Case Reports

There are several malignant and nonmalignant conditions that can lead to central airway obstruction (CAO) resulting in lobar collapse. The clinical consequences range from significant dyspnea to respiratory failure. Airway stenting has been used to maintain patency of obstructed airways and relieve symptoms. Before lung cancer screening became more common, approximately 10% of lung cancers at presentation had evidence of CAO.¹

On occasion, an endobronchial malignancy involves the right mainstem (RMS) bronchus near the orifice of the right upper lobe (RUL).² Such strategically located lesions pose a challenge to relieve the RMS obstruction through stenting, securing airway patency into the bronchus intermedius (BI) while avoiding obstruction of the RUL bronchus. The use of endobronchial silicone stents, hybrid covered stents, as well as self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) is an established mode of relieving CAO due to malignant disease.³ We reviewed the literature for approaches that were available before and after the date of the index case reported here.

Case Presentation

A 65-year-old veteran with a history of smoking presented to a US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in 2011, with hemoptysis of 2-week duration. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest revealed a 5.3 × 4.2 × 6.5 cm right mediastinal mass and a 3.0 × 2.8 × 3 cm right hilar mass. Flexible bronchoscopy revealed > 80% occlusion of the RMS and BI due to a medially located mass sparing the RUL orifice, which was patent (Figure 1). Airways distal to the BI were free of disease. Endobronchial biopsies revealed poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. The patient was referred to the interventional pulmonary service for further airway management.

Under general anesthesia and through a size-9 endotracheal tube, piecemeal debulking of the mass using a cryoprobe was performed. Argon photocoagulation (APC) was used to control bleeding. Balloon bronchoplasty was performed next with pulmonary Boston Scientific CRE balloon at the BI and the RMS bronchus. Under fluoroscopic guidance, a 12 × 30 mm self-expanding hybrid Merit Medical AERO stent was placed distally into the BI. Next, a 14 × 30 mm AERO stent was placed proximally in the RMS bronchus with its distal end telescoped into the smaller distal stent for a distance of 3 to 4 mm at a slanted angle. The overlap was deliberately performed at the level of RUL takeoff. Forcing the distal end of the proximal larger stent into a smaller stent created mechanical stress. The angled alignment channeled this mechanical stress so that the distal end of the proximal stent flared open laterally into the RUL orifice to allow for ventilation (Figure 2). On follow-up 6 months later, all 3 airways remained patent with stents in place (Figure 3).

Literature Review

A literature review revealed multiple approaches to preserving a 3-way patent airway at the takeoff of the RUL (Table). One approach to alleviating such an obstruction favors placing a straight silicone stent from the RMS into the BI, closing off the orifice of the RUL (Figure 4A).⁴ However, this entails sacrificing ventilation of the RUL. An alternative suggested by Peled and colleagues was carried out successfully in 3 patients. After placing a stent to relieve the obstruction, a Nd:YAG laser is used to create a window in the stent in proximity to the RUL orifice, which allows preservation or ventilations to the RUL (Figure 4B).⁵

A third effective approach utilizes silicone Y stents, which are usually employed for relief of obstruction at the level of the main carina.^6,7 Instead of deploying them at the main carina, they would be deployed at the secondary carina, which the RUL makes with the BI, often with customized cutting for adjustment of the stent limbs to the appropriate size of the RUL and BI (Figure 4C). This approach has been successfully used to maintain RUL ventilation.²

A fourth technique involves using an Oki stent, a dedicated bifurcated silicone stent, which was first described in 2013. It is designed for the RMS bronchus around the RUL and BI bifurcation, enabling the stent to maintain airway patency in the right lung without affecting the trachea and carina (Figure 4D). The arm located in the RUL prevents migration.⁸ A fifth technique involves deploying a precisely selected Oki stent specially modified based on a printed 3-dimensional (3D) model of the airways after computer-aided simulation.⁹A sixth technique employs de novo custom printing stents based on 3D models of the tracheobronchial tree constructed based on CT imaging. This approach creates more accurately fitting stents.¹

Discussion

The RUL contributes roughly 5 to 10% of the total oxygenation capacity of the lung.¹⁰ In patients with lung cancer and limited pulmonary reserve, preserving ventilation to the RUL can be clinically important. The chosen method to relieve endobronchial obstruction depends on several variables, including expertise, ability of the patient to undergo general anesthesia for rigid or flexible bronchoscopy, stent availability, and airway anatomy.

This case illustrates a new method to deal with lesions close to the RUL orifice. This maneuver may not be possible with all types of stents. AERO stents are fully covered (Figure 4E). In contrast, stents that are uncovered at both distal ends, such as a Boston Scientific Ultraflex stent, may not be adequate for such a maneuver. Intercalating uncovered ends of SEMS may allow for tumor in-growth through the uncovered metal mesh near the RUL orifice and may paradoxically compromise both the RUL and BI. The diameter of AERO stents is slightly larger at its ends.¹¹ This helps prevent migration, which in this case maintained the crucial overlap of the stents. On the other hand, use of AERO stents may be associated with a higher risk of infection.¹² Precise measurements of the airway diameter are essential given the difference in internal and external stent diameter with silicone stents.

Silicone stents migrate more readily than SEMS and may not be well suited for the procedure we performed. In our case, we wished to maintain ventilation for the RUL; hence, we elected not to bypass it with a silicone stent. We did not have access to a YAG. Moreover, laser carries more energy than APC. Nd:YAG laser has been reported to cause airway fire when used with silicone stents.¹³ Several authors have reported the use of silicone Y stents at the primary or secondary carina to preserve luminal patency.^6,7 Airway anatomy and the angle of the Y may require modification of these stents prior to their use. Cutting stents may compromise their integrity. The bifurcating limb prevents migration which can be a significant concern with the tubular silicone stents. An important consideration for patients in advanced stages of malignancy is that placement of such stent requires undergoing general anesthesia and rigid bronchoscopy, unlike with AERO and metal stents that can be deployed with fiberoptic bronchoscopy under moderate sedation. As such, we did not elect to use a silicone Y stent. Accumulation of secretions or formation of granulation tissue at the orifices can result in recurrence of obstruction.¹⁴

Advances in 3D printing seem to be the future of customized airway stenting. This could help clinicians overcome the challenges of improperly sized stents and distorted airway anatomy. Cases have reported successful use of 3D-printed patient-specific airway prostheses.^15,16 However, their use is not common practice, as there is a limited amount of materials that are flexible, biocompatible, and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use. Infection control is another layer of consideration in such stents. Standardization of materials and regulation of personalized devices and their cleansing protocols is neccesary.¹⁷ At the time of this case, Oki stents and 3D printing were not available in the market. This report provides a viable alternative to use AERO stents for this maneuver.

Conclusions

Patients presenting with malignant CAO near the RUL require a personalized approach to treatment, considering their overall health, functional status, nature and location of CAO, and degree of symptoms. Once a decision is made to stent the airway, careful assessment of airway anatomy, delineation of obstruction, available expertise, and types of stents available needs to be made to preserve ventilation to the nondiseased RUL. Airway stents are expensive and need to be used wisely for palliation and allowing for a quality life while the patient receives more definitive targeted therapy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr Jenny Kim, who referred the patient to the interventional service and helped obtain consent for publishing the case.

There are several malignant and nonmalignant conditions that can lead to central airway obstruction (CAO) resulting in lobar collapse. The clinical consequences range from significant dyspnea to respiratory failure. Airway stenting has been used to maintain patency of obstructed airways and relieve symptoms. Before lung cancer screening became more common, approximately 10% of lung cancers at presentation had evidence of CAO.¹

On occasion, an endobronchial malignancy involves the right mainstem (RMS) bronchus near the orifice of the right upper lobe (RUL).² Such strategically located lesions pose a challenge to relieve the RMS obstruction through stenting, securing airway patency into the bronchus intermedius (BI) while avoiding obstruction of the RUL bronchus. The use of endobronchial silicone stents, hybrid covered stents, as well as self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) is an established mode of relieving CAO due to malignant disease.³ We reviewed the literature for approaches that were available before and after the date of the index case reported here.

Case Presentation

A 65-year-old veteran with a history of smoking presented to a US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in 2011, with hemoptysis of 2-week duration. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest revealed a 5.3 × 4.2 × 6.5 cm right mediastinal mass and a 3.0 × 2.8 × 3 cm right hilar mass. Flexible bronchoscopy revealed > 80% occlusion of the RMS and BI due to a medially located mass sparing the RUL orifice, which was patent (Figure 1). Airways distal to the BI were free of disease. Endobronchial biopsies revealed poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. The patient was referred to the interventional pulmonary service for further airway management.

Under general anesthesia and through a size-9 endotracheal tube, piecemeal debulking of the mass using a cryoprobe was performed. Argon photocoagulation (APC) was used to control bleeding. Balloon bronchoplasty was performed next with pulmonary Boston Scientific CRE balloon at the BI and the RMS bronchus. Under fluoroscopic guidance, a 12 × 30 mm self-expanding hybrid Merit Medical AERO stent was placed distally into the BI. Next, a 14 × 30 mm AERO stent was placed proximally in the RMS bronchus with its distal end telescoped into the smaller distal stent for a distance of 3 to 4 mm at a slanted angle. The overlap was deliberately performed at the level of RUL takeoff. Forcing the distal end of the proximal larger stent into a smaller stent created mechanical stress. The angled alignment channeled this mechanical stress so that the distal end of the proximal stent flared open laterally into the RUL orifice to allow for ventilation (Figure 2). On follow-up 6 months later, all 3 airways remained patent with stents in place (Figure 3).

Literature Review

A literature review revealed multiple approaches to preserving a 3-way patent airway at the takeoff of the RUL (Table). One approach to alleviating such an obstruction favors placing a straight silicone stent from the RMS into the BI, closing off the orifice of the RUL (Figure 4A).⁴ However, this entails sacrificing ventilation of the RUL. An alternative suggested by Peled and colleagues was carried out successfully in 3 patients. After placing a stent to relieve the obstruction, a Nd:YAG laser is used to create a window in the stent in proximity to the RUL orifice, which allows preservation or ventilations to the RUL (Figure 4B).⁵

A third effective approach utilizes silicone Y stents, which are usually employed for relief of obstruction at the level of the main carina.^6,7 Instead of deploying them at the main carina, they would be deployed at the secondary carina, which the RUL makes with the BI, often with customized cutting for adjustment of the stent limbs to the appropriate size of the RUL and BI (Figure 4C). This approach has been successfully used to maintain RUL ventilation.²

A fourth technique involves using an Oki stent, a dedicated bifurcated silicone stent, which was first described in 2013. It is designed for the RMS bronchus around the RUL and BI bifurcation, enabling the stent to maintain airway patency in the right lung without affecting the trachea and carina (Figure 4D). The arm located in the RUL prevents migration.⁸ A fifth technique involves deploying a precisely selected Oki stent specially modified based on a printed 3-dimensional (3D) model of the airways after computer-aided simulation.⁹A sixth technique employs de novo custom printing stents based on 3D models of the tracheobronchial tree constructed based on CT imaging. This approach creates more accurately fitting stents.¹

Discussion

The RUL contributes roughly 5 to 10% of the total oxygenation capacity of the lung.¹⁰ In patients with lung cancer and limited pulmonary reserve, preserving ventilation to the RUL can be clinically important. The chosen method to relieve endobronchial obstruction depends on several variables, including expertise, ability of the patient to undergo general anesthesia for rigid or flexible bronchoscopy, stent availability, and airway anatomy.

This case illustrates a new method to deal with lesions close to the RUL orifice. This maneuver may not be possible with all types of stents. AERO stents are fully covered (Figure 4E). In contrast, stents that are uncovered at both distal ends, such as a Boston Scientific Ultraflex stent, may not be adequate for such a maneuver. Intercalating uncovered ends of SEMS may allow for tumor in-growth through the uncovered metal mesh near the RUL orifice and may paradoxically compromise both the RUL and BI. The diameter of AERO stents is slightly larger at its ends.¹¹ This helps prevent migration, which in this case maintained the crucial overlap of the stents. On the other hand, use of AERO stents may be associated with a higher risk of infection.¹² Precise measurements of the airway diameter are essential given the difference in internal and external stent diameter with silicone stents.

Silicone stents migrate more readily than SEMS and may not be well suited for the procedure we performed. In our case, we wished to maintain ventilation for the RUL; hence, we elected not to bypass it with a silicone stent. We did not have access to a YAG. Moreover, laser carries more energy than APC. Nd:YAG laser has been reported to cause airway fire when used with silicone stents.¹³ Several authors have reported the use of silicone Y stents at the primary or secondary carina to preserve luminal patency.^6,7 Airway anatomy and the angle of the Y may require modification of these stents prior to their use. Cutting stents may compromise their integrity. The bifurcating limb prevents migration which can be a significant concern with the tubular silicone stents. An important consideration for patients in advanced stages of malignancy is that placement of such stent requires undergoing general anesthesia and rigid bronchoscopy, unlike with AERO and metal stents that can be deployed with fiberoptic bronchoscopy under moderate sedation. As such, we did not elect to use a silicone Y stent. Accumulation of secretions or formation of granulation tissue at the orifices can result in recurrence of obstruction.¹⁴

Advances in 3D printing seem to be the future of customized airway stenting. This could help clinicians overcome the challenges of improperly sized stents and distorted airway anatomy. Cases have reported successful use of 3D-printed patient-specific airway prostheses.^15,16 However, their use is not common practice, as there is a limited amount of materials that are flexible, biocompatible, and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use. Infection control is another layer of consideration in such stents. Standardization of materials and regulation of personalized devices and their cleansing protocols is neccesary.¹⁷ At the time of this case, Oki stents and 3D printing were not available in the market. This report provides a viable alternative to use AERO stents for this maneuver.

Conclusions

Patients presenting with malignant CAO near the RUL require a personalized approach to treatment, considering their overall health, functional status, nature and location of CAO, and degree of symptoms. Once a decision is made to stent the airway, careful assessment of airway anatomy, delineation of obstruction, available expertise, and types of stents available needs to be made to preserve ventilation to the nondiseased RUL. Airway stents are expensive and need to be used wisely for palliation and allowing for a quality life while the patient receives more definitive targeted therapy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr Jenny Kim, who referred the patient to the interventional service and helped obtain consent for publishing the case.

There are several malignant and nonmalignant conditions that can lead to central airway obstruction (CAO) resulting in lobar collapse. The clinical consequences range from significant dyspnea to respiratory failure. Airway stenting has been used to maintain patency of obstructed airways and relieve symptoms. Before lung cancer screening became more common, approximately 10% of lung cancers at presentation had evidence of CAO.¹

On occasion, an endobronchial malignancy involves the right mainstem (RMS) bronchus near the orifice of the right upper lobe (RUL).² Such strategically located lesions pose a challenge to relieve the RMS obstruction through stenting, securing airway patency into the bronchus intermedius (BI) while avoiding obstruction of the RUL bronchus. The use of endobronchial silicone stents, hybrid covered stents, as well as self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) is an established mode of relieving CAO due to malignant disease.³ We reviewed the literature for approaches that were available before and after the date of the index case reported here.

Case Presentation

A 65-year-old veteran with a history of smoking presented to a US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in 2011, with hemoptysis of 2-week duration. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest revealed a 5.3 × 4.2 × 6.5 cm right mediastinal mass and a 3.0 × 2.8 × 3 cm right hilar mass. Flexible bronchoscopy revealed > 80% occlusion of the RMS and BI due to a medially located mass sparing the RUL orifice, which was patent (Figure 1). Airways distal to the BI were free of disease. Endobronchial biopsies revealed poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. The patient was referred to the interventional pulmonary service for further airway management.

Under general anesthesia and through a size-9 endotracheal tube, piecemeal debulking of the mass using a cryoprobe was performed. Argon photocoagulation (APC) was used to control bleeding. Balloon bronchoplasty was performed next with pulmonary Boston Scientific CRE balloon at the BI and the RMS bronchus. Under fluoroscopic guidance, a 12 × 30 mm self-expanding hybrid Merit Medical AERO stent was placed distally into the BI. Next, a 14 × 30 mm AERO stent was placed proximally in the RMS bronchus with its distal end telescoped into the smaller distal stent for a distance of 3 to 4 mm at a slanted angle. The overlap was deliberately performed at the level of RUL takeoff. Forcing the distal end of the proximal larger stent into a smaller stent created mechanical stress. The angled alignment channeled this mechanical stress so that the distal end of the proximal stent flared open laterally into the RUL orifice to allow for ventilation (Figure 2). On follow-up 6 months later, all 3 airways remained patent with stents in place (Figure 3).

Literature Review

A literature review revealed multiple approaches to preserving a 3-way patent airway at the takeoff of the RUL (Table). One approach to alleviating such an obstruction favors placing a straight silicone stent from the RMS into the BI, closing off the orifice of the RUL (Figure 4A).⁴ However, this entails sacrificing ventilation of the RUL. An alternative suggested by Peled and colleagues was carried out successfully in 3 patients. After placing a stent to relieve the obstruction, a Nd:YAG laser is used to create a window in the stent in proximity to the RUL orifice, which allows preservation or ventilations to the RUL (Figure 4B).⁵

A third effective approach utilizes silicone Y stents, which are usually employed for relief of obstruction at the level of the main carina.^6,7 Instead of deploying them at the main carina, they would be deployed at the secondary carina, which the RUL makes with the BI, often with customized cutting for adjustment of the stent limbs to the appropriate size of the RUL and BI (Figure 4C). This approach has been successfully used to maintain RUL ventilation.²

A fourth technique involves using an Oki stent, a dedicated bifurcated silicone stent, which was first described in 2013. It is designed for the RMS bronchus around the RUL and BI bifurcation, enabling the stent to maintain airway patency in the right lung without affecting the trachea and carina (Figure 4D). The arm located in the RUL prevents migration.⁸ A fifth technique involves deploying a precisely selected Oki stent specially modified based on a printed 3-dimensional (3D) model of the airways after computer-aided simulation.⁹A sixth technique employs de novo custom printing stents based on 3D models of the tracheobronchial tree constructed based on CT imaging. This approach creates more accurately fitting stents.¹

Discussion

The RUL contributes roughly 5 to 10% of the total oxygenation capacity of the lung.¹⁰ In patients with lung cancer and limited pulmonary reserve, preserving ventilation to the RUL can be clinically important. The chosen method to relieve endobronchial obstruction depends on several variables, including expertise, ability of the patient to undergo general anesthesia for rigid or flexible bronchoscopy, stent availability, and airway anatomy.

This case illustrates a new method to deal with lesions close to the RUL orifice. This maneuver may not be possible with all types of stents. AERO stents are fully covered (Figure 4E). In contrast, stents that are uncovered at both distal ends, such as a Boston Scientific Ultraflex stent, may not be adequate for such a maneuver. Intercalating uncovered ends of SEMS may allow for tumor in-growth through the uncovered metal mesh near the RUL orifice and may paradoxically compromise both the RUL and BI. The diameter of AERO stents is slightly larger at its ends.¹¹ This helps prevent migration, which in this case maintained the crucial overlap of the stents. On the other hand, use of AERO stents may be associated with a higher risk of infection.¹² Precise measurements of the airway diameter are essential given the difference in internal and external stent diameter with silicone stents.

Silicone stents migrate more readily than SEMS and may not be well suited for the procedure we performed. In our case, we wished to maintain ventilation for the RUL; hence, we elected not to bypass it with a silicone stent. We did not have access to a YAG. Moreover, laser carries more energy than APC. Nd:YAG laser has been reported to cause airway fire when used with silicone stents.¹³ Several authors have reported the use of silicone Y stents at the primary or secondary carina to preserve luminal patency.^6,7 Airway anatomy and the angle of the Y may require modification of these stents prior to their use. Cutting stents may compromise their integrity. The bifurcating limb prevents migration which can be a significant concern with the tubular silicone stents. An important consideration for patients in advanced stages of malignancy is that placement of such stent requires undergoing general anesthesia and rigid bronchoscopy, unlike with AERO and metal stents that can be deployed with fiberoptic bronchoscopy under moderate sedation. As such, we did not elect to use a silicone Y stent. Accumulation of secretions or formation of granulation tissue at the orifices can result in recurrence of obstruction.¹⁴

Advances in 3D printing seem to be the future of customized airway stenting. This could help clinicians overcome the challenges of improperly sized stents and distorted airway anatomy. Cases have reported successful use of 3D-printed patient-specific airway prostheses.^15,16 However, their use is not common practice, as there is a limited amount of materials that are flexible, biocompatible, and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use. Infection control is another layer of consideration in such stents. Standardization of materials and regulation of personalized devices and their cleansing protocols is neccesary.¹⁷ At the time of this case, Oki stents and 3D printing were not available in the market. This report provides a viable alternative to use AERO stents for this maneuver.

Conclusions

Patients presenting with malignant CAO near the RUL require a personalized approach to treatment, considering their overall health, functional status, nature and location of CAO, and degree of symptoms. Once a decision is made to stent the airway, careful assessment of airway anatomy, delineation of obstruction, available expertise, and types of stents available needs to be made to preserve ventilation to the nondiseased RUL. Airway stents are expensive and need to be used wisely for palliation and allowing for a quality life while the patient receives more definitive targeted therapy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr Jenny Kim, who referred the patient to the interventional service and helped obtain consent for publishing the case.

The number of monoclonal antibodies developed for therapeutic use has rapidly expanded over the last decade due to their generally favorable adverse effect (AE) profiles and efficacy.¹ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and general integrin antagonists are well-known examples of such monoclonal antibodies. Common conditions utilizing immunotherapy include inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), such as Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).²

The monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, approved in 2014 for moderate to severe UC and Crohn disease, selectively antagonizes α4β7 integrin to target a specific population of gastrointestinal T lymphocytes, preventing their mobilization to areas of inflammation.³ Adverse effects in patients treated with vedolizumab occur at a rate comparable to placebo and largely are considered nonserious^4,5; the most commonly reported AE is disease exacerbation (13%–17% of patients).^5,6 Published reports of cutaneous AEs at administration of vedolizumab include urticaria during infusion, appearance of cutaneous manifestations characteristic of IBD, psoriasis, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, and Sweet syndrome.^7-10

We present the case of a 61-year-old woman with UC who developed reactive granulomatous dermatitis (RGD), interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) type secondary to vedolizumab. This adverse reaction has not, to our knowledge, been previously reported.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman with a medical history of UC treated with vedolizumab and myelodysplastic syndrome treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (due to hypogammaglobulinemia following allogeneic stem cell transplantation 14 months prior) presented with a concern of a rash. The patient had been in a baseline state of health until 1 week after receiving her second dose of vedolizumab, at which time she developed a mildly pruritic maculopapular rash on the back and chest. Triamcinolone ointment and hydroxyzine were recommended during an initial telehealth consultation with an oncologist with minimal improvement. The rash continued to spread distally with worsening pruritus.

The patient returned to her oncologist for a routine follow-up appointment 5 days after initial teleconsultation. She reported poor oral intake due to oropharyngeal pain and a worsening rash; her husband added a report of recent onset of somnolence. She was admitted to the hospital, and intravenous fluids were administered.

At admission, the patient was hypotensive; vital signs were otherwise normal. Physical examination revealed the oropharynx was erythematous. Pink lichenoid papules coalescing into plaques were present diffusely across the trunk, arms, and legs; the hands, feet, and face were spared (Figure 1).

Photograph courtesy of William Beuerlein, DO (Jacksonville, Florida).

A complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel were unremarkable. A lumbar puncture, chest radiograph, blood cultures, urinalysis, and urine cultures did not identify a clear infectious cause for the rash, though the workup for infection did raise concern about active cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with colitis and pneumonitis. Computed tomography of the head showed no acute hemorrhage.

Dermatology was consulted and determined that the appearance of the rash was most consistent with a lichenoid drug eruption, likely secondary to vedolizumab that was administered 1 week before the rash onset. Analysis of a skin biopsy revealed a dense dermal histiocytic and lymphocytic infiltrate in close approximation to blood vessels, confirmed by immunohistochemical staining for CD45, CD43, CD68, CD34, c-KIT, and myeloperoxidase (Figures 2A and 2B). Colloidal iron staining of the specimen revealed no mucin (Figure 2C).

Photographs courtesy of William Beuerlein, DO (Jacksonville, Florida) and Angela Niehaus, MD (WinstonSalem, North Carolina).

Taken together, the clinical presentation and histopathologic findings were determined to be most consistent with RGD, IGD type, with secondary vasculitis due to vedolizumab. The patient was treated with triamcinolone ointment and low-dose prednisone. Vedolizumab was discontinued. The rash resolved several weeks after cessation of vedolizumab.

Comment

This case describes the development of RGD, IGD type, as an AE of vedolizumab for the treatment of IBD. Reactive granulomatous dermatitis encompasses a spectrum of cutaneous reactions that includes the diagnosis formerly distinctly identified as IGD.¹¹ This variety of RGD is characterized by histologic findings of heavy histiocytic inflammation in the reticular layer of the dermis with interstitial and perivascular neutrophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes, as well as the absence of mucin. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis–type reactions commonly are associated with autoimmune conditions and medications, with accumulating examples occurring in the setting of other biologic therapies, including the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab; the programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor nivolumab; and the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab.^12-15

Although our patient represents CMV infection while being treated with vedolizumab, the relationship between the two is unclear. Development of CMV infection while receiving vedolizumab has been reported in the literature in a patient who was concurrently immunosuppressed with azathioprine.¹⁶ In contrast, vedolizumab administration has been utilized as a treatment of CMV infection in IBD patients, either alone or in combination with antiviral agents, with successful resolution of infection.^17,18 Additional observations of the interaction between CMV infection and vedolizumab would be required to determine if the onset of CMV infection in this patient represents an additional risk of the medication.

Identifying a relationship between a monoclonal antibody therapy, such as vedolizumab, and RGD, IGD type, might be difficult in clinical practice, particularly if this type of reaction has not been previously associated with the culprit medication. In our patient, onset of cutaneous findings in relation to dosing of vedolizumab and exclusion of other possible causes of the rash supported the decision to stop vedolizumab. However, this decision often is challenging in patients with multiple concurrent medical conditions and those whose therapeutic options are limited.

Conclusion

Ulcerative colitis is not an uncommon condition; utilization of targeted monoclonal antibodies as a treatment strategy is expanding.^2,19 As implementation of vedolizumab as a targeted biologic therapy for this disease increases, additional cases of IGD might emerge with greater frequency. Because IBD and autoimmune conditions have a tendency to coincide, awareness of the reaction presented here might be particularly important for dermatologists managing cutaneous manifestations of autoimmune conditions, as patients might present with a clinical picture complicated by preexisting skin findings.²⁰ Furthermore, as reports of RGD, IGD type, in response to several monoclonal antibodies accumulate, it is prudent for all physicians to be aware of this potential complication of this class of medication so that they can make educated decisions about continuing monoclonal antibody therapy.

The number of monoclonal antibodies developed for therapeutic use has rapidly expanded over the last decade due to their generally favorable adverse effect (AE) profiles and efficacy.¹ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and general integrin antagonists are well-known examples of such monoclonal antibodies. Common conditions utilizing immunotherapy include inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), such as Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).²

The monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, approved in 2014 for moderate to severe UC and Crohn disease, selectively antagonizes α4β7 integrin to target a specific population of gastrointestinal T lymphocytes, preventing their mobilization to areas of inflammation.³ Adverse effects in patients treated with vedolizumab occur at a rate comparable to placebo and largely are considered nonserious^4,5; the most commonly reported AE is disease exacerbation (13%–17% of patients).^5,6 Published reports of cutaneous AEs at administration of vedolizumab include urticaria during infusion, appearance of cutaneous manifestations characteristic of IBD, psoriasis, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, and Sweet syndrome.^7-10

We present the case of a 61-year-old woman with UC who developed reactive granulomatous dermatitis (RGD), interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) type secondary to vedolizumab. This adverse reaction has not, to our knowledge, been previously reported.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman with a medical history of UC treated with vedolizumab and myelodysplastic syndrome treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (due to hypogammaglobulinemia following allogeneic stem cell transplantation 14 months prior) presented with a concern of a rash. The patient had been in a baseline state of health until 1 week after receiving her second dose of vedolizumab, at which time she developed a mildly pruritic maculopapular rash on the back and chest. Triamcinolone ointment and hydroxyzine were recommended during an initial telehealth consultation with an oncologist with minimal improvement. The rash continued to spread distally with worsening pruritus.

The patient returned to her oncologist for a routine follow-up appointment 5 days after initial teleconsultation. She reported poor oral intake due to oropharyngeal pain and a worsening rash; her husband added a report of recent onset of somnolence. She was admitted to the hospital, and intravenous fluids were administered.

At admission, the patient was hypotensive; vital signs were otherwise normal. Physical examination revealed the oropharynx was erythematous. Pink lichenoid papules coalescing into plaques were present diffusely across the trunk, arms, and legs; the hands, feet, and face were spared (Figure 1).

Photograph courtesy of William Beuerlein, DO (Jacksonville, Florida).

A complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel were unremarkable. A lumbar puncture, chest radiograph, blood cultures, urinalysis, and urine cultures did not identify a clear infectious cause for the rash, though the workup for infection did raise concern about active cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with colitis and pneumonitis. Computed tomography of the head showed no acute hemorrhage.

Dermatology was consulted and determined that the appearance of the rash was most consistent with a lichenoid drug eruption, likely secondary to vedolizumab that was administered 1 week before the rash onset. Analysis of a skin biopsy revealed a dense dermal histiocytic and lymphocytic infiltrate in close approximation to blood vessels, confirmed by immunohistochemical staining for CD45, CD43, CD68, CD34, c-KIT, and myeloperoxidase (Figures 2A and 2B). Colloidal iron staining of the specimen revealed no mucin (Figure 2C).

Photographs courtesy of William Beuerlein, DO (Jacksonville, Florida) and Angela Niehaus, MD (WinstonSalem, North Carolina).

Taken together, the clinical presentation and histopathologic findings were determined to be most consistent with RGD, IGD type, with secondary vasculitis due to vedolizumab. The patient was treated with triamcinolone ointment and low-dose prednisone. Vedolizumab was discontinued. The rash resolved several weeks after cessation of vedolizumab.

Comment

This case describes the development of RGD, IGD type, as an AE of vedolizumab for the treatment of IBD. Reactive granulomatous dermatitis encompasses a spectrum of cutaneous reactions that includes the diagnosis formerly distinctly identified as IGD.¹¹ This variety of RGD is characterized by histologic findings of heavy histiocytic inflammation in the reticular layer of the dermis with interstitial and perivascular neutrophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes, as well as the absence of mucin. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis–type reactions commonly are associated with autoimmune conditions and medications, with accumulating examples occurring in the setting of other biologic therapies, including the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab; the programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor nivolumab; and the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab.^12-15

Although our patient represents CMV infection while being treated with vedolizumab, the relationship between the two is unclear. Development of CMV infection while receiving vedolizumab has been reported in the literature in a patient who was concurrently immunosuppressed with azathioprine.¹⁶ In contrast, vedolizumab administration has been utilized as a treatment of CMV infection in IBD patients, either alone or in combination with antiviral agents, with successful resolution of infection.^17,18 Additional observations of the interaction between CMV infection and vedolizumab would be required to determine if the onset of CMV infection in this patient represents an additional risk of the medication.

Identifying a relationship between a monoclonal antibody therapy, such as vedolizumab, and RGD, IGD type, might be difficult in clinical practice, particularly if this type of reaction has not been previously associated with the culprit medication. In our patient, onset of cutaneous findings in relation to dosing of vedolizumab and exclusion of other possible causes of the rash supported the decision to stop vedolizumab. However, this decision often is challenging in patients with multiple concurrent medical conditions and those whose therapeutic options are limited.

Conclusion

Ulcerative colitis is not an uncommon condition; utilization of targeted monoclonal antibodies as a treatment strategy is expanding.^2,19 As implementation of vedolizumab as a targeted biologic therapy for this disease increases, additional cases of IGD might emerge with greater frequency. Because IBD and autoimmune conditions have a tendency to coincide, awareness of the reaction presented here might be particularly important for dermatologists managing cutaneous manifestations of autoimmune conditions, as patients might present with a clinical picture complicated by preexisting skin findings.²⁰ Furthermore, as reports of RGD, IGD type, in response to several monoclonal antibodies accumulate, it is prudent for all physicians to be aware of this potential complication of this class of medication so that they can make educated decisions about continuing monoclonal antibody therapy.

The number of monoclonal antibodies developed for therapeutic use has rapidly expanded over the last decade due to their generally favorable adverse effect (AE) profiles and efficacy.¹ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and general integrin antagonists are well-known examples of such monoclonal antibodies. Common conditions utilizing immunotherapy include inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), such as Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).²

The monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, approved in 2014 for moderate to severe UC and Crohn disease, selectively antagonizes α4β7 integrin to target a specific population of gastrointestinal T lymphocytes, preventing their mobilization to areas of inflammation.³ Adverse effects in patients treated with vedolizumab occur at a rate comparable to placebo and largely are considered nonserious^4,5; the most commonly reported AE is disease exacerbation (13%–17% of patients).^5,6 Published reports of cutaneous AEs at administration of vedolizumab include urticaria during infusion, appearance of cutaneous manifestations characteristic of IBD, psoriasis, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, and Sweet syndrome.^7-10

We present the case of a 61-year-old woman with UC who developed reactive granulomatous dermatitis (RGD), interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) type secondary to vedolizumab. This adverse reaction has not, to our knowledge, been previously reported.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman with a medical history of UC treated with vedolizumab and myelodysplastic syndrome treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (due to hypogammaglobulinemia following allogeneic stem cell transplantation 14 months prior) presented with a concern of a rash. The patient had been in a baseline state of health until 1 week after receiving her second dose of vedolizumab, at which time she developed a mildly pruritic maculopapular rash on the back and chest. Triamcinolone ointment and hydroxyzine were recommended during an initial telehealth consultation with an oncologist with minimal improvement. The rash continued to spread distally with worsening pruritus.

The patient returned to her oncologist for a routine follow-up appointment 5 days after initial teleconsultation. She reported poor oral intake due to oropharyngeal pain and a worsening rash; her husband added a report of recent onset of somnolence. She was admitted to the hospital, and intravenous fluids were administered.

At admission, the patient was hypotensive; vital signs were otherwise normal. Physical examination revealed the oropharynx was erythematous. Pink lichenoid papules coalescing into plaques were present diffusely across the trunk, arms, and legs; the hands, feet, and face were spared (Figure 1).

Photograph courtesy of William Beuerlein, DO (Jacksonville, Florida).

A complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel were unremarkable. A lumbar puncture, chest radiograph, blood cultures, urinalysis, and urine cultures did not identify a clear infectious cause for the rash, though the workup for infection did raise concern about active cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with colitis and pneumonitis. Computed tomography of the head showed no acute hemorrhage.

Dermatology was consulted and determined that the appearance of the rash was most consistent with a lichenoid drug eruption, likely secondary to vedolizumab that was administered 1 week before the rash onset. Analysis of a skin biopsy revealed a dense dermal histiocytic and lymphocytic infiltrate in close approximation to blood vessels, confirmed by immunohistochemical staining for CD45, CD43, CD68, CD34, c-KIT, and myeloperoxidase (Figures 2A and 2B). Colloidal iron staining of the specimen revealed no mucin (Figure 2C).

Photographs courtesy of William Beuerlein, DO (Jacksonville, Florida) and Angela Niehaus, MD (WinstonSalem, North Carolina).

Taken together, the clinical presentation and histopathologic findings were determined to be most consistent with RGD, IGD type, with secondary vasculitis due to vedolizumab. The patient was treated with triamcinolone ointment and low-dose prednisone. Vedolizumab was discontinued. The rash resolved several weeks after cessation of vedolizumab.

Comment

This case describes the development of RGD, IGD type, as an AE of vedolizumab for the treatment of IBD. Reactive granulomatous dermatitis encompasses a spectrum of cutaneous reactions that includes the diagnosis formerly distinctly identified as IGD.¹¹ This variety of RGD is characterized by histologic findings of heavy histiocytic inflammation in the reticular layer of the dermis with interstitial and perivascular neutrophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes, as well as the absence of mucin. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis–type reactions commonly are associated with autoimmune conditions and medications, with accumulating examples occurring in the setting of other biologic therapies, including the IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab; the programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor nivolumab; and the tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab.^12-15

Although our patient represents CMV infection while being treated with vedolizumab, the relationship between the two is unclear. Development of CMV infection while receiving vedolizumab has been reported in the literature in a patient who was concurrently immunosuppressed with azathioprine.¹⁶ In contrast, vedolizumab administration has been utilized as a treatment of CMV infection in IBD patients, either alone or in combination with antiviral agents, with successful resolution of infection.^17,18 Additional observations of the interaction between CMV infection and vedolizumab would be required to determine if the onset of CMV infection in this patient represents an additional risk of the medication.

Identifying a relationship between a monoclonal antibody therapy, such as vedolizumab, and RGD, IGD type, might be difficult in clinical practice, particularly if this type of reaction has not been previously associated with the culprit medication. In our patient, onset of cutaneous findings in relation to dosing of vedolizumab and exclusion of other possible causes of the rash supported the decision to stop vedolizumab. However, this decision often is challenging in patients with multiple concurrent medical conditions and those whose therapeutic options are limited.

Conclusion

Ulcerative colitis is not an uncommon condition; utilization of targeted monoclonal antibodies as a treatment strategy is expanding.^2,19 As implementation of vedolizumab as a targeted biologic therapy for this disease increases, additional cases of IGD might emerge with greater frequency. Because IBD and autoimmune conditions have a tendency to coincide, awareness of the reaction presented here might be particularly important for dermatologists managing cutaneous manifestations of autoimmune conditions, as patients might present with a clinical picture complicated by preexisting skin findings.²⁰ Furthermore, as reports of RGD, IGD type, in response to several monoclonal antibodies accumulate, it is prudent for all physicians to be aware of this potential complication of this class of medication so that they can make educated decisions about continuing monoclonal antibody therapy.

Tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy (T&A) is the second most common pediatric surgical procedure in the United States.¹ It is most often performed during childhood between 5 and 8 years of age with a second peak observed between 17 and 21 years of age in the adolescent and young adult populations.² While recurrent tonsillitis has been traditionally associated with tonsillectomy, sleep disordered breathing with obstructive sleep apnea is now the primary indication for the procedure.¹

Up to 97% of T&As are performed as an outpatient same-day surgery not requiring inpatient admission.² Although largely a safe and routinely performed surgery, several complications have been described. Due to the outpatient nature of the procedure, the complications are often encountered in the emergency department (ED) and sometimes in primary care settings. Common complications (outside of the perioperative time frame) include nausea, vomiting, otalgia, odynophagia, infection of the throat (broadly), and hemorrhage; uncommon complications include subcutaneous emphysema, taste disorders, and Eagle syndrome. Some complications are rarer still and carry significant morbidity and even mortality, including mediastinitis, cervical osteomyelitis, and Grisel syndrome.³ The following case encourages the clinician to expand the differential for a patient presenting after T&A.

Case Presentation

A child aged < 3 years was brought to the ED by their mother. She reported neck pain and stiffness 10 days after T&A with concurrent tympanostomy tube placement at an outside pediatric hospital. At triage, their heart rate was 94 bpm, temperature was 98.2 °F, respiratory rate, 22 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation, 97% on room air. The mother of the patient (MOP) had been giving the prescribed oral liquid formulations of ibuprofen and acetaminophen with hydrocodone as directed. No drug allergies were reported, and immunizations were up to date for age. Other medical and surgical history included eczema and remote cutaneous hemangioma resection. The patient lived at home with 2 parents and was not exposed to smoke; their family history was noncontributory.

Since the surgery, the MOP had noticed constant and increasing neck stiffness, specifically with looking up and down but not side to side. She also had noticed swelling behind both ears. She reported no substantial decrease in intake by mouth or decrease in urine or bowel frequency. On review of systems, she reported no fever, vomiting, difficulty breathing, bleeding from the mouth or nose, eye or ear drainage, or rash.

On physical examination, the patient was alert and in no acute distress; active and playful on an electronic device but was notably not moving their head, which was held in a forward-looking position without any signs of trauma. When asked, the child would not flex or extend their neck but would rotate a few degrees from neutral to both sides. Even with moving the electronic device up and down in space, no active neck extension or flexion could be elicited. The examination of the head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat was otherwise only remarkable for palpable and mildly tender postauricular lymph nodes and diffuse erythema in the posterior pharynx. Cardiopulmonary, abdominal, skin, and extremity examinations were unremarkable.

With concern for an infectious process, the physician ordered blood chemistry and hematology tests along with neck radiography. While awaiting the results, the patient was given a weight-based bolus of normal saline, and the home pain regimen was administered. An attempt was made to passively flex and extend the neck as the child slept in their mother’s arms, but the patient immediately awoke and began to cry.

All values of the comprehensive metabolic panel were within normal limits except for a slight elevation in the blood urea nitrogen to 21 mg/dL and glucose to 159 mg/dL. The complete blood count was unrevealing. The computed tomography (CT) scan with contrast of the soft tissues of the neck was limited by motion artifact but showed a head held in axial rotation with soft tissue irregularity in the anterior aspect of the adenoids (Figure 1). There was what appeared to be normal lymphadenopathy in the hypopharynx, but the soft tissues were otherwise unremarkable.

Discussion

Grisel syndrome is the atraumatic rotary subluxation of the atlantoaxial joint, specifically, the atlas (C1 vertebra) rotates to a fixed, nonanatomic position while the axis (C2 vertebra) remains in normal alignment in relation to the remainder of the spinal column. The subluxation occurs in the absence of ligamentous injury but is associated with an increase in ligamentous laxity.⁴ The atlas is a ring-shaped vertebra with 2 lateral masses connected by anterior and posterior arches; it lacks a spinous process unlike other vertebrae. It articulates with the skull by means of the 2 articular facets on the superior aspect of the lateral masses. Articulation with the axis occurs at 3 sites: 2 articular facets on the inferior portion of the lateral masses of the atlas and a facet for the dens on the posterior portion of the anterior arch. The dens projects superiorly from the body of the axis and is bound posteriorly by the transverse ligament of the atlas.⁵

The degree of subluxation seen in Grisel syndrome correlates to the disease severity and is classified by the Fielding and Hawkins (FH) system (Table). This system accounts for the distance from the atlas to the dens (atlantodens interval) and the relative asymmetry of the atlantoaxial joint.⁶ In a normal adult, the upper limit of normal for the atlantodens interval is 3 mm, whereas this distance increases to 4.5 mm for the pediatric population.⁷ Type I (FH-I) involves rotary subluxation alone without any increase in the atlantodens interval; in FH-II, that interval has increased from normal but to no more than 5 mm. FH-I and FH-II are the most encountered and are not associated with neurologic impairment. In FH-III, neurologic deficits can be present, and the atlantodens interval is increased to > 5 mm. Different from FH-II and FH-III in which anterior dislocation of the atlas with reference to the dens is observed, FH-IV involves a rotary movement of the atlas with concurrent posterior displacement and often involves spinal cord compression.⁶

Subluxation and displacement without trauma are key components of Grisel syndrome. The 2-hit hypothesis is often used to explain how this can occur, ie, 2 anomalies must be present simultaneously for this condition to develop. First, the laxity of the transverse ligament, the posterior wall of the dens, and other atlantoaxial ligaments must be increased. Second, an asymmetric contraction of the deep erector muscles of the neck either abruptly or more insidiously rotate and dislocate the atlas.⁸ The pathophysiology is not exactly understood, but the most commonly held hypothesis describes contiguous spread of infection or inflammatory mediators from the pharynx to the ligaments and muscles described.⁶

Spread could occur via the venous system. The posterior superior pharyngeal region is drained by the periodontoidal venous plexus; the connections here with the pharyngovertebral veins allow for the embolization of infectious or other proinflammatory material to the prevertebral fascia. These emboli induce fasciitis and subsequent aberrant relaxation of the ligaments. In reaction to the inflammation or increased laxity, contiguous muscles of the deep neck contract and freeze the joint out of anatomic alignment.⁴

The abnormal alignment is apparent grossly as torticollis. Most broadly, torticollis describes an anomalous head posture due to involuntary muscle contractions of neck muscles and specifically describes chin deviation to the side. The antecollis and retrocollis subtypes of torticollis describe forward flexion and backward extension of the neck, respectively.⁷ Torticollis (broadly) is the most frequently reported condition of those found to have Grisel syndrome (90.7%); other common presenting conditions include neck pain (81.5%) and neck stiffness (31.5%). Fever is found in only 27.8% of cases. Pediatric patients (aged ≤ 12 years) are the most commonly affected, accounting for 87% of cases with an observed 4:1 male to female predominance.^7,8 Symptoms begin most often within the first week from the inciting event in 85% of the cases.⁸ Head and neck surgery precedes up to 67% of cases, and infectious etiologies largely account for the remaining cases.⁷ Of the postsurgical cases, 55.6% had undergone T&A.⁸

Although anomalous head posture or neck stiffness following T&A would be of great clinic concern for Grisel syndrome, radiographic studies play a confirmatory role. CT scan is used to evaluate the bony structures, with 3D reconstruction of the cervical spine being most useful to determine the presence and degree of subluxation.⁸ Magnetic resonance imaging also aids in diagnosis to evaluate ligamentous structures in the area of concern as well as in the evaluation of spinal cord compression.⁶ Laboratory tests are largely unhelpful in making or excluding the diagnosis.⁸

If Grisel syndrome is suspected, both the original surgeon (if preceded by surgery) and the neurosurgical team should be consulted. Although no widely adopted guidelines exist for the management of this rare disease, general practice patterns have emerged with the degree of intervention predictably correlating to disease severity. FH-I is usually treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants with or without a soft cervical collar. For FH-II, closed reduction and immobilization in a stiff cervical collar is recommended. If no neurologic defect is present, FH-III is treated with bed rest, a period of inline cervical traction, and subsequent immobilization. FH-III with neurologic sequelae and all FH-IV necessitate emergent neurosurgical consultation.⁴ Surgical intervention is a last resort but is required in up to 24.1% of cases.⁸

Antibiotic therapy is not routinely given unless clear infectious etiology is identified. No standard antibiotic regimen exists, but coverage for typical upper respiratory pathogens likely suffices. Empiric antibiotic therapy is not recommended for all causes of Grisel syndrome, ie, when the underlying cause is not yet elucidated.⁶ One case of Grisel syndrome occurring in the setting of cervical osteomyelitis has been described, though, and required prolonged IV antibiotics.³ Physical therapy is recommended as adjunct with no limitations for range of motion save for that of the patient’s individual pain threshold.⁴

Possibly attributable to waxing and waning ligamentous laxity and strength of the neck muscle contraction, the atlantodens interval and the degree of subluxation can change, making Grisel syndrome dynamic. As such, the FH classification can change, necessitating more or less aggressive therapy. A neurologic evaluation is recommended at least every 2 weeks after the diagnosis is made. If initial identification or recognition of known disease progression is delayed, serious complications can develop. Acutely, spinal cord compression can lead to quadriplegia and death; more insidious complications include reduced neck mobility, dysphonia, and dysphagia.⁴ As serious, life-threatening complications can arise from Grisel syndrome while good functional outcomes can be achieved with timely and appropriate treatment, the clinician should be inspired to have a high clinical suspicion for this syndrome given the right context.

Conclusions

The patient experienced a desirable outcome with minimal, conservative treatment. As such, the pathology in this case was likely attributed to the mildest form of Grisel syndrome (FH-I). The follow-up was reassuring as well, revealing no worsening or progression of symptoms. The initial evaluation in this case was limited by the inadequacy of the CT scan. Motion artifact in the pharynx prevented the definite exclusion of deep space infection, while the rotation of the head in combination with motion artifact in the cranial-most portions of the vertebral column made determining alignment difficult. One clear axial image, though, does show rotation of the atlas (Figure 2). The uncertainty at the end of our workup prompted surgical consultation, not, admittedly, concern for Grisel syndrome. Awareness of this disease entity is nevertheless important and clinically relevant. Early identification and treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and improvement in long-term functional outcomes.⁶ Despite its rarity, the clinician should consider Grisel syndrome in any pediatric patient presenting with neck stiffness following the commonly performed T&A.

Tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy (T&A) is the second most common pediatric surgical procedure in the United States.¹ It is most often performed during childhood between 5 and 8 years of age with a second peak observed between 17 and 21 years of age in the adolescent and young adult populations.² While recurrent tonsillitis has been traditionally associated with tonsillectomy, sleep disordered breathing with obstructive sleep apnea is now the primary indication for the procedure.¹

Up to 97% of T&As are performed as an outpatient same-day surgery not requiring inpatient admission.² Although largely a safe and routinely performed surgery, several complications have been described. Due to the outpatient nature of the procedure, the complications are often encountered in the emergency department (ED) and sometimes in primary care settings. Common complications (outside of the perioperative time frame) include nausea, vomiting, otalgia, odynophagia, infection of the throat (broadly), and hemorrhage; uncommon complications include subcutaneous emphysema, taste disorders, and Eagle syndrome. Some complications are rarer still and carry significant morbidity and even mortality, including mediastinitis, cervical osteomyelitis, and Grisel syndrome.³ The following case encourages the clinician to expand the differential for a patient presenting after T&A.

Case Presentation

A child aged < 3 years was brought to the ED by their mother. She reported neck pain and stiffness 10 days after T&A with concurrent tympanostomy tube placement at an outside pediatric hospital. At triage, their heart rate was 94 bpm, temperature was 98.2 °F, respiratory rate, 22 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation, 97% on room air. The mother of the patient (MOP) had been giving the prescribed oral liquid formulations of ibuprofen and acetaminophen with hydrocodone as directed. No drug allergies were reported, and immunizations were up to date for age. Other medical and surgical history included eczema and remote cutaneous hemangioma resection. The patient lived at home with 2 parents and was not exposed to smoke; their family history was noncontributory.

Since the surgery, the MOP had noticed constant and increasing neck stiffness, specifically with looking up and down but not side to side. She also had noticed swelling behind both ears. She reported no substantial decrease in intake by mouth or decrease in urine or bowel frequency. On review of systems, she reported no fever, vomiting, difficulty breathing, bleeding from the mouth or nose, eye or ear drainage, or rash.

On physical examination, the patient was alert and in no acute distress; active and playful on an electronic device but was notably not moving their head, which was held in a forward-looking position without any signs of trauma. When asked, the child would not flex or extend their neck but would rotate a few degrees from neutral to both sides. Even with moving the electronic device up and down in space, no active neck extension or flexion could be elicited. The examination of the head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat was otherwise only remarkable for palpable and mildly tender postauricular lymph nodes and diffuse erythema in the posterior pharynx. Cardiopulmonary, abdominal, skin, and extremity examinations were unremarkable.

With concern for an infectious process, the physician ordered blood chemistry and hematology tests along with neck radiography. While awaiting the results, the patient was given a weight-based bolus of normal saline, and the home pain regimen was administered. An attempt was made to passively flex and extend the neck as the child slept in their mother’s arms, but the patient immediately awoke and began to cry.

All values of the comprehensive metabolic panel were within normal limits except for a slight elevation in the blood urea nitrogen to 21 mg/dL and glucose to 159 mg/dL. The complete blood count was unrevealing. The computed tomography (CT) scan with contrast of the soft tissues of the neck was limited by motion artifact but showed a head held in axial rotation with soft tissue irregularity in the anterior aspect of the adenoids (Figure 1). There was what appeared to be normal lymphadenopathy in the hypopharynx, but the soft tissues were otherwise unremarkable.

Discussion

Grisel syndrome is the atraumatic rotary subluxation of the atlantoaxial joint, specifically, the atlas (C1 vertebra) rotates to a fixed, nonanatomic position while the axis (C2 vertebra) remains in normal alignment in relation to the remainder of the spinal column. The subluxation occurs in the absence of ligamentous injury but is associated with an increase in ligamentous laxity.⁴ The atlas is a ring-shaped vertebra with 2 lateral masses connected by anterior and posterior arches; it lacks a spinous process unlike other vertebrae. It articulates with the skull by means of the 2 articular facets on the superior aspect of the lateral masses. Articulation with the axis occurs at 3 sites: 2 articular facets on the inferior portion of the lateral masses of the atlas and a facet for the dens on the posterior portion of the anterior arch. The dens projects superiorly from the body of the axis and is bound posteriorly by the transverse ligament of the atlas.⁵

The degree of subluxation seen in Grisel syndrome correlates to the disease severity and is classified by the Fielding and Hawkins (FH) system (Table). This system accounts for the distance from the atlas to the dens (atlantodens interval) and the relative asymmetry of the atlantoaxial joint.⁶ In a normal adult, the upper limit of normal for the atlantodens interval is 3 mm, whereas this distance increases to 4.5 mm for the pediatric population.⁷ Type I (FH-I) involves rotary subluxation alone without any increase in the atlantodens interval; in FH-II, that interval has increased from normal but to no more than 5 mm. FH-I and FH-II are the most encountered and are not associated with neurologic impairment. In FH-III, neurologic deficits can be present, and the atlantodens interval is increased to > 5 mm. Different from FH-II and FH-III in which anterior dislocation of the atlas with reference to the dens is observed, FH-IV involves a rotary movement of the atlas with concurrent posterior displacement and often involves spinal cord compression.⁶

Subluxation and displacement without trauma are key components of Grisel syndrome. The 2-hit hypothesis is often used to explain how this can occur, ie, 2 anomalies must be present simultaneously for this condition to develop. First, the laxity of the transverse ligament, the posterior wall of the dens, and other atlantoaxial ligaments must be increased. Second, an asymmetric contraction of the deep erector muscles of the neck either abruptly or more insidiously rotate and dislocate the atlas.⁸ The pathophysiology is not exactly understood, but the most commonly held hypothesis describes contiguous spread of infection or inflammatory mediators from the pharynx to the ligaments and muscles described.⁶

Spread could occur via the venous system. The posterior superior pharyngeal region is drained by the periodontoidal venous plexus; the connections here with the pharyngovertebral veins allow for the embolization of infectious or other proinflammatory material to the prevertebral fascia. These emboli induce fasciitis and subsequent aberrant relaxation of the ligaments. In reaction to the inflammation or increased laxity, contiguous muscles of the deep neck contract and freeze the joint out of anatomic alignment.⁴

The abnormal alignment is apparent grossly as torticollis. Most broadly, torticollis describes an anomalous head posture due to involuntary muscle contractions of neck muscles and specifically describes chin deviation to the side. The antecollis and retrocollis subtypes of torticollis describe forward flexion and backward extension of the neck, respectively.⁷ Torticollis (broadly) is the most frequently reported condition of those found to have Grisel syndrome (90.7%); other common presenting conditions include neck pain (81.5%) and neck stiffness (31.5%). Fever is found in only 27.8% of cases. Pediatric patients (aged ≤ 12 years) are the most commonly affected, accounting for 87% of cases with an observed 4:1 male to female predominance.^7,8 Symptoms begin most often within the first week from the inciting event in 85% of the cases.⁸ Head and neck surgery precedes up to 67% of cases, and infectious etiologies largely account for the remaining cases.⁷ Of the postsurgical cases, 55.6% had undergone T&A.⁸

Although anomalous head posture or neck stiffness following T&A would be of great clinic concern for Grisel syndrome, radiographic studies play a confirmatory role. CT scan is used to evaluate the bony structures, with 3D reconstruction of the cervical spine being most useful to determine the presence and degree of subluxation.⁸ Magnetic resonance imaging also aids in diagnosis to evaluate ligamentous structures in the area of concern as well as in the evaluation of spinal cord compression.⁶ Laboratory tests are largely unhelpful in making or excluding the diagnosis.⁸

If Grisel syndrome is suspected, both the original surgeon (if preceded by surgery) and the neurosurgical team should be consulted. Although no widely adopted guidelines exist for the management of this rare disease, general practice patterns have emerged with the degree of intervention predictably correlating to disease severity. FH-I is usually treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants with or without a soft cervical collar. For FH-II, closed reduction and immobilization in a stiff cervical collar is recommended. If no neurologic defect is present, FH-III is treated with bed rest, a period of inline cervical traction, and subsequent immobilization. FH-III with neurologic sequelae and all FH-IV necessitate emergent neurosurgical consultation.⁴ Surgical intervention is a last resort but is required in up to 24.1% of cases.⁸

Antibiotic therapy is not routinely given unless clear infectious etiology is identified. No standard antibiotic regimen exists, but coverage for typical upper respiratory pathogens likely suffices. Empiric antibiotic therapy is not recommended for all causes of Grisel syndrome, ie, when the underlying cause is not yet elucidated.⁶ One case of Grisel syndrome occurring in the setting of cervical osteomyelitis has been described, though, and required prolonged IV antibiotics.³ Physical therapy is recommended as adjunct with no limitations for range of motion save for that of the patient’s individual pain threshold.⁴

Possibly attributable to waxing and waning ligamentous laxity and strength of the neck muscle contraction, the atlantodens interval and the degree of subluxation can change, making Grisel syndrome dynamic. As such, the FH classification can change, necessitating more or less aggressive therapy. A neurologic evaluation is recommended at least every 2 weeks after the diagnosis is made. If initial identification or recognition of known disease progression is delayed, serious complications can develop. Acutely, spinal cord compression can lead to quadriplegia and death; more insidious complications include reduced neck mobility, dysphonia, and dysphagia.⁴ As serious, life-threatening complications can arise from Grisel syndrome while good functional outcomes can be achieved with timely and appropriate treatment, the clinician should be inspired to have a high clinical suspicion for this syndrome given the right context.

Conclusions

The patient experienced a desirable outcome with minimal, conservative treatment. As such, the pathology in this case was likely attributed to the mildest form of Grisel syndrome (FH-I). The follow-up was reassuring as well, revealing no worsening or progression of symptoms. The initial evaluation in this case was limited by the inadequacy of the CT scan. Motion artifact in the pharynx prevented the definite exclusion of deep space infection, while the rotation of the head in combination with motion artifact in the cranial-most portions of the vertebral column made determining alignment difficult. One clear axial image, though, does show rotation of the atlas (Figure 2). The uncertainty at the end of our workup prompted surgical consultation, not, admittedly, concern for Grisel syndrome. Awareness of this disease entity is nevertheless important and clinically relevant. Early identification and treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and improvement in long-term functional outcomes.⁶ Despite its rarity, the clinician should consider Grisel syndrome in any pediatric patient presenting with neck stiffness following the commonly performed T&A.

Tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy (T&A) is the second most common pediatric surgical procedure in the United States.¹ It is most often performed during childhood between 5 and 8 years of age with a second peak observed between 17 and 21 years of age in the adolescent and young adult populations.² While recurrent tonsillitis has been traditionally associated with tonsillectomy, sleep disordered breathing with obstructive sleep apnea is now the primary indication for the procedure.¹

Up to 97% of T&As are performed as an outpatient same-day surgery not requiring inpatient admission.² Although largely a safe and routinely performed surgery, several complications have been described. Due to the outpatient nature of the procedure, the complications are often encountered in the emergency department (ED) and sometimes in primary care settings. Common complications (outside of the perioperative time frame) include nausea, vomiting, otalgia, odynophagia, infection of the throat (broadly), and hemorrhage; uncommon complications include subcutaneous emphysema, taste disorders, and Eagle syndrome. Some complications are rarer still and carry significant morbidity and even mortality, including mediastinitis, cervical osteomyelitis, and Grisel syndrome.³ The following case encourages the clinician to expand the differential for a patient presenting after T&A.

Case Presentation

A child aged < 3 years was brought to the ED by their mother. She reported neck pain and stiffness 10 days after T&A with concurrent tympanostomy tube placement at an outside pediatric hospital. At triage, their heart rate was 94 bpm, temperature was 98.2 °F, respiratory rate, 22 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation, 97% on room air. The mother of the patient (MOP) had been giving the prescribed oral liquid formulations of ibuprofen and acetaminophen with hydrocodone as directed. No drug allergies were reported, and immunizations were up to date for age. Other medical and surgical history included eczema and remote cutaneous hemangioma resection. The patient lived at home with 2 parents and was not exposed to smoke; their family history was noncontributory.

Since the surgery, the MOP had noticed constant and increasing neck stiffness, specifically with looking up and down but not side to side. She also had noticed swelling behind both ears. She reported no substantial decrease in intake by mouth or decrease in urine or bowel frequency. On review of systems, she reported no fever, vomiting, difficulty breathing, bleeding from the mouth or nose, eye or ear drainage, or rash.

On physical examination, the patient was alert and in no acute distress; active and playful on an electronic device but was notably not moving their head, which was held in a forward-looking position without any signs of trauma. When asked, the child would not flex or extend their neck but would rotate a few degrees from neutral to both sides. Even with moving the electronic device up and down in space, no active neck extension or flexion could be elicited. The examination of the head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat was otherwise only remarkable for palpable and mildly tender postauricular lymph nodes and diffuse erythema in the posterior pharynx. Cardiopulmonary, abdominal, skin, and extremity examinations were unremarkable.

With concern for an infectious process, the physician ordered blood chemistry and hematology tests along with neck radiography. While awaiting the results, the patient was given a weight-based bolus of normal saline, and the home pain regimen was administered. An attempt was made to passively flex and extend the neck as the child slept in their mother’s arms, but the patient immediately awoke and began to cry.

All values of the comprehensive metabolic panel were within normal limits except for a slight elevation in the blood urea nitrogen to 21 mg/dL and glucose to 159 mg/dL. The complete blood count was unrevealing. The computed tomography (CT) scan with contrast of the soft tissues of the neck was limited by motion artifact but showed a head held in axial rotation with soft tissue irregularity in the anterior aspect of the adenoids (Figure 1). There was what appeared to be normal lymphadenopathy in the hypopharynx, but the soft tissues were otherwise unremarkable.

Discussion

Grisel syndrome is the atraumatic rotary subluxation of the atlantoaxial joint, specifically, the atlas (C1 vertebra) rotates to a fixed, nonanatomic position while the axis (C2 vertebra) remains in normal alignment in relation to the remainder of the spinal column. The subluxation occurs in the absence of ligamentous injury but is associated with an increase in ligamentous laxity.⁴ The atlas is a ring-shaped vertebra with 2 lateral masses connected by anterior and posterior arches; it lacks a spinous process unlike other vertebrae. It articulates with the skull by means of the 2 articular facets on the superior aspect of the lateral masses. Articulation with the axis occurs at 3 sites: 2 articular facets on the inferior portion of the lateral masses of the atlas and a facet for the dens on the posterior portion of the anterior arch. The dens projects superiorly from the body of the axis and is bound posteriorly by the transverse ligament of the atlas.⁵

The degree of subluxation seen in Grisel syndrome correlates to the disease severity and is classified by the Fielding and Hawkins (FH) system (Table). This system accounts for the distance from the atlas to the dens (atlantodens interval) and the relative asymmetry of the atlantoaxial joint.⁶ In a normal adult, the upper limit of normal for the atlantodens interval is 3 mm, whereas this distance increases to 4.5 mm for the pediatric population.⁷ Type I (FH-I) involves rotary subluxation alone without any increase in the atlantodens interval; in FH-II, that interval has increased from normal but to no more than 5 mm. FH-I and FH-II are the most encountered and are not associated with neurologic impairment. In FH-III, neurologic deficits can be present, and the atlantodens interval is increased to > 5 mm. Different from FH-II and FH-III in which anterior dislocation of the atlas with reference to the dens is observed, FH-IV involves a rotary movement of the atlas with concurrent posterior displacement and often involves spinal cord compression.⁶

Subluxation and displacement without trauma are key components of Grisel syndrome. The 2-hit hypothesis is often used to explain how this can occur, ie, 2 anomalies must be present simultaneously for this condition to develop. First, the laxity of the transverse ligament, the posterior wall of the dens, and other atlantoaxial ligaments must be increased. Second, an asymmetric contraction of the deep erector muscles of the neck either abruptly or more insidiously rotate and dislocate the atlas.⁸ The pathophysiology is not exactly understood, but the most commonly held hypothesis describes contiguous spread of infection or inflammatory mediators from the pharynx to the ligaments and muscles described.⁶

Spread could occur via the venous system. The posterior superior pharyngeal region is drained by the periodontoidal venous plexus; the connections here with the pharyngovertebral veins allow for the embolization of infectious or other proinflammatory material to the prevertebral fascia. These emboli induce fasciitis and subsequent aberrant relaxation of the ligaments. In reaction to the inflammation or increased laxity, contiguous muscles of the deep neck contract and freeze the joint out of anatomic alignment.⁴

The abnormal alignment is apparent grossly as torticollis. Most broadly, torticollis describes an anomalous head posture due to involuntary muscle contractions of neck muscles and specifically describes chin deviation to the side. The antecollis and retrocollis subtypes of torticollis describe forward flexion and backward extension of the neck, respectively.⁷ Torticollis (broadly) is the most frequently reported condition of those found to have Grisel syndrome (90.7%); other common presenting conditions include neck pain (81.5%) and neck stiffness (31.5%). Fever is found in only 27.8% of cases. Pediatric patients (aged ≤ 12 years) are the most commonly affected, accounting for 87% of cases with an observed 4:1 male to female predominance.^7,8 Symptoms begin most often within the first week from the inciting event in 85% of the cases.⁸ Head and neck surgery precedes up to 67% of cases, and infectious etiologies largely account for the remaining cases.⁷ Of the postsurgical cases, 55.6% had undergone T&A.⁸

Although anomalous head posture or neck stiffness following T&A would be of great clinic concern for Grisel syndrome, radiographic studies play a confirmatory role. CT scan is used to evaluate the bony structures, with 3D reconstruction of the cervical spine being most useful to determine the presence and degree of subluxation.⁸ Magnetic resonance imaging also aids in diagnosis to evaluate ligamentous structures in the area of concern as well as in the evaluation of spinal cord compression.⁶ Laboratory tests are largely unhelpful in making or excluding the diagnosis.⁸

If Grisel syndrome is suspected, both the original surgeon (if preceded by surgery) and the neurosurgical team should be consulted. Although no widely adopted guidelines exist for the management of this rare disease, general practice patterns have emerged with the degree of intervention predictably correlating to disease severity. FH-I is usually treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants with or without a soft cervical collar. For FH-II, closed reduction and immobilization in a stiff cervical collar is recommended. If no neurologic defect is present, FH-III is treated with bed rest, a period of inline cervical traction, and subsequent immobilization. FH-III with neurologic sequelae and all FH-IV necessitate emergent neurosurgical consultation.⁴ Surgical intervention is a last resort but is required in up to 24.1% of cases.⁸

Antibiotic therapy is not routinely given unless clear infectious etiology is identified. No standard antibiotic regimen exists, but coverage for typical upper respiratory pathogens likely suffices. Empiric antibiotic therapy is not recommended for all causes of Grisel syndrome, ie, when the underlying cause is not yet elucidated.⁶ One case of Grisel syndrome occurring in the setting of cervical osteomyelitis has been described, though, and required prolonged IV antibiotics.³ Physical therapy is recommended as adjunct with no limitations for range of motion save for that of the patient’s individual pain threshold.⁴

Possibly attributable to waxing and waning ligamentous laxity and strength of the neck muscle contraction, the atlantodens interval and the degree of subluxation can change, making Grisel syndrome dynamic. As such, the FH classification can change, necessitating more or less aggressive therapy. A neurologic evaluation is recommended at least every 2 weeks after the diagnosis is made. If initial identification or recognition of known disease progression is delayed, serious complications can develop. Acutely, spinal cord compression can lead to quadriplegia and death; more insidious complications include reduced neck mobility, dysphonia, and dysphagia.⁴ As serious, life-threatening complications can arise from Grisel syndrome while good functional outcomes can be achieved with timely and appropriate treatment, the clinician should be inspired to have a high clinical suspicion for this syndrome given the right context.

Conclusions

The patient experienced a desirable outcome with minimal, conservative treatment. As such, the pathology in this case was likely attributed to the mildest form of Grisel syndrome (FH-I). The follow-up was reassuring as well, revealing no worsening or progression of symptoms. The initial evaluation in this case was limited by the inadequacy of the CT scan. Motion artifact in the pharynx prevented the definite exclusion of deep space infection, while the rotation of the head in combination with motion artifact in the cranial-most portions of the vertebral column made determining alignment difficult. One clear axial image, though, does show rotation of the atlas (Figure 2). The uncertainty at the end of our workup prompted surgical consultation, not, admittedly, concern for Grisel syndrome. Awareness of this disease entity is nevertheless important and clinically relevant. Early identification and treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and improvement in long-term functional outcomes.⁶ Despite its rarity, the clinician should consider Grisel syndrome in any pediatric patient presenting with neck stiffness following the commonly performed T&A.

Gallbladder duplication is a congenital abnormality of the hepatobiliary system and often is not considered in the evaluation of a patient with right upper quadrant pain. Accuracy of the most commonly used imaging study to assess for biliary disease, abdominal ultrasound, is highly dependent on the skills of the ultrasonographer, and given its relative rarity, this condition is often not considered prior to planned cholecystectomy.¹ Small case reviews found that < 50% of gallbladder duplications are diagnosed preoperatively despite use of ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan.^2-4 Failure to recognize duplicate gallbladder anatomy in symptomatic patients may result in incomplete surgical management, an increase in perioperative complications, and years of morbidity due to unresolved symptoms. Once a patient has had a cholecystectomy, symptoms are presumed to be due to a nonbiliary etiology and an extensive, often repetitive, workup is pursued before “repeat cholecystectomy” is considered.⁵

Case Presentation

A 63-year-old man was referred to gastroenterology for recurrent episodic right upper quadrant pain. He reported intermittent both right and left upper abdominal pain that was variable in quality. At times it was associated with an empty stomach prior to meals; at other times, onset was 30 to 60 minutes after meals. The patient also reported significant flatulence and bloating and intermittent loose stools. Sixteen years before, he underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. He reported that the pain he experienced before the cholecystectomy never resolved after surgery but occurred less frequently. For the next 16 years, the patient did not seek evaluation of his ongoing but infrequent symptoms until his pain became a daily occurrence. The patient’s surgical history included a remote open vagotomy and antrectomy for peptic ulcer disease, laparoscopic appendectomy, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy for reported biliary colic.

The gastroenterology evaluation included a colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD); both were benign and without findings specific to identify the etiology for the patient’s pain. The patient was given a course of rifaximin 1200 mg daily for 7 days for possible bacterial overgrowth and placed on a proton pump inhibitor twice daily. Neither of these interventions helped resolve the patient’s symptoms. Further workup was pursued by gastroenterology to include a right upper quadrant ultrasound that showed a structure most consistent with a small gallbladder containing a small polyp vs stone. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) also was performed and showed the presence of a small gallbladder with a small 2-mm filling defect and an otherwise benign biliary tree. MRCP images and EGD documented a Billroth 1 reconstruction at the time of his remote antrectomy and vagotomy (Figure 1).

Discussion

The first reported human case of gallbladder duplication was noted in a sacrificial victim of Emperor Augustus in 31 BCE. Sherren reported the first documented case of double accessory gallbladder in a living human in 1911.^1,6 Though the exact incidence of gallbladder duplication is not fully known due to primary documentation from case reports, incidence is approximately 1 in 4000 to 5000 people. It was first formally classified by Boyden in 1926.⁷ Further anatomic classification based on morphology and embryogenesis was delineated by Harlaftis and colleagues in 1977, establishing type 1 and 2 structures of a duplicated gallbladder.⁸ Type 1 duplicated gallbladder anatomy shares a single cystic duct, whereas in type 2 each gallbladder has its own cystic duct. Later reports and studies identified triple gallbladders as well as trabecular variants with the most common classification used currently being the modified Harlaftis classification.^9,10

The case presented here most likely represents either a Y-shaped type 1 primordial gallbladder or a type 2 accessory gallbladder based on historical data and intraoperative cholangiogram findings at the time of repeat cholecystectomy. Gallbladder duplication is clinically indistinguishable from regular gallbladder pathology preoperatively and can only be identified on imaging or intraoperatively.¹¹ Prior case reports and studies have found that it is frequently missed on preoperative abdominal ultrasonography and CT in up to 50% of cases.^12-14

The differential diagnosis of gallbladder duplication seen on preoperative imaging includes a gallbladder diverticulum, choledochal cyst, focal adenonomyomatosis, Phrygian cap, or folded gallbladder.^1,2 Historically, the most definitive test for gallbladder duplication has been either intraoperative cholangiography, which can also clarify biliary anatomy, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with cholangiography.^1,3 The debate over routine use of intraoperative cholangiography has been ongoing for the past several decades.¹⁵ Though intraoperative cholangiogram remains one of the most definitive tests for gallbladder duplication, given the overall low incidence of this variant, recommendation for routine intraoperative cholangiography solely to rule out gallbladder duplication cannot be definitively recommended based on our review of the literature. Currently, preoperative MRCP is the study of choice when there is concern from historical facts or from other imaging of gallbladder duplication as it is noninvasive and has a high degree of detail, particularly with 3D reconstructions.^14,16 At the time of surgery, the most critical step to avoid inadvertent ductal injury is clear visualization of ductal anatomy and obtaining the critical view of safety.¹⁷ Though this will also assist in identifying some cases of gallbladder duplication, given the great variation of duplication, it will not prevent missing some variants. In our case, extensive local scarring from the patient’s prior antrectomy and vagotomy along with lack of the use of intraoperative cholangiography likely contributed to missing his duplication at the time of his index cholecystectomy.

Undiagnosed gallbladder duplication can lead to additional morbidity related to common entities associated with gallbladder pathology, such as biliary colic, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and pancreatitis. Additionally, case reports in the literature have documented more rare associations, such as empyema, carcinoma, cholecystoenteric fistula, and torsion, all associated with a duplicated gallbladder.^18-21 Once identified pre- or intraoperatively, it is generally recommended that all gallbladders be removed in symptomatic patients and that intraoperative cholangiography be done to assure complete resection of the duplicated gallbladders and to avoid injury to the biliary trees.^22-25

Conclusions

Gallbladder duplication and other congenital biliary anatomic variations should be considered before a biliary operation and included in the differential diagnosis when evaluating patients who have clinical symptoms consistent with biliary pathology. In addition, intraoperative cholangiogram should be performed during cholecystectomy if the inferior liver edge cannot be visualized well, as in the case of this patient where a prior foregut operation resulted in extensive adhesive disease. Intraoperative cholangiogram also should be considered in patients whose preoperative imaging does not visualize the right upper quadrant well due to patient habitus. Doing so may identify gallbladder duplication and allow for complete cholecystectomy as well as proper identification and management of cystic duct variants. Awareness and consideration of duplicated biliary variants can help prevent intraoperative complications related to biliary anomalies and avoid the morbidity related to recurrent biliary disease and the need for repeat operative procedures.

Acknowledgments

We extend our thanks to Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and the Departments of Surgery and Radiology for their support of this case report, and Lorrie Langdale, MD, and Roger Tatum, MD, for their mentorship of this project

Gallbladder duplication is a congenital abnormality of the hepatobiliary system and often is not considered in the evaluation of a patient with right upper quadrant pain. Accuracy of the most commonly used imaging study to assess for biliary disease, abdominal ultrasound, is highly dependent on the skills of the ultrasonographer, and given its relative rarity, this condition is often not considered prior to planned cholecystectomy.¹ Small case reviews found that < 50% of gallbladder duplications are diagnosed preoperatively despite use of ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan.^2-4 Failure to recognize duplicate gallbladder anatomy in symptomatic patients may result in incomplete surgical management, an increase in perioperative complications, and years of morbidity due to unresolved symptoms. Once a patient has had a cholecystectomy, symptoms are presumed to be due to a nonbiliary etiology and an extensive, often repetitive, workup is pursued before “repeat cholecystectomy” is considered.⁵

Case Presentation

A 63-year-old man was referred to gastroenterology for recurrent episodic right upper quadrant pain. He reported intermittent both right and left upper abdominal pain that was variable in quality. At times it was associated with an empty stomach prior to meals; at other times, onset was 30 to 60 minutes after meals. The patient also reported significant flatulence and bloating and intermittent loose stools. Sixteen years before, he underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. He reported that the pain he experienced before the cholecystectomy never resolved after surgery but occurred less frequently. For the next 16 years, the patient did not seek evaluation of his ongoing but infrequent symptoms until his pain became a daily occurrence. The patient’s surgical history included a remote open vagotomy and antrectomy for peptic ulcer disease, laparoscopic appendectomy, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy for reported biliary colic.

The gastroenterology evaluation included a colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD); both were benign and without findings specific to identify the etiology for the patient’s pain. The patient was given a course of rifaximin 1200 mg daily for 7 days for possible bacterial overgrowth and placed on a proton pump inhibitor twice daily. Neither of these interventions helped resolve the patient’s symptoms. Further workup was pursued by gastroenterology to include a right upper quadrant ultrasound that showed a structure most consistent with a small gallbladder containing a small polyp vs stone. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) also was performed and showed the presence of a small gallbladder with a small 2-mm filling defect and an otherwise benign biliary tree. MRCP images and EGD documented a Billroth 1 reconstruction at the time of his remote antrectomy and vagotomy (Figure 1).

Discussion

The first reported human case of gallbladder duplication was noted in a sacrificial victim of Emperor Augustus in 31 BCE. Sherren reported the first documented case of double accessory gallbladder in a living human in 1911.^1,6 Though the exact incidence of gallbladder duplication is not fully known due to primary documentation from case reports, incidence is approximately 1 in 4000 to 5000 people. It was first formally classified by Boyden in 1926.⁷ Further anatomic classification based on morphology and embryogenesis was delineated by Harlaftis and colleagues in 1977, establishing type 1 and 2 structures of a duplicated gallbladder.⁸ Type 1 duplicated gallbladder anatomy shares a single cystic duct, whereas in type 2 each gallbladder has its own cystic duct. Later reports and studies identified triple gallbladders as well as trabecular variants with the most common classification used currently being the modified Harlaftis classification.^9,10

The case presented here most likely represents either a Y-shaped type 1 primordial gallbladder or a type 2 accessory gallbladder based on historical data and intraoperative cholangiogram findings at the time of repeat cholecystectomy. Gallbladder duplication is clinically indistinguishable from regular gallbladder pathology preoperatively and can only be identified on imaging or intraoperatively.¹¹ Prior case reports and studies have found that it is frequently missed on preoperative abdominal ultrasonography and CT in up to 50% of cases.^12-14

The differential diagnosis of gallbladder duplication seen on preoperative imaging includes a gallbladder diverticulum, choledochal cyst, focal adenonomyomatosis, Phrygian cap, or folded gallbladder.^1,2 Historically, the most definitive test for gallbladder duplication has been either intraoperative cholangiography, which can also clarify biliary anatomy, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with cholangiography.^1,3 The debate over routine use of intraoperative cholangiography has been ongoing for the past several decades.¹⁵ Though intraoperative cholangiogram remains one of the most definitive tests for gallbladder duplication, given the overall low incidence of this variant, recommendation for routine intraoperative cholangiography solely to rule out gallbladder duplication cannot be definitively recommended based on our review of the literature. Currently, preoperative MRCP is the study of choice when there is concern from historical facts or from other imaging of gallbladder duplication as it is noninvasive and has a high degree of detail, particularly with 3D reconstructions.^14,16 At the time of surgery, the most critical step to avoid inadvertent ductal injury is clear visualization of ductal anatomy and obtaining the critical view of safety.¹⁷ Though this will also assist in identifying some cases of gallbladder duplication, given the great variation of duplication, it will not prevent missing some variants. In our case, extensive local scarring from the patient’s prior antrectomy and vagotomy along with lack of the use of intraoperative cholangiography likely contributed to missing his duplication at the time of his index cholecystectomy.

Undiagnosed gallbladder duplication can lead to additional morbidity related to common entities associated with gallbladder pathology, such as biliary colic, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and pancreatitis. Additionally, case reports in the literature have documented more rare associations, such as empyema, carcinoma, cholecystoenteric fistula, and torsion, all associated with a duplicated gallbladder.^18-21 Once identified pre- or intraoperatively, it is generally recommended that all gallbladders be removed in symptomatic patients and that intraoperative cholangiography be done to assure complete resection of the duplicated gallbladders and to avoid injury to the biliary trees.^22-25

Conclusions

Gallbladder duplication and other congenital biliary anatomic variations should be considered before a biliary operation and included in the differential diagnosis when evaluating patients who have clinical symptoms consistent with biliary pathology. In addition, intraoperative cholangiogram should be performed during cholecystectomy if the inferior liver edge cannot be visualized well, as in the case of this patient where a prior foregut operation resulted in extensive adhesive disease. Intraoperative cholangiogram also should be considered in patients whose preoperative imaging does not visualize the right upper quadrant well due to patient habitus. Doing so may identify gallbladder duplication and allow for complete cholecystectomy as well as proper identification and management of cystic duct variants. Awareness and consideration of duplicated biliary variants can help prevent intraoperative complications related to biliary anomalies and avoid the morbidity related to recurrent biliary disease and the need for repeat operative procedures.

Acknowledgments

We extend our thanks to Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and the Departments of Surgery and Radiology for their support of this case report, and Lorrie Langdale, MD, and Roger Tatum, MD, for their mentorship of this project

Gallbladder duplication is a congenital abnormality of the hepatobiliary system and often is not considered in the evaluation of a patient with right upper quadrant pain. Accuracy of the most commonly used imaging study to assess for biliary disease, abdominal ultrasound, is highly dependent on the skills of the ultrasonographer, and given its relative rarity, this condition is often not considered prior to planned cholecystectomy.¹ Small case reviews found that < 50% of gallbladder duplications are diagnosed preoperatively despite use of ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan.^2-4 Failure to recognize duplicate gallbladder anatomy in symptomatic patients may result in incomplete surgical management, an increase in perioperative complications, and years of morbidity due to unresolved symptoms. Once a patient has had a cholecystectomy, symptoms are presumed to be due to a nonbiliary etiology and an extensive, often repetitive, workup is pursued before “repeat cholecystectomy” is considered.⁵

Case Presentation

A 63-year-old man was referred to gastroenterology for recurrent episodic right upper quadrant pain. He reported intermittent both right and left upper abdominal pain that was variable in quality. At times it was associated with an empty stomach prior to meals; at other times, onset was 30 to 60 minutes after meals. The patient also reported significant flatulence and bloating and intermittent loose stools. Sixteen years before, he underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. He reported that the pain he experienced before the cholecystectomy never resolved after surgery but occurred less frequently. For the next 16 years, the patient did not seek evaluation of his ongoing but infrequent symptoms until his pain became a daily occurrence. The patient’s surgical history included a remote open vagotomy and antrectomy for peptic ulcer disease, laparoscopic appendectomy, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy for reported biliary colic.

The gastroenterology evaluation included a colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD); both were benign and without findings specific to identify the etiology for the patient’s pain. The patient was given a course of rifaximin 1200 mg daily for 7 days for possible bacterial overgrowth and placed on a proton pump inhibitor twice daily. Neither of these interventions helped resolve the patient’s symptoms. Further workup was pursued by gastroenterology to include a right upper quadrant ultrasound that showed a structure most consistent with a small gallbladder containing a small polyp vs stone. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) also was performed and showed the presence of a small gallbladder with a small 2-mm filling defect and an otherwise benign biliary tree. MRCP images and EGD documented a Billroth 1 reconstruction at the time of his remote antrectomy and vagotomy (Figure 1).

Discussion

The first reported human case of gallbladder duplication was noted in a sacrificial victim of Emperor Augustus in 31 BCE. Sherren reported the first documented case of double accessory gallbladder in a living human in 1911.^1,6 Though the exact incidence of gallbladder duplication is not fully known due to primary documentation from case reports, incidence is approximately 1 in 4000 to 5000 people. It was first formally classified by Boyden in 1926.⁷ Further anatomic classification based on morphology and embryogenesis was delineated by Harlaftis and colleagues in 1977, establishing type 1 and 2 structures of a duplicated gallbladder.⁸ Type 1 duplicated gallbladder anatomy shares a single cystic duct, whereas in type 2 each gallbladder has its own cystic duct. Later reports and studies identified triple gallbladders as well as trabecular variants with the most common classification used currently being the modified Harlaftis classification.^9,10

The case presented here most likely represents either a Y-shaped type 1 primordial gallbladder or a type 2 accessory gallbladder based on historical data and intraoperative cholangiogram findings at the time of repeat cholecystectomy. Gallbladder duplication is clinically indistinguishable from regular gallbladder pathology preoperatively and can only be identified on imaging or intraoperatively.¹¹ Prior case reports and studies have found that it is frequently missed on preoperative abdominal ultrasonography and CT in up to 50% of cases.^12-14

The differential diagnosis of gallbladder duplication seen on preoperative imaging includes a gallbladder diverticulum, choledochal cyst, focal adenonomyomatosis, Phrygian cap, or folded gallbladder.^1,2 Historically, the most definitive test for gallbladder duplication has been either intraoperative cholangiography, which can also clarify biliary anatomy, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with cholangiography.^1,3 The debate over routine use of intraoperative cholangiography has been ongoing for the past several decades.¹⁵ Though intraoperative cholangiogram remains one of the most definitive tests for gallbladder duplication, given the overall low incidence of this variant, recommendation for routine intraoperative cholangiography solely to rule out gallbladder duplication cannot be definitively recommended based on our review of the literature. Currently, preoperative MRCP is the study of choice when there is concern from historical facts or from other imaging of gallbladder duplication as it is noninvasive and has a high degree of detail, particularly with 3D reconstructions.^14,16 At the time of surgery, the most critical step to avoid inadvertent ductal injury is clear visualization of ductal anatomy and obtaining the critical view of safety.¹⁷ Though this will also assist in identifying some cases of gallbladder duplication, given the great variation of duplication, it will not prevent missing some variants. In our case, extensive local scarring from the patient’s prior antrectomy and vagotomy along with lack of the use of intraoperative cholangiography likely contributed to missing his duplication at the time of his index cholecystectomy.

Undiagnosed gallbladder duplication can lead to additional morbidity related to common entities associated with gallbladder pathology, such as biliary colic, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and pancreatitis. Additionally, case reports in the literature have documented more rare associations, such as empyema, carcinoma, cholecystoenteric fistula, and torsion, all associated with a duplicated gallbladder.^18-21 Once identified pre- or intraoperatively, it is generally recommended that all gallbladders be removed in symptomatic patients and that intraoperative cholangiography be done to assure complete resection of the duplicated gallbladders and to avoid injury to the biliary trees.^22-25

Conclusions

Gallbladder duplication and other congenital biliary anatomic variations should be considered before a biliary operation and included in the differential diagnosis when evaluating patients who have clinical symptoms consistent with biliary pathology. In addition, intraoperative cholangiogram should be performed during cholecystectomy if the inferior liver edge cannot be visualized well, as in the case of this patient where a prior foregut operation resulted in extensive adhesive disease. Intraoperative cholangiogram also should be considered in patients whose preoperative imaging does not visualize the right upper quadrant well due to patient habitus. Doing so may identify gallbladder duplication and allow for complete cholecystectomy as well as proper identification and management of cystic duct variants. Awareness and consideration of duplicated biliary variants can help prevent intraoperative complications related to biliary anomalies and avoid the morbidity related to recurrent biliary disease and the need for repeat operative procedures.

Acknowledgments

We extend our thanks to Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and the Departments of Surgery and Radiology for their support of this case report, and Lorrie Langdale, MD, and Roger Tatum, MD, for their mentorship of this project

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with notable elevation in helper T cell (T_H) production of T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammatory cytokines, including IL-17A.¹ Upon binding of IL-17A to IL-17 receptors in the skin, an inflammatory cascade is triggered, resulting in the classic clinical appearance of psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis often is managed by suppressing T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation using targeted immune therapy such as secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor.² Atopic dermatitis (AD), another chronic inflammatory dermatosis, is associated with substantial elevation in T_H2-mediated inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-4.³ Dupilumab, which interacts with IL-4R, disrupts the IL-4 and IL-13 signaling pathways and demonstrates considerable efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe AD.⁴

A case series has shown that suppression of the T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation of psoriasis may paradoxically result in the development of T_H2-mediated AD.⁵ Similarly, a recent case report described a patient who developed psoriasis following treatment of AD with dupilumab.⁶ Herein, we describe a patient with a history of psoriasis that was well controlled with secukinumab who developed severe refractory erythrodermic AD that resolved with dupilumab treatment. Following clearance of AD with dupilumab, he exhibited psoriasis recurrence.

Case Report

A 39-year-old man with a lifelong history of psoriasis was admitted to the hospital for management of severe erythroderma. Four years prior, secukinumab was initiated for treatment of psoriasis, resulting in excellent clinical response. He discontinued secukinumab after 2 years of treatment because of insurance coverage issues and managed his condition with only topical corticosteroids. He restarted secukinumab 10 months before admission because of a psoriasis flare. Shortly after resuming secukinumab, he developed a severe exfoliative erythroderma that was not responsive to corticosteroids, etanercept, methotrexate, or ustekinumab.

On initial presentation, physical examination revealed diffuse erythema and scaling with associated edema of the face, trunk, and extremities (Figure 1). A biopsy from the patient’s right arm demonstrated a superficial perivascular inflammatory infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and scattered eosinophils consistent with spongiotic dermatitis (Figure 2). Cyclosporine 225 mg twice daily and topical corticosteroids were started.

Over the next several months, the patient had several admissions secondary to recurrent skin abscesses in the setting of refractory erythroderma. He underwent trials of infliximab, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, guselkumab, and acitretin with minimal improvement. He underwent an extensive laboratory and radiologic workup, which was notable for cyclical peripheral eosinophilia and elevated IgE levels correlating with the erythroderma flares. A second biopsy was obtained and continued to demonstrate changes consistent with AD.

Four months after the initial hospitalization, all psoriasis medications were stopped, and the patient was started on dupilumab 300 mg/2 mL every 2 weeks and an 8-week oral prednisone taper. This combination led to notable clinical improvement and resolution of peripheral eosinophilia. Several months after disease remission, he began to develop worsening erythema and pruritus on the trunk and extremities, followed by the development of new psoriatic lesions (Figure 3) with a biopsy consistent with psoriasis (Figure 4). The patient was continued on dupilumab, but cyclosporine was added. The patient self-discontinued dupilumab owing to injection-site discomfort and has been slowly weaning off oral cyclosporine with 1 to 2 remaining eczematous plaques and 1 to 2 psoriatic plaques managed by topical corticosteroids.

Comment

We present a patient with psoriasis that was well controlled on secukinumab who developed severe AD following treatment with secukinumab. The AD resolved following treatment with dupilumab and a tapering dose of prednisone. However, after several months of treatment with dupilumab alone, he began to develop psoriatic lesions again. This case supports findings in a case series describing the development of AD in patients with psoriasis treated with IL-17 inhibitors⁵ and a recent case report describing a patient with AD who developed psoriasis following treatment with an IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor.⁶

Recognized adverse effects demonstrate biologic medications’ contributions to both normal as well as aberrant immunologic responses. For example, IL-17 plays an essential role in innate and adaptive immune responses against infections at mucosal and cutaneous interfaces, as demonstrated by chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis in patients with genetic defects in IL-17–related pathways.⁷ Similarly, in patients taking IL-17 antagonists, an increase in the incidence of Candida infections has been observed.⁸ In patients with concurrent psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is contraindicated due to the risk of exacerbating the IBD. This observation is somewhat paradoxical, as increased IL-17 release by T_H17 cells is implicated in the pathogenesis of IBD.⁹ Interestingly, it is now thought that IL-17 may play a protective role in T-cell–driven intestinal inflammation through induction of protective intestinal epithelial gene expression and increased mucosal defense against gut microbes, explaining the worsening of IBD in patients on IL-17 inhibitors.¹⁰ These adverse effects illustrate the complicated and varied roles biologic medications play in immunologic response.

Given that T_H1 and T_H2 exert opposing immune mechanisms, it is uncommon for psoriasis and AD to coexist in a single patient. However, patients who exhibit concurrent findings may represent a unique population in which psoriasis and AD coexist, perhaps because of an underlying genetic predisposition. Moreover, targeted treatment of pathways unique to these disease processes may result in paradoxical flaring of the nontargeted pathway. It also is possible that inhibition of a specific T-cell pathway in a subset of patients will result in an immunologic imbalance, favoring increased activity of the opposing pathway in the absence of coexisting disease. In the case presented here, the findings may be explained by secukinumab’s inhibition of T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation, which resulted in a shift to a T_H2-mediated inflammatory response manifesting as AD, as well as dupilumab’s inhibition of T_H2-mediated inflammation, which caused a shift back to T_H1-mediated inflammatory pathways. Additionally, for patients with changing morphologies exacerbated by biologic medications, alternative diagnoses, such as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, may be considered.

Conclusion

We report an unusual case of secukinumab-induced AD in a patient with psoriasis that resolved following several months of treatment with dupilumab and a tapering dose of prednisone. Subsequently, this same patient developed re-emergence of psoriatic lesions with continued use of dupilumab, which was eventually discontinued by the patient despite appropriate disease control. In addition to illustrating the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of 2 common inflammatory dermatologic conditions, this case highlights how pharmacologic interventions targeted at specific immunologic pathways may have unintended consequences. Further investigation into the effects of targeted biologics on the T_H1/T_H2 immune axis is warranted to better understand the mechanism and possible implications of the phenotypic switching presented in this case.

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with notable elevation in helper T cell (T_H) production of T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammatory cytokines, including IL-17A.¹ Upon binding of IL-17A to IL-17 receptors in the skin, an inflammatory cascade is triggered, resulting in the classic clinical appearance of psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis often is managed by suppressing T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation using targeted immune therapy such as secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor.² Atopic dermatitis (AD), another chronic inflammatory dermatosis, is associated with substantial elevation in T_H2-mediated inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-4.³ Dupilumab, which interacts with IL-4R, disrupts the IL-4 and IL-13 signaling pathways and demonstrates considerable efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe AD.⁴

A case series has shown that suppression of the T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation of psoriasis may paradoxically result in the development of T_H2-mediated AD.⁵ Similarly, a recent case report described a patient who developed psoriasis following treatment of AD with dupilumab.⁶ Herein, we describe a patient with a history of psoriasis that was well controlled with secukinumab who developed severe refractory erythrodermic AD that resolved with dupilumab treatment. Following clearance of AD with dupilumab, he exhibited psoriasis recurrence.

Case Report

A 39-year-old man with a lifelong history of psoriasis was admitted to the hospital for management of severe erythroderma. Four years prior, secukinumab was initiated for treatment of psoriasis, resulting in excellent clinical response. He discontinued secukinumab after 2 years of treatment because of insurance coverage issues and managed his condition with only topical corticosteroids. He restarted secukinumab 10 months before admission because of a psoriasis flare. Shortly after resuming secukinumab, he developed a severe exfoliative erythroderma that was not responsive to corticosteroids, etanercept, methotrexate, or ustekinumab.

On initial presentation, physical examination revealed diffuse erythema and scaling with associated edema of the face, trunk, and extremities (Figure 1). A biopsy from the patient’s right arm demonstrated a superficial perivascular inflammatory infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and scattered eosinophils consistent with spongiotic dermatitis (Figure 2). Cyclosporine 225 mg twice daily and topical corticosteroids were started.

Over the next several months, the patient had several admissions secondary to recurrent skin abscesses in the setting of refractory erythroderma. He underwent trials of infliximab, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, guselkumab, and acitretin with minimal improvement. He underwent an extensive laboratory and radiologic workup, which was notable for cyclical peripheral eosinophilia and elevated IgE levels correlating with the erythroderma flares. A second biopsy was obtained and continued to demonstrate changes consistent with AD.

Four months after the initial hospitalization, all psoriasis medications were stopped, and the patient was started on dupilumab 300 mg/2 mL every 2 weeks and an 8-week oral prednisone taper. This combination led to notable clinical improvement and resolution of peripheral eosinophilia. Several months after disease remission, he began to develop worsening erythema and pruritus on the trunk and extremities, followed by the development of new psoriatic lesions (Figure 3) with a biopsy consistent with psoriasis (Figure 4). The patient was continued on dupilumab, but cyclosporine was added. The patient self-discontinued dupilumab owing to injection-site discomfort and has been slowly weaning off oral cyclosporine with 1 to 2 remaining eczematous plaques and 1 to 2 psoriatic plaques managed by topical corticosteroids.

Comment

We present a patient with psoriasis that was well controlled on secukinumab who developed severe AD following treatment with secukinumab. The AD resolved following treatment with dupilumab and a tapering dose of prednisone. However, after several months of treatment with dupilumab alone, he began to develop psoriatic lesions again. This case supports findings in a case series describing the development of AD in patients with psoriasis treated with IL-17 inhibitors⁵ and a recent case report describing a patient with AD who developed psoriasis following treatment with an IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor.⁶

Recognized adverse effects demonstrate biologic medications’ contributions to both normal as well as aberrant immunologic responses. For example, IL-17 plays an essential role in innate and adaptive immune responses against infections at mucosal and cutaneous interfaces, as demonstrated by chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis in patients with genetic defects in IL-17–related pathways.⁷ Similarly, in patients taking IL-17 antagonists, an increase in the incidence of Candida infections has been observed.⁸ In patients with concurrent psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is contraindicated due to the risk of exacerbating the IBD. This observation is somewhat paradoxical, as increased IL-17 release by T_H17 cells is implicated in the pathogenesis of IBD.⁹ Interestingly, it is now thought that IL-17 may play a protective role in T-cell–driven intestinal inflammation through induction of protective intestinal epithelial gene expression and increased mucosal defense against gut microbes, explaining the worsening of IBD in patients on IL-17 inhibitors.¹⁰ These adverse effects illustrate the complicated and varied roles biologic medications play in immunologic response.

Given that T_H1 and T_H2 exert opposing immune mechanisms, it is uncommon for psoriasis and AD to coexist in a single patient. However, patients who exhibit concurrent findings may represent a unique population in which psoriasis and AD coexist, perhaps because of an underlying genetic predisposition. Moreover, targeted treatment of pathways unique to these disease processes may result in paradoxical flaring of the nontargeted pathway. It also is possible that inhibition of a specific T-cell pathway in a subset of patients will result in an immunologic imbalance, favoring increased activity of the opposing pathway in the absence of coexisting disease. In the case presented here, the findings may be explained by secukinumab’s inhibition of T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation, which resulted in a shift to a T_H2-mediated inflammatory response manifesting as AD, as well as dupilumab’s inhibition of T_H2-mediated inflammation, which caused a shift back to T_H1-mediated inflammatory pathways. Additionally, for patients with changing morphologies exacerbated by biologic medications, alternative diagnoses, such as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, may be considered.

Conclusion

We report an unusual case of secukinumab-induced AD in a patient with psoriasis that resolved following several months of treatment with dupilumab and a tapering dose of prednisone. Subsequently, this same patient developed re-emergence of psoriatic lesions with continued use of dupilumab, which was eventually discontinued by the patient despite appropriate disease control. In addition to illustrating the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of 2 common inflammatory dermatologic conditions, this case highlights how pharmacologic interventions targeted at specific immunologic pathways may have unintended consequences. Further investigation into the effects of targeted biologics on the T_H1/T_H2 immune axis is warranted to better understand the mechanism and possible implications of the phenotypic switching presented in this case.

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory skin condition associated with notable elevation in helper T cell (T_H) production of T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammatory cytokines, including IL-17A.¹ Upon binding of IL-17A to IL-17 receptors in the skin, an inflammatory cascade is triggered, resulting in the classic clinical appearance of psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis often is managed by suppressing T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation using targeted immune therapy such as secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor.² Atopic dermatitis (AD), another chronic inflammatory dermatosis, is associated with substantial elevation in T_H2-mediated inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-4.³ Dupilumab, which interacts with IL-4R, disrupts the IL-4 and IL-13 signaling pathways and demonstrates considerable efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe AD.⁴

A case series has shown that suppression of the T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation of psoriasis may paradoxically result in the development of T_H2-mediated AD.⁵ Similarly, a recent case report described a patient who developed psoriasis following treatment of AD with dupilumab.⁶ Herein, we describe a patient with a history of psoriasis that was well controlled with secukinumab who developed severe refractory erythrodermic AD that resolved with dupilumab treatment. Following clearance of AD with dupilumab, he exhibited psoriasis recurrence.

Case Report

A 39-year-old man with a lifelong history of psoriasis was admitted to the hospital for management of severe erythroderma. Four years prior, secukinumab was initiated for treatment of psoriasis, resulting in excellent clinical response. He discontinued secukinumab after 2 years of treatment because of insurance coverage issues and managed his condition with only topical corticosteroids. He restarted secukinumab 10 months before admission because of a psoriasis flare. Shortly after resuming secukinumab, he developed a severe exfoliative erythroderma that was not responsive to corticosteroids, etanercept, methotrexate, or ustekinumab.

On initial presentation, physical examination revealed diffuse erythema and scaling with associated edema of the face, trunk, and extremities (Figure 1). A biopsy from the patient’s right arm demonstrated a superficial perivascular inflammatory infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and scattered eosinophils consistent with spongiotic dermatitis (Figure 2). Cyclosporine 225 mg twice daily and topical corticosteroids were started.

Over the next several months, the patient had several admissions secondary to recurrent skin abscesses in the setting of refractory erythroderma. He underwent trials of infliximab, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, guselkumab, and acitretin with minimal improvement. He underwent an extensive laboratory and radiologic workup, which was notable for cyclical peripheral eosinophilia and elevated IgE levels correlating with the erythroderma flares. A second biopsy was obtained and continued to demonstrate changes consistent with AD.

Four months after the initial hospitalization, all psoriasis medications were stopped, and the patient was started on dupilumab 300 mg/2 mL every 2 weeks and an 8-week oral prednisone taper. This combination led to notable clinical improvement and resolution of peripheral eosinophilia. Several months after disease remission, he began to develop worsening erythema and pruritus on the trunk and extremities, followed by the development of new psoriatic lesions (Figure 3) with a biopsy consistent with psoriasis (Figure 4). The patient was continued on dupilumab, but cyclosporine was added. The patient self-discontinued dupilumab owing to injection-site discomfort and has been slowly weaning off oral cyclosporine with 1 to 2 remaining eczematous plaques and 1 to 2 psoriatic plaques managed by topical corticosteroids.

Comment

We present a patient with psoriasis that was well controlled on secukinumab who developed severe AD following treatment with secukinumab. The AD resolved following treatment with dupilumab and a tapering dose of prednisone. However, after several months of treatment with dupilumab alone, he began to develop psoriatic lesions again. This case supports findings in a case series describing the development of AD in patients with psoriasis treated with IL-17 inhibitors⁵ and a recent case report describing a patient with AD who developed psoriasis following treatment with an IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor.⁶

Recognized adverse effects demonstrate biologic medications’ contributions to both normal as well as aberrant immunologic responses. For example, IL-17 plays an essential role in innate and adaptive immune responses against infections at mucosal and cutaneous interfaces, as demonstrated by chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis in patients with genetic defects in IL-17–related pathways.⁷ Similarly, in patients taking IL-17 antagonists, an increase in the incidence of Candida infections has been observed.⁸ In patients with concurrent psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is contraindicated due to the risk of exacerbating the IBD. This observation is somewhat paradoxical, as increased IL-17 release by T_H17 cells is implicated in the pathogenesis of IBD.⁹ Interestingly, it is now thought that IL-17 may play a protective role in T-cell–driven intestinal inflammation through induction of protective intestinal epithelial gene expression and increased mucosal defense against gut microbes, explaining the worsening of IBD in patients on IL-17 inhibitors.¹⁰ These adverse effects illustrate the complicated and varied roles biologic medications play in immunologic response.

Given that T_H1 and T_H2 exert opposing immune mechanisms, it is uncommon for psoriasis and AD to coexist in a single patient. However, patients who exhibit concurrent findings may represent a unique population in which psoriasis and AD coexist, perhaps because of an underlying genetic predisposition. Moreover, targeted treatment of pathways unique to these disease processes may result in paradoxical flaring of the nontargeted pathway. It also is possible that inhibition of a specific T-cell pathway in a subset of patients will result in an immunologic imbalance, favoring increased activity of the opposing pathway in the absence of coexisting disease. In the case presented here, the findings may be explained by secukinumab’s inhibition of T_H1/T_H17-mediated inflammation, which resulted in a shift to a T_H2-mediated inflammatory response manifesting as AD, as well as dupilumab’s inhibition of T_H2-mediated inflammation, which caused a shift back to T_H1-mediated inflammatory pathways. Additionally, for patients with changing morphologies exacerbated by biologic medications, alternative diagnoses, such as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, may be considered.

Conclusion

We report an unusual case of secukinumab-induced AD in a patient with psoriasis that resolved following several months of treatment with dupilumab and a tapering dose of prednisone. Subsequently, this same patient developed re-emergence of psoriatic lesions with continued use of dupilumab, which was eventually discontinued by the patient despite appropriate disease control. In addition to illustrating the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of 2 common inflammatory dermatologic conditions, this case highlights how pharmacologic interventions targeted at specific immunologic pathways may have unintended consequences. Further investigation into the effects of targeted biologics on the T_H1/T_H2 immune axis is warranted to better understand the mechanism and possible implications of the phenotypic switching presented in this case.

Cerebral palsy (CP) embodies a collection of disorders involving permanent but nonprogressive motor dysfunction secondary to one of a variety of abnormal disturbances that can occur in the developing fetal or infantile brain.¹ The motor impairment of CP classically leads to irregularities in muscle tone, posture, and/or movement, resulting in limitations of functional abilities that vary in severity.^1,2 Patients with CP commonly experience dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, impaired airway clearance, chest wall and spine deformities, restrictive lung disease, and/or recurrent aspiration.¹ Consequently, pulmonary disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with severe CP, characterized by recurrent bacterial infections.^3,4

Frequent antibiotic use increases the risk of multidrug-resistant pathogen formation and hypersensitivity to antibiotics. Life-threatening allergic reactions in a patient population with impaired lung function significantly complicates patient management, often leading to suboptimal treatment with second-line agents.⁵ This case study describes a previously penicillin-tolerant patient with CP who developed a type I hypersensitivity reaction to ceftazidime/avibactam and was treated successfully with the antibiotic after rapid induction of temporary tolerance.

Case Presentation

A 34-year-old male with a complex medical history of severe spastic CP and atonic seizures was recently diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon and admitted for ileostomy and sigmoidectomy. The surgery was complicated by spillage of intestinal contents into the peritoneal cavity 3 days postoperation. The patient was urgently taken to the operating room for exploratory laparotomy, culminating in remaining colectomy, complete abdominal washout, and wound vacuum placement. He continued to deteriorate clinically over the next few weeks, beginning with the development of feculent peritonitis and septic shock. Respiratory distress ensued, and the patient required a tracheostomy with mechanical ventilation. A computed tomography of the chest was consistent with multifocal pneumonia, and a respiratory culture of bronchioalveolar lavage fluid cultivated Klebsiella pneumoniae, a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

The infectious disease service was consulted and recommended ceftazidime/avibactam as the only acceptable antibiotic to treat this organism. The patient had no history of drug hypersensitivities. However, he developed diffuse, generalized urticaria and predominately right-sided flushing immediately following the onset of the antibiotic infusion. The urticaria was pruritic. The patient did not have angioedema, and he did not experience any adverse respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal, or neurologic symptoms. The infusion was ceased immediately, and the patient was treated with a combination of diphenhydramine 50 mg IV and ranitidine 50 mg IV. Resolution of his hypersensitivity symptoms occurred within an hour of treatment, and vital signs remained stable with no resurgence of symptoms. At the time of his reaction, the patient also was taking pantoprazole, valproate, metoprolol, risperidone, and oxycodone as needed for pain. A tryptase level was not measured.

Discussion

This is the first reported case in the literature to describe a type I hypersensitivity reaction with rapid IV induction of tolerance to ceftazidime/avibactam. We describe his reaction as type I hypersensitivity because the patient developed immediate generalized urticaria and flushing. Use of a safe desensitization protocol, demonstrated in this case report, is paramount to optimal management of infections in patient populations with severely decreased lung function, such as CP.^5-7 It provides a safe and effective technique to maintain patients on first line, preferred therapy, despite their increased risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.

Interestingly, this patient previously tolerated penicillins and cephalosporins without adverse reactions, suggesting the possibility of a non–IgE-mediated vs an IgE-mediated mechanism to the hypersensitivity reaction. The patient also was receiving oxycodone at the time of his reaction, and oxycodone can cause nonspecific mast cell degranulation. Additional information from skin testing to ceftazidime/avibactam could help determine whether the patient had an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction. This information could help clarify the culprit agent and guide further avoidance recommendations.

Unfortunately, because the patient was critically ill, skin testing was not performed, and he underwent an urgent antibiotic desensitization with success. It was recommended that the patient follow up in the allergy and immunology clinic for further evaluation with skin testing to ceftazidime/avibactam as well as other β-lactams to determine his future risk of reaction. Unfortunately, he was lost to follow-up.

Frequent IV antibiotic use is a risk factor for the development of antibiotic allergies.^8,9 This patient had received many prior courses of IV antibiotics, and this factor most likely contributed to his immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ceftazidime/avibactam. Fortunately, he tolerated a rapid induction of tolerance.

As life expectancies for patients with chronic medical conditions that involve recurrent infections increase, the associated emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens and necessity for use of novel combination antibiotics should prompt further investigation of nonirritating doses of these drugs for skin testing in the case of drug hypersensitivities. This information would be essential for skin prick testing and determination of whether patients have a true IgE-mediated reaction to these antibiotics.

Conclusions

This is the first case report demonstrating a successful rapid induction of tolerance for the antibiotic ceftazidime/avibactam. Fortunately, the patient tolerated the desensitization procedure without further adverse reactions, and he had a resolution of his infection.

Cerebral palsy (CP) embodies a collection of disorders involving permanent but nonprogressive motor dysfunction secondary to one of a variety of abnormal disturbances that can occur in the developing fetal or infantile brain.¹ The motor impairment of CP classically leads to irregularities in muscle tone, posture, and/or movement, resulting in limitations of functional abilities that vary in severity.^1,2 Patients with CP commonly experience dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, impaired airway clearance, chest wall and spine deformities, restrictive lung disease, and/or recurrent aspiration.¹ Consequently, pulmonary disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with severe CP, characterized by recurrent bacterial infections.^3,4

Frequent antibiotic use increases the risk of multidrug-resistant pathogen formation and hypersensitivity to antibiotics. Life-threatening allergic reactions in a patient population with impaired lung function significantly complicates patient management, often leading to suboptimal treatment with second-line agents.⁵ This case study describes a previously penicillin-tolerant patient with CP who developed a type I hypersensitivity reaction to ceftazidime/avibactam and was treated successfully with the antibiotic after rapid induction of temporary tolerance.

Case Presentation

A 34-year-old male with a complex medical history of severe spastic CP and atonic seizures was recently diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon and admitted for ileostomy and sigmoidectomy. The surgery was complicated by spillage of intestinal contents into the peritoneal cavity 3 days postoperation. The patient was urgently taken to the operating room for exploratory laparotomy, culminating in remaining colectomy, complete abdominal washout, and wound vacuum placement. He continued to deteriorate clinically over the next few weeks, beginning with the development of feculent peritonitis and septic shock. Respiratory distress ensued, and the patient required a tracheostomy with mechanical ventilation. A computed tomography of the chest was consistent with multifocal pneumonia, and a respiratory culture of bronchioalveolar lavage fluid cultivated Klebsiella pneumoniae, a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

The infectious disease service was consulted and recommended ceftazidime/avibactam as the only acceptable antibiotic to treat this organism. The patient had no history of drug hypersensitivities. However, he developed diffuse, generalized urticaria and predominately right-sided flushing immediately following the onset of the antibiotic infusion. The urticaria was pruritic. The patient did not have angioedema, and he did not experience any adverse respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal, or neurologic symptoms. The infusion was ceased immediately, and the patient was treated with a combination of diphenhydramine 50 mg IV and ranitidine 50 mg IV. Resolution of his hypersensitivity symptoms occurred within an hour of treatment, and vital signs remained stable with no resurgence of symptoms. At the time of his reaction, the patient also was taking pantoprazole, valproate, metoprolol, risperidone, and oxycodone as needed for pain. A tryptase level was not measured.

Discussion

This is the first reported case in the literature to describe a type I hypersensitivity reaction with rapid IV induction of tolerance to ceftazidime/avibactam. We describe his reaction as type I hypersensitivity because the patient developed immediate generalized urticaria and flushing. Use of a safe desensitization protocol, demonstrated in this case report, is paramount to optimal management of infections in patient populations with severely decreased lung function, such as CP.^5-7 It provides a safe and effective technique to maintain patients on first line, preferred therapy, despite their increased risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.

Interestingly, this patient previously tolerated penicillins and cephalosporins without adverse reactions, suggesting the possibility of a non–IgE-mediated vs an IgE-mediated mechanism to the hypersensitivity reaction. The patient also was receiving oxycodone at the time of his reaction, and oxycodone can cause nonspecific mast cell degranulation. Additional information from skin testing to ceftazidime/avibactam could help determine whether the patient had an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction. This information could help clarify the culprit agent and guide further avoidance recommendations.

Unfortunately, because the patient was critically ill, skin testing was not performed, and he underwent an urgent antibiotic desensitization with success. It was recommended that the patient follow up in the allergy and immunology clinic for further evaluation with skin testing to ceftazidime/avibactam as well as other β-lactams to determine his future risk of reaction. Unfortunately, he was lost to follow-up.

Frequent IV antibiotic use is a risk factor for the development of antibiotic allergies.^8,9 This patient had received many prior courses of IV antibiotics, and this factor most likely contributed to his immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ceftazidime/avibactam. Fortunately, he tolerated a rapid induction of tolerance.

As life expectancies for patients with chronic medical conditions that involve recurrent infections increase, the associated emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens and necessity for use of novel combination antibiotics should prompt further investigation of nonirritating doses of these drugs for skin testing in the case of drug hypersensitivities. This information would be essential for skin prick testing and determination of whether patients have a true IgE-mediated reaction to these antibiotics.

Conclusions

This is the first case report demonstrating a successful rapid induction of tolerance for the antibiotic ceftazidime/avibactam. Fortunately, the patient tolerated the desensitization procedure without further adverse reactions, and he had a resolution of his infection.

Cerebral palsy (CP) embodies a collection of disorders involving permanent but nonprogressive motor dysfunction secondary to one of a variety of abnormal disturbances that can occur in the developing fetal or infantile brain.¹ The motor impairment of CP classically leads to irregularities in muscle tone, posture, and/or movement, resulting in limitations of functional abilities that vary in severity.^1,2 Patients with CP commonly experience dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, impaired airway clearance, chest wall and spine deformities, restrictive lung disease, and/or recurrent aspiration.¹ Consequently, pulmonary disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with severe CP, characterized by recurrent bacterial infections.^3,4

Frequent antibiotic use increases the risk of multidrug-resistant pathogen formation and hypersensitivity to antibiotics. Life-threatening allergic reactions in a patient population with impaired lung function significantly complicates patient management, often leading to suboptimal treatment with second-line agents.⁵ This case study describes a previously penicillin-tolerant patient with CP who developed a type I hypersensitivity reaction to ceftazidime/avibactam and was treated successfully with the antibiotic after rapid induction of temporary tolerance.

Case Presentation

A 34-year-old male with a complex medical history of severe spastic CP and atonic seizures was recently diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon and admitted for ileostomy and sigmoidectomy. The surgery was complicated by spillage of intestinal contents into the peritoneal cavity 3 days postoperation. The patient was urgently taken to the operating room for exploratory laparotomy, culminating in remaining colectomy, complete abdominal washout, and wound vacuum placement. He continued to deteriorate clinically over the next few weeks, beginning with the development of feculent peritonitis and septic shock. Respiratory distress ensued, and the patient required a tracheostomy with mechanical ventilation. A computed tomography of the chest was consistent with multifocal pneumonia, and a respiratory culture of bronchioalveolar lavage fluid cultivated Klebsiella pneumoniae, a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

The infectious disease service was consulted and recommended ceftazidime/avibactam as the only acceptable antibiotic to treat this organism. The patient had no history of drug hypersensitivities. However, he developed diffuse, generalized urticaria and predominately right-sided flushing immediately following the onset of the antibiotic infusion. The urticaria was pruritic. The patient did not have angioedema, and he did not experience any adverse respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal, or neurologic symptoms. The infusion was ceased immediately, and the patient was treated with a combination of diphenhydramine 50 mg IV and ranitidine 50 mg IV. Resolution of his hypersensitivity symptoms occurred within an hour of treatment, and vital signs remained stable with no resurgence of symptoms. At the time of his reaction, the patient also was taking pantoprazole, valproate, metoprolol, risperidone, and oxycodone as needed for pain. A tryptase level was not measured.

Discussion

This is the first reported case in the literature to describe a type I hypersensitivity reaction with rapid IV induction of tolerance to ceftazidime/avibactam. We describe his reaction as type I hypersensitivity because the patient developed immediate generalized urticaria and flushing. Use of a safe desensitization protocol, demonstrated in this case report, is paramount to optimal management of infections in patient populations with severely decreased lung function, such as CP.^5-7 It provides a safe and effective technique to maintain patients on first line, preferred therapy, despite their increased risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.

Interestingly, this patient previously tolerated penicillins and cephalosporins without adverse reactions, suggesting the possibility of a non–IgE-mediated vs an IgE-mediated mechanism to the hypersensitivity reaction. The patient also was receiving oxycodone at the time of his reaction, and oxycodone can cause nonspecific mast cell degranulation. Additional information from skin testing to ceftazidime/avibactam could help determine whether the patient had an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction. This information could help clarify the culprit agent and guide further avoidance recommendations.

Unfortunately, because the patient was critically ill, skin testing was not performed, and he underwent an urgent antibiotic desensitization with success. It was recommended that the patient follow up in the allergy and immunology clinic for further evaluation with skin testing to ceftazidime/avibactam as well as other β-lactams to determine his future risk of reaction. Unfortunately, he was lost to follow-up.

Frequent IV antibiotic use is a risk factor for the development of antibiotic allergies.^8,9 This patient had received many prior courses of IV antibiotics, and this factor most likely contributed to his immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ceftazidime/avibactam. Fortunately, he tolerated a rapid induction of tolerance.

As life expectancies for patients with chronic medical conditions that involve recurrent infections increase, the associated emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens and necessity for use of novel combination antibiotics should prompt further investigation of nonirritating doses of these drugs for skin testing in the case of drug hypersensitivities. This information would be essential for skin prick testing and determination of whether patients have a true IgE-mediated reaction to these antibiotics.

Conclusions

This is the first case report demonstrating a successful rapid induction of tolerance for the antibiotic ceftazidime/avibactam. Fortunately, the patient tolerated the desensitization procedure without further adverse reactions, and he had a resolution of his infection.

Medical case reports are as old as the healing profession itself.¹ These ancient medical stories have a modern definition: “A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients.”² Case report experts describe the 3-fold purposes of this type of research: as a mainstay of education; a harbinger of emerging illnesses; and an appraiser of new interventions. Case-based education has long been a pillar of health professions education: Nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals are taught and learn through reading and discussing with their teachers and each other about cases of their own patients and of those in the literature.³ Case reports also have helped identify and raise awareness of new diseases and rare conditions, such as HIV.⁴ Finally, case reports have alerted regulatory agencies and the medical community about medication adverse effects, such as birth defects from thalidomide.⁵

Case reports also have been criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Critics argue that many case reports often lack the rigor and consistency of other types of research.⁶ Three recent trends in medical publication have strengthened the validity of these criticisms: the increase in the popularity of case reports; the corresponding increase in submissions to journals, including Federal Practitioner; and the rise of predatory publishers.^7,8

The ethical scrutiny of case reports discussed in this column focuses on the tension between providing readers with adequate, accurate information to fulfil the goals of case reports while also protecting patient confidentiality. The latter issue during most of the history of medicine was not considered by health care professionals when the prevailing paternalism supported a professional-oriented approach to health care. The rise of bioethics in the 1960s and 1970s began the shift toward patient autonomy in medical decision making and patient rights to control their protected health information that rendered case reports ethically problematic.

To address both changes in ethical standards and scientific limitations, a committee of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors formed the Case Report (CARE) group.^2,8 The group undertook an effort to improve the quality of case reports. From 2011 to 2012, they developed the CARE guidelines for clinical case reporting. The guidance took the form of a Statement and Checklist presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Since their presentation, multiple prestigious medical journals in many countries have implemented these recommendations.

As part of an overall effort to raise the ethical caliber of our own journal, Federal Practitioner will begin to implement the CARE guidelines for case reports for all future submissions. Use of the CARE recommendations will help prospective authors enhance the scientific value and ethical caliber of case reports submitted to the journal as well as assist the Federal Practitioner editorial team, editorial board, and peer reviewers to evaluate submissions more judiciously.

An essential part of the CARE guidelines is that the patient who is the subject of the case report provide informed consent for the publication of their personal narrative. The CARE group considers this an “ethical duty” of authors and editors alike. In “exceptional circumstances” such as if the patient is a minor or permanently incapacitated, a guardian or relative may grant consent. In the rare event that even with exhaustive attempts, if informed consent cannot be obtained from a patient or their representative, then the authors of the case report must submit a statement to this effect.⁴ Some journals may require that the authors obtain the approval of an institutional review board or the permission of an ethics or other institutional committee or a privacy officer.²

Requesting the patient’s consent is an extension of the shared decision making that is now a best practice in clinical care into the arena of research, making the patient or their representative a partner in the work. Ethicists have recommended inviting patients or relatives to read a draft of the case report and agree to its publication or request specific modifications to the manuscript. The CARE group rightly points out that with the rise of open notes in medical documentation, patients increasingly have access to their charts in near or real time.² Gone are the days of Sir William Osler when only doctors read medical journals and all of these technical developments as well as standards of research and social changes in the practitioner-patient relationship make it imperative that writers and editors join together to make case reports more transparent, accurate, and consistent.⁷

An additional step to protect patient privacy is the requirement that authors either de-identify potentially identifiable health information, such as age, birth, death, admission, and discharge dates, or in some instances obtain separate consent for the release of that protected data.⁸ These restrictions constitute a challenge to case report authors who in some instances may consider these same facts critical to the integrity of the case presentation that have made some scholars doubt their continued viability. After all, the contribution of the case to the medical literature often lies in its very particularity. Conversely, no matter how frustrated we might become during writing a case report, we would not want to see our own protected health information or that of our family on a website or in print without our knowledge or approval. Indeed, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that “If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.”⁹

However, the exponential growth of the internet, the spread of social media, and the ubiquity of a plethora of electronic devices, which prior generations of writers and readers could not even imagine, make these limitations necessary to protect patient privacy and the public’s trust in health care professionals. The CARE guidelines can help authors of case reports hone the art of anonymizing the protected health information of subjects of case reports, such as ethnicity and occupation, while accurately conveying the clinical specifics of the case that make it valuable to students and colleagues.

We at Federal Practitioner recognize there is a real tension between truth-telling in case report publication and respect for patient confidentiality that will never be perfectly achieved, but is one that is important for medical knowledge, making it worthy of the continuous efforts of authors and editors to negotiate.

Medical case reports are as old as the healing profession itself.¹ These ancient medical stories have a modern definition: “A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients.”² Case report experts describe the 3-fold purposes of this type of research: as a mainstay of education; a harbinger of emerging illnesses; and an appraiser of new interventions. Case-based education has long been a pillar of health professions education: Nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals are taught and learn through reading and discussing with their teachers and each other about cases of their own patients and of those in the literature.³ Case reports also have helped identify and raise awareness of new diseases and rare conditions, such as HIV.⁴ Finally, case reports have alerted regulatory agencies and the medical community about medication adverse effects, such as birth defects from thalidomide.⁵

Case reports also have been criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Critics argue that many case reports often lack the rigor and consistency of other types of research.⁶ Three recent trends in medical publication have strengthened the validity of these criticisms: the increase in the popularity of case reports; the corresponding increase in submissions to journals, including Federal Practitioner; and the rise of predatory publishers.^7,8

The ethical scrutiny of case reports discussed in this column focuses on the tension between providing readers with adequate, accurate information to fulfil the goals of case reports while also protecting patient confidentiality. The latter issue during most of the history of medicine was not considered by health care professionals when the prevailing paternalism supported a professional-oriented approach to health care. The rise of bioethics in the 1960s and 1970s began the shift toward patient autonomy in medical decision making and patient rights to control their protected health information that rendered case reports ethically problematic.

To address both changes in ethical standards and scientific limitations, a committee of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors formed the Case Report (CARE) group.^2,8 The group undertook an effort to improve the quality of case reports. From 2011 to 2012, they developed the CARE guidelines for clinical case reporting. The guidance took the form of a Statement and Checklist presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Since their presentation, multiple prestigious medical journals in many countries have implemented these recommendations.

As part of an overall effort to raise the ethical caliber of our own journal, Federal Practitioner will begin to implement the CARE guidelines for case reports for all future submissions. Use of the CARE recommendations will help prospective authors enhance the scientific value and ethical caliber of case reports submitted to the journal as well as assist the Federal Practitioner editorial team, editorial board, and peer reviewers to evaluate submissions more judiciously.

An essential part of the CARE guidelines is that the patient who is the subject of the case report provide informed consent for the publication of their personal narrative. The CARE group considers this an “ethical duty” of authors and editors alike. In “exceptional circumstances” such as if the patient is a minor or permanently incapacitated, a guardian or relative may grant consent. In the rare event that even with exhaustive attempts, if informed consent cannot be obtained from a patient or their representative, then the authors of the case report must submit a statement to this effect.⁴ Some journals may require that the authors obtain the approval of an institutional review board or the permission of an ethics or other institutional committee or a privacy officer.²

Requesting the patient’s consent is an extension of the shared decision making that is now a best practice in clinical care into the arena of research, making the patient or their representative a partner in the work. Ethicists have recommended inviting patients or relatives to read a draft of the case report and agree to its publication or request specific modifications to the manuscript. The CARE group rightly points out that with the rise of open notes in medical documentation, patients increasingly have access to their charts in near or real time.² Gone are the days of Sir William Osler when only doctors read medical journals and all of these technical developments as well as standards of research and social changes in the practitioner-patient relationship make it imperative that writers and editors join together to make case reports more transparent, accurate, and consistent.⁷

An additional step to protect patient privacy is the requirement that authors either de-identify potentially identifiable health information, such as age, birth, death, admission, and discharge dates, or in some instances obtain separate consent for the release of that protected data.⁸ These restrictions constitute a challenge to case report authors who in some instances may consider these same facts critical to the integrity of the case presentation that have made some scholars doubt their continued viability. After all, the contribution of the case to the medical literature often lies in its very particularity. Conversely, no matter how frustrated we might become during writing a case report, we would not want to see our own protected health information or that of our family on a website or in print without our knowledge or approval. Indeed, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that “If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.”⁹

However, the exponential growth of the internet, the spread of social media, and the ubiquity of a plethora of electronic devices, which prior generations of writers and readers could not even imagine, make these limitations necessary to protect patient privacy and the public’s trust in health care professionals. The CARE guidelines can help authors of case reports hone the art of anonymizing the protected health information of subjects of case reports, such as ethnicity and occupation, while accurately conveying the clinical specifics of the case that make it valuable to students and colleagues.

We at Federal Practitioner recognize there is a real tension between truth-telling in case report publication and respect for patient confidentiality that will never be perfectly achieved, but is one that is important for medical knowledge, making it worthy of the continuous efforts of authors and editors to negotiate.

Medical case reports are as old as the healing profession itself.¹ These ancient medical stories have a modern definition: “A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients.”² Case report experts describe the 3-fold purposes of this type of research: as a mainstay of education; a harbinger of emerging illnesses; and an appraiser of new interventions. Case-based education has long been a pillar of health professions education: Nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals are taught and learn through reading and discussing with their teachers and each other about cases of their own patients and of those in the literature.³ Case reports also have helped identify and raise awareness of new diseases and rare conditions, such as HIV.⁴ Finally, case reports have alerted regulatory agencies and the medical community about medication adverse effects, such as birth defects from thalidomide.⁵

Case reports also have been criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Critics argue that many case reports often lack the rigor and consistency of other types of research.⁶ Three recent trends in medical publication have strengthened the validity of these criticisms: the increase in the popularity of case reports; the corresponding increase in submissions to journals, including Federal Practitioner; and the rise of predatory publishers.^7,8

The ethical scrutiny of case reports discussed in this column focuses on the tension between providing readers with adequate, accurate information to fulfil the goals of case reports while also protecting patient confidentiality. The latter issue during most of the history of medicine was not considered by health care professionals when the prevailing paternalism supported a professional-oriented approach to health care. The rise of bioethics in the 1960s and 1970s began the shift toward patient autonomy in medical decision making and patient rights to control their protected health information that rendered case reports ethically problematic.

To address both changes in ethical standards and scientific limitations, a committee of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors formed the Case Report (CARE) group.^2,8 The group undertook an effort to improve the quality of case reports. From 2011 to 2012, they developed the CARE guidelines for clinical case reporting. The guidance took the form of a Statement and Checklist presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Since their presentation, multiple prestigious medical journals in many countries have implemented these recommendations.

As part of an overall effort to raise the ethical caliber of our own journal, Federal Practitioner will begin to implement the CARE guidelines for case reports for all future submissions. Use of the CARE recommendations will help prospective authors enhance the scientific value and ethical caliber of case reports submitted to the journal as well as assist the Federal Practitioner editorial team, editorial board, and peer reviewers to evaluate submissions more judiciously.

An essential part of the CARE guidelines is that the patient who is the subject of the case report provide informed consent for the publication of their personal narrative. The CARE group considers this an “ethical duty” of authors and editors alike. In “exceptional circumstances” such as if the patient is a minor or permanently incapacitated, a guardian or relative may grant consent. In the rare event that even with exhaustive attempts, if informed consent cannot be obtained from a patient or their representative, then the authors of the case report must submit a statement to this effect.⁴ Some journals may require that the authors obtain the approval of an institutional review board or the permission of an ethics or other institutional committee or a privacy officer.²

Requesting the patient’s consent is an extension of the shared decision making that is now a best practice in clinical care into the arena of research, making the patient or their representative a partner in the work. Ethicists have recommended inviting patients or relatives to read a draft of the case report and agree to its publication or request specific modifications to the manuscript. The CARE group rightly points out that with the rise of open notes in medical documentation, patients increasingly have access to their charts in near or real time.² Gone are the days of Sir William Osler when only doctors read medical journals and all of these technical developments as well as standards of research and social changes in the practitioner-patient relationship make it imperative that writers and editors join together to make case reports more transparent, accurate, and consistent.⁷

An additional step to protect patient privacy is the requirement that authors either de-identify potentially identifiable health information, such as age, birth, death, admission, and discharge dates, or in some instances obtain separate consent for the release of that protected data.⁸ These restrictions constitute a challenge to case report authors who in some instances may consider these same facts critical to the integrity of the case presentation that have made some scholars doubt their continued viability. After all, the contribution of the case to the medical literature often lies in its very particularity. Conversely, no matter how frustrated we might become during writing a case report, we would not want to see our own protected health information or that of our family on a website or in print without our knowledge or approval. Indeed, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that “If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.”⁹

However, the exponential growth of the internet, the spread of social media, and the ubiquity of a plethora of electronic devices, which prior generations of writers and readers could not even imagine, make these limitations necessary to protect patient privacy and the public’s trust in health care professionals. The CARE guidelines can help authors of case reports hone the art of anonymizing the protected health information of subjects of case reports, such as ethnicity and occupation, while accurately conveying the clinical specifics of the case that make it valuable to students and colleagues.

We at Federal Practitioner recognize there is a real tension between truth-telling in case report publication and respect for patient confidentiality that will never be perfectly achieved, but is one that is important for medical knowledge, making it worthy of the continuous efforts of authors and editors to negotiate.

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Case Report

A 39-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with fatigue, malaise, a resolving rash, focal lymphadenopathy, increasing distal arthritis, dactylitis, resolving ecchymoses, and acute onycholysis of 1 week’s duration that developed 13 days after initiating ixekizumab. The patient had a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis for more than 10 years. She had been successfully treated in the past for psoriasis with adalimumab for several years; however, adalimumab was discontinued after an episode of Clostridium difficile colitis. The patient had a negative purified protein derivative (tuberculin) test prior to starting biologics as she works in the health care field. Routine follow-up purified protein derivative (tuberculin) test was positive. She discontinued all therapy for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis prior to being appropriately treated for 6 months under the care of infectious disease physicians. She then had several pregnancies and chose to restart biologic treatment after weaning her third child from breastfeeding, as her skin and joint disease were notably flaring.

Ustekinumab was chosen to shift treatment away from tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors. The patient's condition was under relatively good control for 1 year; however, she experienced notable gastrointestinal tract upset (ie, intermittent diarrhea and constipation), despite multiple negative tests for C difficile. The patient was referred to see a gastroenterologist but never followed up. Due to long-term low-grade gastrointestinal problems, ustekinumab was discontinued, and the gastrointestinal symptoms resolved without treatment.

Given the side effects noted with TNF-α and IL-12/23 inhibitors and the fact that the patient’s cutaneous and joint disease were notable, the decision was made to start the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab. The patient administered 2 injections, one in each thigh. Within 12 hours, she experienced severe injection-site pain. The pain was so severe that it woke her from sleep the night of the first injections. She then developed severe pain in the right axilla that limited upper extremity mobility. Within 48 hours, she developed an erythematous, nonpruritic, nonscaly, mottled rash on the right breast that began to resolve within 24 hours without treatment. In addition, 3 days after the injections, she developed ecchymoses on the trunk and extremities without any identifiable trauma, severe acute onycholysis in several fingernails (Figure 1) and toenails, dactylitis such that she could not wear her wedding ring, and a flare of psoriatic arthritis in the fingers and ankles.

At the current presentation (2 weeks after the injections), the patient reported malaise, flulike symptoms, and low-grade intermittent fevers. Results from a hematology panel displayed leukopenia at 2.69×10³/μL (reference range, 3.54–9.06×10³/μL) and thrombocytopenia at 114×10³/μL (reference range, 165–415×10³/μL).¹ Her most recent laboratory results before the ixekizumab injections displayed a white blood cell count level at 4.6×10³/μL and platelet count at 159×10³/μL. C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. A shave biopsy of an erythematous nodule on the proximal interphalangeal joint of the fourth finger on the right hand displayed spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils (Figure 2).

Interestingly, the psoriatic plaques on the scalp, trunk, and extremities had nearly completely resolved after only the first 2 injections. However, given the side effects, the second dose of ixekizumab was held, repeat laboratory tests were ordered to ensure normalization of cytopenia, and the patient was transitioned to pulse-dose topical steroids to control the remaining psoriatic plaques.

One week after presentation (3 weeks after the initial injections), the patient’s systemic symptoms had almost completely resolved, and she denied any further concerns. Her fingernails and toenails, however, continued to show the changes of onycholysis noted at the visit.

Comment

Ixekizumab is a human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-17A, one of the cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. The monoclonal antibody prevents its attachment to the IL-17 receptor, which inhibits the release of further cytokines and chemokines, decreasing the inflammatory and immune response.²

Ixekizumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for plaque psoriasis after 3 clinical trials—UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3—were performed. In UNCOVER-3, the most common side effects that occurred—nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, injection-site reaction, arthralgia, headache, and infections (specifically candidiasis)—generally were well tolerated. More serious adverse events included cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, and nonmelanoma skin cancer.³

Notable laboratory abnormalities that have been documented from ixekizumab include elevated liver function tests (eg, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase), as well as leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.⁴ Although short-term thrombocytopenia, as described in our patient, provides an explanation for the bruising noted on observation, it is unusual to note such notable ecchymoses within days of the first injection.

Onycholysis has not been documented as a side effect of ixekizumab; however, it has been reported as an adverse event from other biologic medications. Sfikakis et al⁵ reported 5 patients who developed psoriatic skin lesions after treatment with 3 different anti-TNF biologics—infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept—for rheumatoid arthritis; 2 of those patients also developed nail changes consistent with psoriatic onycholysis. In all 5 patients, symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis improved despite the new-onset skin and nail psoriasis.⁵

The exact pathophysiology of these adverse events has not been clearly understood, but it has been proposed that anti-TNF biologics may initiate an autoimmune reaction in the skin and nails, leading to paradoxical psoriasis and nail changes such as onycholysis. Tumor necrosis factor may have a regulatory role in the skin that prevents autoreactive T cells, such as cutaneous lymphocyte antigen–expressing T cells that promote the formation of psoriasiform lesions. By inhibiting TNF, there can be an underlying activation of autoreactive T cells that leads to tissue destruction in the skin and nails.⁶ Anti-TNF biologics also could increase CXCR3, a chemokine receptor that allows autoreactive T cells to enter the skin and cause pathology.⁷

IL-17A and IL-17F also have been shown to upregulate the expression of TNF receptor II in synoviocytes,⁸ which demonstrates that IL-17 works in synergy with TNF-α to promote an inflammatory reaction.⁹ Due to the inhibitory effects of ixekizumab, psoriatic arthritis should theoretically improve. However, if there is an alteration in the inflammatory sequence, then the regulatory role of TNF could be suppressed and psoriatic arthritis could become exacerbated. Additionally, its associated symptoms, such as dactylitis, could develop, as seen in our patient.⁴ Because psoriatic arthritis is closely associated with nail changes of psoriasis, it is conceivable that acute arthritic flares and acute onycholysis are both induced by the same cytokine dysregulation. Further studies and a larger patient population need to be evaluated to determine the exact cause of the acute exacerbation of psoriatic arthritis with concomitant nail changes as noted in our patient.

Acute onycholysis (within 72 hours) is a rare side effect of ixekizumab. It can be postulated that our patient’s severe acute onycholysis associated with a flare of psoriatic arthritis could be due to idiosyncratic immune dysregulation, promoting the activity of autoreactive T cells. The pharmacologic effects of ixekizumab occur through the inhibition of IL-17. We propose that by inhibiting IL-17 with associated TNF alterations, an altered inflammatory cascade could promote an autoimmune reaction leading to the described pathology.

Case Report

A 39-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with fatigue, malaise, a resolving rash, focal lymphadenopathy, increasing distal arthritis, dactylitis, resolving ecchymoses, and acute onycholysis of 1 week’s duration that developed 13 days after initiating ixekizumab. The patient had a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis for more than 10 years. She had been successfully treated in the past for psoriasis with adalimumab for several years; however, adalimumab was discontinued after an episode of Clostridium difficile colitis. The patient had a negative purified protein derivative (tuberculin) test prior to starting biologics as she works in the health care field. Routine follow-up purified protein derivative (tuberculin) test was positive. She discontinued all therapy for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis prior to being appropriately treated for 6 months under the care of infectious disease physicians. She then had several pregnancies and chose to restart biologic treatment after weaning her third child from breastfeeding, as her skin and joint disease were notably flaring.

Ustekinumab was chosen to shift treatment away from tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors. The patient's condition was under relatively good control for 1 year; however, she experienced notable gastrointestinal tract upset (ie, intermittent diarrhea and constipation), despite multiple negative tests for C difficile. The patient was referred to see a gastroenterologist but never followed up. Due to long-term low-grade gastrointestinal problems, ustekinumab was discontinued, and the gastrointestinal symptoms resolved without treatment.

Given the side effects noted with TNF-α and IL-12/23 inhibitors and the fact that the patient’s cutaneous and joint disease were notable, the decision was made to start the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab. The patient administered 2 injections, one in each thigh. Within 12 hours, she experienced severe injection-site pain. The pain was so severe that it woke her from sleep the night of the first injections. She then developed severe pain in the right axilla that limited upper extremity mobility. Within 48 hours, she developed an erythematous, nonpruritic, nonscaly, mottled rash on the right breast that began to resolve within 24 hours without treatment. In addition, 3 days after the injections, she developed ecchymoses on the trunk and extremities without any identifiable trauma, severe acute onycholysis in several fingernails (Figure 1) and toenails, dactylitis such that she could not wear her wedding ring, and a flare of psoriatic arthritis in the fingers and ankles.

At the current presentation (2 weeks after the injections), the patient reported malaise, flulike symptoms, and low-grade intermittent fevers. Results from a hematology panel displayed leukopenia at 2.69×10³/μL (reference range, 3.54–9.06×10³/μL) and thrombocytopenia at 114×10³/μL (reference range, 165–415×10³/μL).¹ Her most recent laboratory results before the ixekizumab injections displayed a white blood cell count level at 4.6×10³/μL and platelet count at 159×10³/μL. C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. A shave biopsy of an erythematous nodule on the proximal interphalangeal joint of the fourth finger on the right hand displayed spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils (Figure 2).

Interestingly, the psoriatic plaques on the scalp, trunk, and extremities had nearly completely resolved after only the first 2 injections. However, given the side effects, the second dose of ixekizumab was held, repeat laboratory tests were ordered to ensure normalization of cytopenia, and the patient was transitioned to pulse-dose topical steroids to control the remaining psoriatic plaques.

One week after presentation (3 weeks after the initial injections), the patient’s systemic symptoms had almost completely resolved, and she denied any further concerns. Her fingernails and toenails, however, continued to show the changes of onycholysis noted at the visit.

Comment

Ixekizumab is a human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-17A, one of the cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. The monoclonal antibody prevents its attachment to the IL-17 receptor, which inhibits the release of further cytokines and chemokines, decreasing the inflammatory and immune response.²

Ixekizumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for plaque psoriasis after 3 clinical trials—UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3—were performed. In UNCOVER-3, the most common side effects that occurred—nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, injection-site reaction, arthralgia, headache, and infections (specifically candidiasis)—generally were well tolerated. More serious adverse events included cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, and nonmelanoma skin cancer.³

Notable laboratory abnormalities that have been documented from ixekizumab include elevated liver function tests (eg, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase), as well as leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.⁴ Although short-term thrombocytopenia, as described in our patient, provides an explanation for the bruising noted on observation, it is unusual to note such notable ecchymoses within days of the first injection.

Onycholysis has not been documented as a side effect of ixekizumab; however, it has been reported as an adverse event from other biologic medications. Sfikakis et al⁵ reported 5 patients who developed psoriatic skin lesions after treatment with 3 different anti-TNF biologics—infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept—for rheumatoid arthritis; 2 of those patients also developed nail changes consistent with psoriatic onycholysis. In all 5 patients, symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis improved despite the new-onset skin and nail psoriasis.⁵

The exact pathophysiology of these adverse events has not been clearly understood, but it has been proposed that anti-TNF biologics may initiate an autoimmune reaction in the skin and nails, leading to paradoxical psoriasis and nail changes such as onycholysis. Tumor necrosis factor may have a regulatory role in the skin that prevents autoreactive T cells, such as cutaneous lymphocyte antigen–expressing T cells that promote the formation of psoriasiform lesions. By inhibiting TNF, there can be an underlying activation of autoreactive T cells that leads to tissue destruction in the skin and nails.⁶ Anti-TNF biologics also could increase CXCR3, a chemokine receptor that allows autoreactive T cells to enter the skin and cause pathology.⁷

IL-17A and IL-17F also have been shown to upregulate the expression of TNF receptor II in synoviocytes,⁸ which demonstrates that IL-17 works in synergy with TNF-α to promote an inflammatory reaction.⁹ Due to the inhibitory effects of ixekizumab, psoriatic arthritis should theoretically improve. However, if there is an alteration in the inflammatory sequence, then the regulatory role of TNF could be suppressed and psoriatic arthritis could become exacerbated. Additionally, its associated symptoms, such as dactylitis, could develop, as seen in our patient.⁴ Because psoriatic arthritis is closely associated with nail changes of psoriasis, it is conceivable that acute arthritic flares and acute onycholysis are both induced by the same cytokine dysregulation. Further studies and a larger patient population need to be evaluated to determine the exact cause of the acute exacerbation of psoriatic arthritis with concomitant nail changes as noted in our patient.

Acute onycholysis (within 72 hours) is a rare side effect of ixekizumab. It can be postulated that our patient’s severe acute onycholysis associated with a flare of psoriatic arthritis could be due to idiosyncratic immune dysregulation, promoting the activity of autoreactive T cells. The pharmacologic effects of ixekizumab occur through the inhibition of IL-17. We propose that by inhibiting IL-17 with associated TNF alterations, an altered inflammatory cascade could promote an autoimmune reaction leading to the described pathology.

Case Report

A 39-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with fatigue, malaise, a resolving rash, focal lymphadenopathy, increasing distal arthritis, dactylitis, resolving ecchymoses, and acute onycholysis of 1 week’s duration that developed 13 days after initiating ixekizumab. The patient had a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis for more than 10 years. She had been successfully treated in the past for psoriasis with adalimumab for several years; however, adalimumab was discontinued after an episode of Clostridium difficile colitis. The patient had a negative purified protein derivative (tuberculin) test prior to starting biologics as she works in the health care field. Routine follow-up purified protein derivative (tuberculin) test was positive. She discontinued all therapy for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis prior to being appropriately treated for 6 months under the care of infectious disease physicians. She then had several pregnancies and chose to restart biologic treatment after weaning her third child from breastfeeding, as her skin and joint disease were notably flaring.

Ustekinumab was chosen to shift treatment away from tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors. The patient's condition was under relatively good control for 1 year; however, she experienced notable gastrointestinal tract upset (ie, intermittent diarrhea and constipation), despite multiple negative tests for C difficile. The patient was referred to see a gastroenterologist but never followed up. Due to long-term low-grade gastrointestinal problems, ustekinumab was discontinued, and the gastrointestinal symptoms resolved without treatment.

Given the side effects noted with TNF-α and IL-12/23 inhibitors and the fact that the patient’s cutaneous and joint disease were notable, the decision was made to start the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab. The patient administered 2 injections, one in each thigh. Within 12 hours, she experienced severe injection-site pain. The pain was so severe that it woke her from sleep the night of the first injections. She then developed severe pain in the right axilla that limited upper extremity mobility. Within 48 hours, she developed an erythematous, nonpruritic, nonscaly, mottled rash on the right breast that began to resolve within 24 hours without treatment. In addition, 3 days after the injections, she developed ecchymoses on the trunk and extremities without any identifiable trauma, severe acute onycholysis in several fingernails (Figure 1) and toenails, dactylitis such that she could not wear her wedding ring, and a flare of psoriatic arthritis in the fingers and ankles.

At the current presentation (2 weeks after the injections), the patient reported malaise, flulike symptoms, and low-grade intermittent fevers. Results from a hematology panel displayed leukopenia at 2.69×10³/μL (reference range, 3.54–9.06×10³/μL) and thrombocytopenia at 114×10³/μL (reference range, 165–415×10³/μL).¹ Her most recent laboratory results before the ixekizumab injections displayed a white blood cell count level at 4.6×10³/μL and platelet count at 159×10³/μL. C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. A shave biopsy of an erythematous nodule on the proximal interphalangeal joint of the fourth finger on the right hand displayed spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils (Figure 2).

Interestingly, the psoriatic plaques on the scalp, trunk, and extremities had nearly completely resolved after only the first 2 injections. However, given the side effects, the second dose of ixekizumab was held, repeat laboratory tests were ordered to ensure normalization of cytopenia, and the patient was transitioned to pulse-dose topical steroids to control the remaining psoriatic plaques.

One week after presentation (3 weeks after the initial injections), the patient’s systemic symptoms had almost completely resolved, and she denied any further concerns. Her fingernails and toenails, however, continued to show the changes of onycholysis noted at the visit.

Comment

Ixekizumab is a human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-17A, one of the cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. The monoclonal antibody prevents its attachment to the IL-17 receptor, which inhibits the release of further cytokines and chemokines, decreasing the inflammatory and immune response.²

Ixekizumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for plaque psoriasis after 3 clinical trials—UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3—were performed. In UNCOVER-3, the most common side effects that occurred—nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, injection-site reaction, arthralgia, headache, and infections (specifically candidiasis)—generally were well tolerated. More serious adverse events included cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, and nonmelanoma skin cancer.³

Notable laboratory abnormalities that have been documented from ixekizumab include elevated liver function tests (eg, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase), as well as leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.⁴ Although short-term thrombocytopenia, as described in our patient, provides an explanation for the bruising noted on observation, it is unusual to note such notable ecchymoses within days of the first injection.

Onycholysis has not been documented as a side effect of ixekizumab; however, it has been reported as an adverse event from other biologic medications. Sfikakis et al⁵ reported 5 patients who developed psoriatic skin lesions after treatment with 3 different anti-TNF biologics—infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept—for rheumatoid arthritis; 2 of those patients also developed nail changes consistent with psoriatic onycholysis. In all 5 patients, symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis improved despite the new-onset skin and nail psoriasis.⁵

The exact pathophysiology of these adverse events has not been clearly understood, but it has been proposed that anti-TNF biologics may initiate an autoimmune reaction in the skin and nails, leading to paradoxical psoriasis and nail changes such as onycholysis. Tumor necrosis factor may have a regulatory role in the skin that prevents autoreactive T cells, such as cutaneous lymphocyte antigen–expressing T cells that promote the formation of psoriasiform lesions. By inhibiting TNF, there can be an underlying activation of autoreactive T cells that leads to tissue destruction in the skin and nails.⁶ Anti-TNF biologics also could increase CXCR3, a chemokine receptor that allows autoreactive T cells to enter the skin and cause pathology.⁷

IL-17A and IL-17F also have been shown to upregulate the expression of TNF receptor II in synoviocytes,⁸ which demonstrates that IL-17 works in synergy with TNF-α to promote an inflammatory reaction.⁹ Due to the inhibitory effects of ixekizumab, psoriatic arthritis should theoretically improve. However, if there is an alteration in the inflammatory sequence, then the regulatory role of TNF could be suppressed and psoriatic arthritis could become exacerbated. Additionally, its associated symptoms, such as dactylitis, could develop, as seen in our patient.⁴ Because psoriatic arthritis is closely associated with nail changes of psoriasis, it is conceivable that acute arthritic flares and acute onycholysis are both induced by the same cytokine dysregulation. Further studies and a larger patient population need to be evaluated to determine the exact cause of the acute exacerbation of psoriatic arthritis with concomitant nail changes as noted in our patient.

Acute onycholysis (within 72 hours) is a rare side effect of ixekizumab. It can be postulated that our patient’s severe acute onycholysis associated with a flare of psoriatic arthritis could be due to idiosyncratic immune dysregulation, promoting the activity of autoreactive T cells. The pharmacologic effects of ixekizumab occur through the inhibition of IL-17. We propose that by inhibiting IL-17 with associated TNF alterations, an altered inflammatory cascade could promote an autoimmune reaction leading to the described pathology.

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³