cryoglobulins were unremarkable. Punch biopsies of the left thigh were performed, and histopathology revealed small vessel thrombosis and ischemic changes consistent with PF (Figure 2). Vancomycin, clindamycin, cefepime injection, and piperacillin-tazobactam were administered intravenously for empiric broad-spectrum sepsis coverage. Within hours, the patient experienced refractory septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation and died from pulmonary embolism and subsequent cardiac arrest. Tissue and blood cultures grew V vulnificus.

Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacillus and a rare cause of primary septicemia following consumption of shellfish, especially oysters. Wounds exposed to saltwater or brackish water contaminated with the microorganism can produce soft-tissue infections. Individuals with chronic liver disease are at greater risk for V vulnificus infection.² The clinical presentation of V vulnificus includes early cellulitislike patches, late purpura with hemorrhagic bullae, and rapidly progressing shock.³

Mortality rates from V vulnificus infection are high.⁴ Therefore, it is recommended to presumptively diagnose V vulnificus septicemia in any individual at risk for infection who presents with the characteristic history in the setting of hypotension, fever, or septic shock. It is crucial for providers to be aware that broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used for sepsis are inadequate for the treatment of V vulnificus. Immediate treatment with tetracycline (minocycline or doxycycline) and a third-generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone injection) or in combination with ciprofloxacin has been proven effective.^4,5

Vibrio vulnificus rarely is described in the literature as inducing PF. In one previously reported case, the patient was otherwise healthy and managed to recover following antibiotic therapy and wound debridement,⁶ whereas in another case the patient had undiagnosed liver cirrhosis and died from the infection.^6,7 In the latter case, the patient presented to the emergency department in a coma. Our patient did not have the clinical signs of sepsis upon initial presentation to the emergency department. It is possible the infection rapidly progressed because of his underlying liver disease. Genotyping analysis of V vulnificus has shown that strains with low pathogenicity can cause primary septicemia in humans.⁷

Our case reinforces the need to quickly recognize V vulnificus as a rare underlying cause of PF and administer the appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Purpura fulminans (PF) is an acute, life-threatening condition characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic necrosis of the skin. It classically presents as retiform purpura with branched or angular purpuric lesions. Purpura fulminans often occurs in the setting of disseminated intravascular coagulation, secondary to sepsis, trauma, malignancy, autoimmune disease, and congenital or acquired protein C or S deficiency, among other abnormalities.¹ Rapid identification and treatment of the underlying cause are mainstays of management. We report a case of PF secondary to Vibrio vulnificus infection and highlight the importance of timely consideration of this etiologic agent due to the high mortality rate and specific treatment required.

A 58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis B virus presented with pain, swelling, and localized erythema affecting both legs as well as a fever. He reported vomiting blood and an episode of bloody diarrhea over the preceding 24 hours. He denied exposure to sick contacts or a history of autoimmune disease. At initial presentation to the emergency department, physical examination revealed few scattered, sharply demarcated, erythematous to violaceous patches that rapidly progressed overnight to hemorrhagic bullae and widespread retiform purpuric patches on both legs (Figure 1). As the patient’s skin condition worsened, he had a blood pressure of 80/50 mm Hg and a pulse rate of 110/min. Serum analysis was notable for mild leukocytosis (10.74×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.8–10.8×10⁹/L), thrombocytopenia (39×10⁹/L [reference range, 150–450×10⁹/L]), and decreased C3 (25 mg/dL [reference range, 81–157 mg/dL]) and C4 (8 mg/dL [reference range, 13–39 mg/dL]). Laboratory findings also were remarkable for prothrombin time (23.3 seconds [reference range, 8.8–12.3 seconds]), partial thromboplastin time (52.5 seconds [reference range, 23.6–35.8 seconds]), and international normalized ratio (2.01 [reference range, 0.8–1.13]). Aspartate transaminase (237 U/L [reference range, 11–39 U/L]) and alanine transaminase (80 U/L [reference range, 11–35 U/L]) were elevated, while antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, serum immunoglobulin, and cryoglobulins were unremarkable. Punch biopsies of the left thigh were performed, and histopathology revealed small vessel thrombosis and ischemic changes consistent with PF (Figure 2). Vancomycin, clindamycin, cefepime injection, and piperacillin-tazobactam were administered intravenously for empiric broad-spectrum sepsis coverage. Within hours, the patient experienced refractory septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation and died from pulmonary embolism and subsequent cardiac arrest. Tissue and blood cultures grew V vulnificus.

Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacillus and a rare cause of primary septicemia following consumption of shellfish, especially oysters. Wounds exposed to saltwater or brackish water contaminated with the microorganism can produce soft-tissue infections. Individuals with chronic liver disease are at greater risk for V vulnificus infection.² The clinical presentation of V vulnificus includes early cellulitislike patches, late purpura with hemorrhagic bullae, and rapidly progressing shock.³

Mortality rates from V vulnificus infection are high.⁴ Therefore, it is recommended to presumptively diagnose V vulnificus septicemia in any individual at risk for infection who presents with the characteristic history in the setting of hypotension, fever, or septic shock. It is crucial for providers to be aware that broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used for sepsis are inadequate for the treatment of V vulnificus. Immediate treatment with tetracycline (minocycline or doxycycline) and a third-generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone injection) or in combination with ciprofloxacin has been proven effective.^4,5

Vibrio vulnificus rarely is described in the literature as inducing PF. In one previously reported case, the patient was otherwise healthy and managed to recover following antibiotic therapy and wound debridement,⁶ whereas in another case the patient had undiagnosed liver cirrhosis and died from the infection.^6,7 In the latter case, the patient presented to the emergency department in a coma. Our patient did not have the clinical signs of sepsis upon initial presentation to the emergency department. It is possible the infection rapidly progressed because of his underlying liver disease. Genotyping analysis of V vulnificus has shown that strains with low pathogenicity can cause primary septicemia in humans.⁷

Our case reinforces the need to quickly recognize V vulnificus as a rare underlying cause of PF and administer the appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Purpura fulminans (PF) is an acute, life-threatening condition characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic necrosis of the skin. It classically presents as retiform purpura with branched or angular purpuric lesions. Purpura fulminans often occurs in the setting of disseminated intravascular coagulation, secondary to sepsis, trauma, malignancy, autoimmune disease, and congenital or acquired protein C or S deficiency, among other abnormalities.¹ Rapid identification and treatment of the underlying cause are mainstays of management. We report a case of PF secondary to Vibrio vulnificus infection and highlight the importance of timely consideration of this etiologic agent due to the high mortality rate and specific treatment required.

A 58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis B virus presented with pain, swelling, and localized erythema affecting both legs as well as a fever. He reported vomiting blood and an episode of bloody diarrhea over the preceding 24 hours. He denied exposure to sick contacts or a history of autoimmune disease. At initial presentation to the emergency department, physical examination revealed few scattered, sharply demarcated, erythematous to violaceous patches that rapidly progressed overnight to hemorrhagic bullae and widespread retiform purpuric patches on both legs (Figure 1). As the patient’s skin condition worsened, he had a blood pressure of 80/50 mm Hg and a pulse rate of 110/min. Serum analysis was notable for mild leukocytosis (10.74×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.8–10.8×10⁹/L), thrombocytopenia (39×10⁹/L [reference range, 150–450×10⁹/L]), and decreased C3 (25 mg/dL [reference range, 81–157 mg/dL]) and C4 (8 mg/dL [reference range, 13–39 mg/dL]). Laboratory findings also were remarkable for prothrombin time (23.3 seconds [reference range, 8.8–12.3 seconds]), partial thromboplastin time (52.5 seconds [reference range, 23.6–35.8 seconds]), and international normalized ratio (2.01 [reference range, 0.8–1.13]). Aspartate transaminase (237 U/L [reference range, 11–39 U/L]) and alanine transaminase (80 U/L [reference range, 11–35 U/L]) were elevated, while antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, serum immunoglobulin, and cryoglobulins were unremarkable. Punch biopsies of the left thigh were performed, and histopathology revealed small vessel thrombosis and ischemic changes consistent with PF (Figure 2). Vancomycin, clindamycin, cefepime injection, and piperacillin-tazobactam were administered intravenously for empiric broad-spectrum sepsis coverage. Within hours, the patient experienced refractory septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation and died from pulmonary embolism and subsequent cardiac arrest. Tissue and blood cultures grew V vulnificus.

Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacillus and a rare cause of primary septicemia following consumption of shellfish, especially oysters. Wounds exposed to saltwater or brackish water contaminated with the microorganism can produce soft-tissue infections. Individuals with chronic liver disease are at greater risk for V vulnificus infection.² The clinical presentation of V vulnificus includes early cellulitislike patches, late purpura with hemorrhagic bullae, and rapidly progressing shock.³

Mortality rates from V vulnificus infection are high.⁴ Therefore, it is recommended to presumptively diagnose V vulnificus septicemia in any individual at risk for infection who presents with the characteristic history in the setting of hypotension, fever, or septic shock. It is crucial for providers to be aware that broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used for sepsis are inadequate for the treatment of V vulnificus. Immediate treatment with tetracycline (minocycline or doxycycline) and a third-generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone injection) or in combination with ciprofloxacin has been proven effective.^4,5

Vibrio vulnificus rarely is described in the literature as inducing PF. In one previously reported case, the patient was otherwise healthy and managed to recover following antibiotic therapy and wound debridement,⁶ whereas in another case the patient had undiagnosed liver cirrhosis and died from the infection.^6,7 In the latter case, the patient presented to the emergency department in a coma. Our patient did not have the clinical signs of sepsis upon initial presentation to the emergency department. It is possible the infection rapidly progressed because of his underlying liver disease. Genotyping analysis of V vulnificus has shown that strains with low pathogenicity can cause primary septicemia in humans.⁷

Our case reinforces the need to quickly recognize V vulnificus as a rare underlying cause of PF and administer the appropriate treatment.