Case Reports

THE CASE

A 55-year-old woman developed subacute progression of myalgias and subjective weakness in her proximal extremities after starting a new exercise regimen. The patient had a history of unilateral renal agenesis, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, for which she had taken atorvastatin 40 mg/d for several years before discontinuing it 2 years earlier for unknown reasons. She had been evaluated multiple times in the primary care clinic and emergency department over the previous month. Each time, her strength was minimally reduced in the upper extremities on examination, her renal function and electrolytes were normal, and her creatine kinase (CK) level was elevated (16,000-20,000 U/L; normal range, 26-192 U/L). She was managed conservatively with fluids and given return precautions each time.

After her myalgias and weakness increased in severity, she presented to the emergency department with a muscle strength score of 4/5 in both shoulders, triceps, hip flexors, hip extensors, abductors, and adductors. Her laboratory results were significant for the presence of blood without red blood cells on her urine dipstick test and a CK level of 25,070 U/L. She was admitted for further evaluation of progressive myopathy and given aggressive IV fluid hydration to prevent renal injury based on her history of unilateral renal agenesis.

Infectious disease testing, which included a respiratory virus panel, acute hepatitis panel, HIV screening, Lyme antibody testing, cytomegalovirus DNA detection by polymerase chain reaction, Epstein-Barr virus capsid immunoglobulin M, and anti-­streptolysin O, were negative. Electrolytes, inflammatory markers, and kidney function were normal. However, high-­sensitivity troponin-T levels were elevated, with a peak value of 216.3 ng/L (normal range, 0-19 ng/L). The patient denied having any chest pain, and her electrocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiogram were normal. By hospital Day 4, her myalgias and weakness had improved, CK had stabilized (19,000-21,000 U/L), cardiac enzymes had improved, and urinalysis had normalized. She was discharged with a referral to a rheumatologist.

However, 10 days later—before she could see a rheumatologist—she was readmitted to a community hospital for recurrence of severe myalgias, progressive weakness, positive blood on urine dipstick testing, and a rising CK level (to 24,580 U/L) found during a follow-up appointment with her primary care physician. At this point, Neurology and Rheumatology were consulted and myositis-specific and ­myositis-associated autoantibody tests were sent out. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her thighs was performed and showed diffusely increased T2 signal and short tau inversion recovery in multiple proximal muscles (FIGURE).

DIAGNOSIS

Given her symmetrical proximal muscle weakness (which was refractory to IV fluid resuscitation), MRI findings, and the exclusion of infection and metabolic derangements, the patient was given a working diagnosis of myositis and treated with 1-g IV methylprednisolone followed by a 4-month steroid taper, methotrexate 20 mg weekly, and physical therapy. This working diagnosis was later confirmed with the results of her autoantibody tests.

At her 1-month follow-up visit, the ­patient reported minimal improvement in her strength, new neck weakness, and ­dysphagia with solids. Testing revealed ­anti–3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase ­(anti-HMGCR) antibody levels of more than 200 U/L (negative < 20 U/L; positive > 59 U/L), which pointed to a more refined diagnosis of anti-HMGCR immune-mediated necrotizing myositis.

DISCUSSION

Myositis should be in the differential diagnosis for patients with symmetrical proximal muscle weakness. Bohan and Peter devised a 5-part set of criteria to help diagnose myositis, shown in the TABLE.^1,2 This simple framework broadens the differential and guides diagnostic testing. Our patient’s presentation was fairly typical for anti-HMGCR myositis, a subset of immune-mediated necrotizing myositis,³ with a pretest probability of 62% per the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria.² Probability of this diagnosis was further increased by the high-titer anti-HMGCR, so biopsy and electromyography (EMG), as noted by Bohan and Peter, were not pursued.

Continue to: Autoimmune myopathies...

Two-thirds of patients with anti-HMGCR myositis report current or prior statin use, and this increases to more than 90% in those age 50 years or older.

Autoimmune myopathies occur in 9 to 14 per 100,000 people,⁴ with6% of patients having anti-HMGCR auto-antibodies.⁵ Anti-HMGCR myositis is more prevalent in older women, patients with type 2 diabetes, and those with a history of atorvastatin use.^3,6 Two-thirds of patients with anti-HMGCR myositis report current or prior statin use, and this increases to more than 90% in those age 50 years or older.⁵ Anti-HMGCR myositis causes significant muscle weakness that does not resolve with discontinuation of the statin and can occur years after the initiation or discontinuation of statin treatment.⁶ Cardiac involvement is rare⁴ but dysphagia is relatively common.^7,8 Anti-HMGCR myositis also has a weak association with cancer, most commonly gastrointestinal and lung cancers.^4,7

Distinguishing statin-induced myalgias from statin-induced myositis guides management. Statin-induced myalgias are associated with normal or slightly increased CK levels (typically < 1000 U/L) and resolve with discontinuation of the statin; the patient can often tolerate re-challenge with a statin.⁶ In contrast, CK elevation in patients with statin-induced myositis is typically more than 10,000 U/L⁶ and requires aggressive treatment with immunomodulatory medications to prevent permanent muscle damage.

Treatment recommendations are supported only by case series, observational studies, and expert opinion. Typical first-line treatment includes induction with high-dose corticosteroids followed by prolonged taper plus a conventional synthetic disease-­modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate.⁴ Maintenance therapy often is achieved with csDMARD therapy for 2 years.⁴ Severe cases frequently are treated with combination csDMARD therapy (eg, methotrexate and azathioprine or methotrexate and mycophenolate).⁴ Rituximab and IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) are typically reserved for refractory cases.⁶ Usual monitoring for relapse includes muscle strength testing on examination and evaluation of trending CK levels.⁸

Our patient received monthly 2-g/kg IVIG infusions, which led to slow, consistent improvement in her strength and normalization of her CK levels to 181 U/L after 6 months.

THE TAKEAWAY

Anti-HMGCR myositis should be suspected in any patient currently or previously treated with a statin who presents with proximal muscle weakness, myalgias, or an elevated CK level. We suggest early subspecialty consultation to discuss whether antibody testing, EMG, or muscle biopsy are warranted. If anti-HMGCR myositis is confirmed, it is advisable to rule out comorbid malignancy and initiate early combination treatment to minimize relapses and permanent muscle damage.

CORRESPONDENCE
Daniel T. Schoenherr, MD, Family Medicine Residency, National Capital Consortium–Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center, 9300 DeWitt Loop, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 55-year-old woman developed subacute progression of myalgias and subjective weakness in her proximal extremities after starting a new exercise regimen. The patient had a history of unilateral renal agenesis, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, for which she had taken atorvastatin 40 mg/d for several years before discontinuing it 2 years earlier for unknown reasons. She had been evaluated multiple times in the primary care clinic and emergency department over the previous month. Each time, her strength was minimally reduced in the upper extremities on examination, her renal function and electrolytes were normal, and her creatine kinase (CK) level was elevated (16,000-20,000 U/L; normal range, 26-192 U/L). She was managed conservatively with fluids and given return precautions each time.

After her myalgias and weakness increased in severity, she presented to the emergency department with a muscle strength score of 4/5 in both shoulders, triceps, hip flexors, hip extensors, abductors, and adductors. Her laboratory results were significant for the presence of blood without red blood cells on her urine dipstick test and a CK level of 25,070 U/L. She was admitted for further evaluation of progressive myopathy and given aggressive IV fluid hydration to prevent renal injury based on her history of unilateral renal agenesis.

Infectious disease testing, which included a respiratory virus panel, acute hepatitis panel, HIV screening, Lyme antibody testing, cytomegalovirus DNA detection by polymerase chain reaction, Epstein-Barr virus capsid immunoglobulin M, and anti-­streptolysin O, were negative. Electrolytes, inflammatory markers, and kidney function were normal. However, high-­sensitivity troponin-T levels were elevated, with a peak value of 216.3 ng/L (normal range, 0-19 ng/L). The patient denied having any chest pain, and her electrocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiogram were normal. By hospital Day 4, her myalgias and weakness had improved, CK had stabilized (19,000-21,000 U/L), cardiac enzymes had improved, and urinalysis had normalized. She was discharged with a referral to a rheumatologist.

However, 10 days later—before she could see a rheumatologist—she was readmitted to a community hospital for recurrence of severe myalgias, progressive weakness, positive blood on urine dipstick testing, and a rising CK level (to 24,580 U/L) found during a follow-up appointment with her primary care physician. At this point, Neurology and Rheumatology were consulted and myositis-specific and ­myositis-associated autoantibody tests were sent out. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her thighs was performed and showed diffusely increased T2 signal and short tau inversion recovery in multiple proximal muscles (FIGURE).

DIAGNOSIS

Given her symmetrical proximal muscle weakness (which was refractory to IV fluid resuscitation), MRI findings, and the exclusion of infection and metabolic derangements, the patient was given a working diagnosis of myositis and treated with 1-g IV methylprednisolone followed by a 4-month steroid taper, methotrexate 20 mg weekly, and physical therapy. This working diagnosis was later confirmed with the results of her autoantibody tests.

At her 1-month follow-up visit, the ­patient reported minimal improvement in her strength, new neck weakness, and ­dysphagia with solids. Testing revealed ­anti–3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase ­(anti-HMGCR) antibody levels of more than 200 U/L (negative < 20 U/L; positive > 59 U/L), which pointed to a more refined diagnosis of anti-HMGCR immune-mediated necrotizing myositis.

DISCUSSION

Myositis should be in the differential diagnosis for patients with symmetrical proximal muscle weakness. Bohan and Peter devised a 5-part set of criteria to help diagnose myositis, shown in the TABLE.^1,2 This simple framework broadens the differential and guides diagnostic testing. Our patient’s presentation was fairly typical for anti-HMGCR myositis, a subset of immune-mediated necrotizing myositis,³ with a pretest probability of 62% per the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria.² Probability of this diagnosis was further increased by the high-titer anti-HMGCR, so biopsy and electromyography (EMG), as noted by Bohan and Peter, were not pursued.

Continue to: Autoimmune myopathies...

Two-thirds of patients with anti-HMGCR myositis report current or prior statin use, and this increases to more than 90% in those age 50 years or older.

Autoimmune myopathies occur in 9 to 14 per 100,000 people,⁴ with6% of patients having anti-HMGCR auto-antibodies.⁵ Anti-HMGCR myositis is more prevalent in older women, patients with type 2 diabetes, and those with a history of atorvastatin use.^3,6 Two-thirds of patients with anti-HMGCR myositis report current or prior statin use, and this increases to more than 90% in those age 50 years or older.⁵ Anti-HMGCR myositis causes significant muscle weakness that does not resolve with discontinuation of the statin and can occur years after the initiation or discontinuation of statin treatment.⁶ Cardiac involvement is rare⁴ but dysphagia is relatively common.^7,8 Anti-HMGCR myositis also has a weak association with cancer, most commonly gastrointestinal and lung cancers.^4,7

Distinguishing statin-induced myalgias from statin-induced myositis guides management. Statin-induced myalgias are associated with normal or slightly increased CK levels (typically < 1000 U/L) and resolve with discontinuation of the statin; the patient can often tolerate re-challenge with a statin.⁶ In contrast, CK elevation in patients with statin-induced myositis is typically more than 10,000 U/L⁶ and requires aggressive treatment with immunomodulatory medications to prevent permanent muscle damage.

Treatment recommendations are supported only by case series, observational studies, and expert opinion. Typical first-line treatment includes induction with high-dose corticosteroids followed by prolonged taper plus a conventional synthetic disease-­modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate.⁴ Maintenance therapy often is achieved with csDMARD therapy for 2 years.⁴ Severe cases frequently are treated with combination csDMARD therapy (eg, methotrexate and azathioprine or methotrexate and mycophenolate).⁴ Rituximab and IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) are typically reserved for refractory cases.⁶ Usual monitoring for relapse includes muscle strength testing on examination and evaluation of trending CK levels.⁸

Our patient received monthly 2-g/kg IVIG infusions, which led to slow, consistent improvement in her strength and normalization of her CK levels to 181 U/L after 6 months.

THE TAKEAWAY

Anti-HMGCR myositis should be suspected in any patient currently or previously treated with a statin who presents with proximal muscle weakness, myalgias, or an elevated CK level. We suggest early subspecialty consultation to discuss whether antibody testing, EMG, or muscle biopsy are warranted. If anti-HMGCR myositis is confirmed, it is advisable to rule out comorbid malignancy and initiate early combination treatment to minimize relapses and permanent muscle damage.

CORRESPONDENCE
Daniel T. Schoenherr, MD, Family Medicine Residency, National Capital Consortium–Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center, 9300 DeWitt Loop, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 55-year-old woman developed subacute progression of myalgias and subjective weakness in her proximal extremities after starting a new exercise regimen. The patient had a history of unilateral renal agenesis, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, for which she had taken atorvastatin 40 mg/d for several years before discontinuing it 2 years earlier for unknown reasons. She had been evaluated multiple times in the primary care clinic and emergency department over the previous month. Each time, her strength was minimally reduced in the upper extremities on examination, her renal function and electrolytes were normal, and her creatine kinase (CK) level was elevated (16,000-20,000 U/L; normal range, 26-192 U/L). She was managed conservatively with fluids and given return precautions each time.

After her myalgias and weakness increased in severity, she presented to the emergency department with a muscle strength score of 4/5 in both shoulders, triceps, hip flexors, hip extensors, abductors, and adductors. Her laboratory results were significant for the presence of blood without red blood cells on her urine dipstick test and a CK level of 25,070 U/L. She was admitted for further evaluation of progressive myopathy and given aggressive IV fluid hydration to prevent renal injury based on her history of unilateral renal agenesis.

Infectious disease testing, which included a respiratory virus panel, acute hepatitis panel, HIV screening, Lyme antibody testing, cytomegalovirus DNA detection by polymerase chain reaction, Epstein-Barr virus capsid immunoglobulin M, and anti-­streptolysin O, were negative. Electrolytes, inflammatory markers, and kidney function were normal. However, high-­sensitivity troponin-T levels were elevated, with a peak value of 216.3 ng/L (normal range, 0-19 ng/L). The patient denied having any chest pain, and her electrocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiogram were normal. By hospital Day 4, her myalgias and weakness had improved, CK had stabilized (19,000-21,000 U/L), cardiac enzymes had improved, and urinalysis had normalized. She was discharged with a referral to a rheumatologist.

However, 10 days later—before she could see a rheumatologist—she was readmitted to a community hospital for recurrence of severe myalgias, progressive weakness, positive blood on urine dipstick testing, and a rising CK level (to 24,580 U/L) found during a follow-up appointment with her primary care physician. At this point, Neurology and Rheumatology were consulted and myositis-specific and ­myositis-associated autoantibody tests were sent out. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her thighs was performed and showed diffusely increased T2 signal and short tau inversion recovery in multiple proximal muscles (FIGURE).

DIAGNOSIS

Given her symmetrical proximal muscle weakness (which was refractory to IV fluid resuscitation), MRI findings, and the exclusion of infection and metabolic derangements, the patient was given a working diagnosis of myositis and treated with 1-g IV methylprednisolone followed by a 4-month steroid taper, methotrexate 20 mg weekly, and physical therapy. This working diagnosis was later confirmed with the results of her autoantibody tests.

At her 1-month follow-up visit, the ­patient reported minimal improvement in her strength, new neck weakness, and ­dysphagia with solids. Testing revealed ­anti–3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase ­(anti-HMGCR) antibody levels of more than 200 U/L (negative < 20 U/L; positive > 59 U/L), which pointed to a more refined diagnosis of anti-HMGCR immune-mediated necrotizing myositis.

DISCUSSION

Myositis should be in the differential diagnosis for patients with symmetrical proximal muscle weakness. Bohan and Peter devised a 5-part set of criteria to help diagnose myositis, shown in the TABLE.^1,2 This simple framework broadens the differential and guides diagnostic testing. Our patient’s presentation was fairly typical for anti-HMGCR myositis, a subset of immune-mediated necrotizing myositis,³ with a pretest probability of 62% per the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria.² Probability of this diagnosis was further increased by the high-titer anti-HMGCR, so biopsy and electromyography (EMG), as noted by Bohan and Peter, were not pursued.

Continue to: Autoimmune myopathies...

Two-thirds of patients with anti-HMGCR myositis report current or prior statin use, and this increases to more than 90% in those age 50 years or older.

Autoimmune myopathies occur in 9 to 14 per 100,000 people,⁴ with6% of patients having anti-HMGCR auto-antibodies.⁵ Anti-HMGCR myositis is more prevalent in older women, patients with type 2 diabetes, and those with a history of atorvastatin use.^3,6 Two-thirds of patients with anti-HMGCR myositis report current or prior statin use, and this increases to more than 90% in those age 50 years or older.⁵ Anti-HMGCR myositis causes significant muscle weakness that does not resolve with discontinuation of the statin and can occur years after the initiation or discontinuation of statin treatment.⁶ Cardiac involvement is rare⁴ but dysphagia is relatively common.^7,8 Anti-HMGCR myositis also has a weak association with cancer, most commonly gastrointestinal and lung cancers.^4,7

Distinguishing statin-induced myalgias from statin-induced myositis guides management. Statin-induced myalgias are associated with normal or slightly increased CK levels (typically < 1000 U/L) and resolve with discontinuation of the statin; the patient can often tolerate re-challenge with a statin.⁶ In contrast, CK elevation in patients with statin-induced myositis is typically more than 10,000 U/L⁶ and requires aggressive treatment with immunomodulatory medications to prevent permanent muscle damage.

Treatment recommendations are supported only by case series, observational studies, and expert opinion. Typical first-line treatment includes induction with high-dose corticosteroids followed by prolonged taper plus a conventional synthetic disease-­modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate.⁴ Maintenance therapy often is achieved with csDMARD therapy for 2 years.⁴ Severe cases frequently are treated with combination csDMARD therapy (eg, methotrexate and azathioprine or methotrexate and mycophenolate).⁴ Rituximab and IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) are typically reserved for refractory cases.⁶ Usual monitoring for relapse includes muscle strength testing on examination and evaluation of trending CK levels.⁸

Our patient received monthly 2-g/kg IVIG infusions, which led to slow, consistent improvement in her strength and normalization of her CK levels to 181 U/L after 6 months.

THE TAKEAWAY

Anti-HMGCR myositis should be suspected in any patient currently or previously treated with a statin who presents with proximal muscle weakness, myalgias, or an elevated CK level. We suggest early subspecialty consultation to discuss whether antibody testing, EMG, or muscle biopsy are warranted. If anti-HMGCR myositis is confirmed, it is advisable to rule out comorbid malignancy and initiate early combination treatment to minimize relapses and permanent muscle damage.

CORRESPONDENCE
Daniel T. Schoenherr, MD, Family Medicine Residency, National Capital Consortium–Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center, 9300 DeWitt Loop, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060; [email protected]

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease that immunopathogenetically is thought to be due to breakdown of the immune privilege of the proximal hair follicle during the anagen growth phase. Alopecia areata has been reported to have a lifetime prevalence of 1.7%.¹ Recent studies have specifically identified cytotoxic CD8⁺ NKG2D⁺ T cells as being responsible for the activation of AA.^2-4 Two interleukins—IL-2 and IL-15—have been implicated to be cytotoxic sensitizers allowing CD8⁺ T cells to secrete IFN-γ and recognize autoantigens via major histocompatibility complex class I.^5,6 Janus kinases (JAKs) are enzymes that play major roles in many different molecular processes. Specifically, JAK1/3 has been determined to arbitrate IL-15 activation of receptors on CD8⁺ T cells.⁷ These cells then interact with CD4 T cells, mast cells, and other inflammatory cells to cause destruction of the hair follicle without damage to the keratinocyte and melanocyte stem cells, allowing for reversible yet relapsing hair loss.⁸

Treatment of AA is difficult, requiring patience and strict compliance while taking into account duration of disease, age at presentation, site involvement, patient expectations, cost and insurance coverage, prior therapies, and any comorbidities. At the time of this case, no US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug regimen existed for the treatment of AA, and, to date, no treatment is preventative.⁴ We present a case of a patient with alopecia universalis of 11 years’ duration that was refractory to intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, minoxidil, and UVB brush therapy yet was successfully treated with tofacitinib.

Case Report

A 29-year-old otherwise-healthy woman presented to our clinic for treatment of alopecia universalis of 11 years’ duration that flared intermittently despite various treatments. Her medical history was unremarkable; however, she had a brother with alopecia universalis. She had no family history of any other autoimmune disorders. At the current presentation, the patient was known to have alopecia universalis with scant evidence of exclamation-point hairs on dermoscopy. Her treatment plan at this point consisted of intralesional triamcinolone to the active areas at 10 mg/mL every 4 weeks, plus clobetasol foam 0.05% at bedtime, minoxidil foam 5% at bedtime, and a UVB brush 3 times a week for 6 months before progressing to universalis type because of hair loss in the eyebrows and eyelashes. This treatment plan continued for 1 year with minimal improvement of the alopecia (Figure 1).

The patient was dissatisfied and wanted to discontinue therapy. Because these treatment options were exhausted with minimal benefit, the patient was then considered for treatment with tofacitinib. Baseline studies were performed, including purified protein derivative, complete blood cell count with differential, comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid profile, and liver function tests, all of which were within reference range. Insurance initially denied coverage of this therapy; a prior authorization was subsequently submitted and denied. A letter of medical necessity was then proposed, and approval for tofacitinib was finally granted. The patient was started on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily and was monitored every 2 months with a complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panels, and liver function tests. She had a platelet count of 112,000/μL (reference range, 150,000–450,000/μL) at baseline, and continued monitoring revealed a platelet count of 83,000 after 7 months of treatment. This platelet abnormality was evaluated by a hematologist and found to be within reference range; subsequent monitoring did not reveal any abnormalities.

Initial hair growth on the scalp was diffuse with thin, white to light brown hairs in areas of hair loss at months 1 and 2, with progressive hair growth over months 3 to 7. Eyebrow hair growth was noted beginning at month 6. One year later, only hair regrowth occurred without any adverse events (Figure 2). After 5 years of treatment, the patient had a full head of thick hair (Figure 3). The tofacitinib dosage was 5 mg twice daily at initiation, and after 1 year increased to 10 mg twice daily. Her medical insurance subsequently changed and the regimen was adjusted to an 11-mg tablet and 5-mg tablet daily. She remained on this regimen with success.

Comment

Use of JAK Inhibitors—Reports and studies have shed light on the use and efficacy of JAK inhibitors in AA (Table).^5-11 Tofacitinib is a selective JAK1/3 inhibitor that predominantly inhibits JAK3 but also inhibits JAK1, albeit to a lesser degree, which interferes with the JAK/STAT (signal transducer and activator of transcription) cascade responsible for the production, differentiation, and function of various B cells, T cells, and natural killer cells.² Although it was developed for the management of allograft rejection, tofacitinib has made headway in rheumatology for treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who are unable to take or are not responding to methotrexate.² Since 2014, tofacitinib has been introduced to the therapeutic realm for AA but is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.^3,4

In 2014, Craiglow and King⁵ reported use of tofacitinib with dosages beginning at 10 mg/d and increasing to 15 mg/d in a patient with alopecia universalis and psoriasis. Total hair regrowth was noted after 8 months of therapy.⁵ Xing et al⁶ described 3 patients treated with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis, at an oral dose of 20 mg twice daily with near-complete hair regrowth after 5 months of treatment.⁶ Biopsies from lesions at baseline and after 3 months of therapy revealed a reduction in perifollicular T cells and in HLA class I and II expression in follicles.⁶ A patient in Italy with essential thrombocythemia and concurrent alopecia universalis was enrolled in a clinical trial with ruxolitinib and was treated with 15 mg twice daily. After 10 months of treatment, the patient had progressive hair regrowth that was sustained for more than 50 months of therapy.⁷ Baricitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, was used in a 17-year-old adolescent boy to assess efficacy of the drug in chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperature syndrome.⁸ The patient also had longstanding patch-type AA that was resistance to treatment and progressed to an ophiasis pattern even though he was on immunosuppressive therapies. He was on 12 mg of prednisone daily at the start of therapy with baricitinib 7 mg daily initially. The baricitinib regimen was titrated up to 7 mg in the morning and 4 mg in the evening, with tapering of prednisone to 3 mg daily after 6 months of initiation. Within 3 months of therapy, hair regrowth occurred, with only a resultant patch on the occipital scalp that further resolved after 6 more months of therapy, resulting in total persistent hair growth.⁸ A 40-year-old woman with moderate to severe alopecia universalis was treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, revealing near-complete hair regrowth after 4 months of treatment; regrowth of eyebrows and eyelashes also was seen.⁹ However, discontinuation of treatment resulted in hair loss. Microarray analyses of biopsy specimens of lesioned sites at baseline revealed elevated IFN-γ and cytotoxic T cell-level signatures that subsequently decreased—albeit not to normal control levels—after 4 weeks of treatment.⁹ Being that IFN-γ receptors mediate their effects through JAK1/2, JAK1/3, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, and baricitinib seem to be in sync with the immunopathogenesis of AA and thus may be the therapy of choice in the near future.

A recent retrospective study assessing response to tofacitinib in adults with AA (>40% hair loss), alopecia totalis, alopecia universalis, and stable or progressive diseases for at least 6 months determined a clinical response in 50 of 65 (77%) patients, with 13 patients exhibiting a complete response.¹⁰ Patients in this study were started on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily with the addition of adjuvant pulsed prednisone (300 mg once monthly for 3 doses) with or without doubled dosing of tofacitinib if they had a halt in hair regrowth. This study demonstrated some benefit when pulsed prednisone was combined with the daily tofacitinib therapy. However, the study emphasized the importance of maintenance therapy, as 8 patients experienced hair loss with discontinuation after previously having hair regrowth; 5 (63%) of these patients experienced regrowth with augmentation of dosing or addition of adjuvant therapy.¹⁰

Another group of investigators assessed the efficacy of tofacitinib 5 mg in 13 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, most with alopecia universalis (46% [6/13]); 10 of 13 (77%) patients responded to treatment with a mean duration of 6.5 months. The patients who had alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis for more than 10 years were poor responders to tofacitinib, and in fact, 1 of 13 (33%) patients in the study who did not respond to therapy had disease for 12 years.¹¹ Therefore, starting tofacitinib either long-term or intermittently should be considered in children diagnosed early with severe AA, alopecia totalis, or alopecia universalis to prevent irreversible hair loss or progressive disease^12,13; however, further data are required to assess efficacy and long-term benefits of this type of regimen.

Safety Profile—Widespread use of a medication is determined not only by its efficacy profile but also its safety profile. With any medication that exhibits immunosuppressive effects, adverse events must be considered and thoroughly discussed with patients and their primary care physicians. A prospective, open-label, single-arm trial examined the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily in the treatment of AA and its more severe forms over 3 months.¹² Of the 66 patients who completed the trial, 64% (42/66) exhibited a positive response to tofacitinib. Relapse was noted in 8.5 weeks after discontinuation of tofacitinib, reiterating the potential need for a maintenance regimen. In this study, 25.8% (17/66) of patients experienced infections as adverse events including (in decreasing order) upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, herpes zoster, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, mononucleosis, and paronychia. No reports of new or recurrent malignancy were noted. Other more constitutional adverse events were noted including headaches, abdominal pain, acne, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, pruritus, hot flashes, cough, folliculitis, weight gain, dry eyes, and amenorrhea. One patient with a pre-existing liver condition experienced transaminitis that resolved with weight loss. There also were noted increases in low- and high-density lipoprotein levels.¹² Our patient with baseline thrombocytopenia had mild drops in platelet count that subsequently stabilized and did not result in any bleeding abnormalities.

Duration of Therapy—Tofacitinib has demonstrated some preliminary success in the management of AA, but the appropriate duration of treatment requires further investigation. Our patient has been on tofacitinib for more than 5 years. She started at a total dosage of 10 mg/d, which increased to 16 mg/d. Initial dosing with maintenance regimens needs to be established for further widespread use to maximize benefit and minimize harm.

At what point do we decide to continue or stop treatment in patients who do not respond as expected or plateau? This is another critical question; our patient had periods of slowed growth and plateauing, but knowing the risks and benefits, she continued the medication and eventually experienced improved regrowth again.

Conclusion

Throughout the literature and in our patient, tofacitinib has demonstrated efficacy in treating AA. When other conventional therapies have failed, use of tofacitinib should be considered.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease that immunopathogenetically is thought to be due to breakdown of the immune privilege of the proximal hair follicle during the anagen growth phase. Alopecia areata has been reported to have a lifetime prevalence of 1.7%.¹ Recent studies have specifically identified cytotoxic CD8⁺ NKG2D⁺ T cells as being responsible for the activation of AA.^2-4 Two interleukins—IL-2 and IL-15—have been implicated to be cytotoxic sensitizers allowing CD8⁺ T cells to secrete IFN-γ and recognize autoantigens via major histocompatibility complex class I.^5,6 Janus kinases (JAKs) are enzymes that play major roles in many different molecular processes. Specifically, JAK1/3 has been determined to arbitrate IL-15 activation of receptors on CD8⁺ T cells.⁷ These cells then interact with CD4 T cells, mast cells, and other inflammatory cells to cause destruction of the hair follicle without damage to the keratinocyte and melanocyte stem cells, allowing for reversible yet relapsing hair loss.⁸

Treatment of AA is difficult, requiring patience and strict compliance while taking into account duration of disease, age at presentation, site involvement, patient expectations, cost and insurance coverage, prior therapies, and any comorbidities. At the time of this case, no US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug regimen existed for the treatment of AA, and, to date, no treatment is preventative.⁴ We present a case of a patient with alopecia universalis of 11 years’ duration that was refractory to intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, minoxidil, and UVB brush therapy yet was successfully treated with tofacitinib.

Case Report

A 29-year-old otherwise-healthy woman presented to our clinic for treatment of alopecia universalis of 11 years’ duration that flared intermittently despite various treatments. Her medical history was unremarkable; however, she had a brother with alopecia universalis. She had no family history of any other autoimmune disorders. At the current presentation, the patient was known to have alopecia universalis with scant evidence of exclamation-point hairs on dermoscopy. Her treatment plan at this point consisted of intralesional triamcinolone to the active areas at 10 mg/mL every 4 weeks, plus clobetasol foam 0.05% at bedtime, minoxidil foam 5% at bedtime, and a UVB brush 3 times a week for 6 months before progressing to universalis type because of hair loss in the eyebrows and eyelashes. This treatment plan continued for 1 year with minimal improvement of the alopecia (Figure 1).

The patient was dissatisfied and wanted to discontinue therapy. Because these treatment options were exhausted with minimal benefit, the patient was then considered for treatment with tofacitinib. Baseline studies were performed, including purified protein derivative, complete blood cell count with differential, comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid profile, and liver function tests, all of which were within reference range. Insurance initially denied coverage of this therapy; a prior authorization was subsequently submitted and denied. A letter of medical necessity was then proposed, and approval for tofacitinib was finally granted. The patient was started on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily and was monitored every 2 months with a complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panels, and liver function tests. She had a platelet count of 112,000/μL (reference range, 150,000–450,000/μL) at baseline, and continued monitoring revealed a platelet count of 83,000 after 7 months of treatment. This platelet abnormality was evaluated by a hematologist and found to be within reference range; subsequent monitoring did not reveal any abnormalities.

Initial hair growth on the scalp was diffuse with thin, white to light brown hairs in areas of hair loss at months 1 and 2, with progressive hair growth over months 3 to 7. Eyebrow hair growth was noted beginning at month 6. One year later, only hair regrowth occurred without any adverse events (Figure 2). After 5 years of treatment, the patient had a full head of thick hair (Figure 3). The tofacitinib dosage was 5 mg twice daily at initiation, and after 1 year increased to 10 mg twice daily. Her medical insurance subsequently changed and the regimen was adjusted to an 11-mg tablet and 5-mg tablet daily. She remained on this regimen with success.

Comment

Use of JAK Inhibitors—Reports and studies have shed light on the use and efficacy of JAK inhibitors in AA (Table).^5-11 Tofacitinib is a selective JAK1/3 inhibitor that predominantly inhibits JAK3 but also inhibits JAK1, albeit to a lesser degree, which interferes with the JAK/STAT (signal transducer and activator of transcription) cascade responsible for the production, differentiation, and function of various B cells, T cells, and natural killer cells.² Although it was developed for the management of allograft rejection, tofacitinib has made headway in rheumatology for treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who are unable to take or are not responding to methotrexate.² Since 2014, tofacitinib has been introduced to the therapeutic realm for AA but is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.^3,4

In 2014, Craiglow and King⁵ reported use of tofacitinib with dosages beginning at 10 mg/d and increasing to 15 mg/d in a patient with alopecia universalis and psoriasis. Total hair regrowth was noted after 8 months of therapy.⁵ Xing et al⁶ described 3 patients treated with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis, at an oral dose of 20 mg twice daily with near-complete hair regrowth after 5 months of treatment.⁶ Biopsies from lesions at baseline and after 3 months of therapy revealed a reduction in perifollicular T cells and in HLA class I and II expression in follicles.⁶ A patient in Italy with essential thrombocythemia and concurrent alopecia universalis was enrolled in a clinical trial with ruxolitinib and was treated with 15 mg twice daily. After 10 months of treatment, the patient had progressive hair regrowth that was sustained for more than 50 months of therapy.⁷ Baricitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, was used in a 17-year-old adolescent boy to assess efficacy of the drug in chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperature syndrome.⁸ The patient also had longstanding patch-type AA that was resistance to treatment and progressed to an ophiasis pattern even though he was on immunosuppressive therapies. He was on 12 mg of prednisone daily at the start of therapy with baricitinib 7 mg daily initially. The baricitinib regimen was titrated up to 7 mg in the morning and 4 mg in the evening, with tapering of prednisone to 3 mg daily after 6 months of initiation. Within 3 months of therapy, hair regrowth occurred, with only a resultant patch on the occipital scalp that further resolved after 6 more months of therapy, resulting in total persistent hair growth.⁸ A 40-year-old woman with moderate to severe alopecia universalis was treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, revealing near-complete hair regrowth after 4 months of treatment; regrowth of eyebrows and eyelashes also was seen.⁹ However, discontinuation of treatment resulted in hair loss. Microarray analyses of biopsy specimens of lesioned sites at baseline revealed elevated IFN-γ and cytotoxic T cell-level signatures that subsequently decreased—albeit not to normal control levels—after 4 weeks of treatment.⁹ Being that IFN-γ receptors mediate their effects through JAK1/2, JAK1/3, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, and baricitinib seem to be in sync with the immunopathogenesis of AA and thus may be the therapy of choice in the near future.

A recent retrospective study assessing response to tofacitinib in adults with AA (>40% hair loss), alopecia totalis, alopecia universalis, and stable or progressive diseases for at least 6 months determined a clinical response in 50 of 65 (77%) patients, with 13 patients exhibiting a complete response.¹⁰ Patients in this study were started on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily with the addition of adjuvant pulsed prednisone (300 mg once monthly for 3 doses) with or without doubled dosing of tofacitinib if they had a halt in hair regrowth. This study demonstrated some benefit when pulsed prednisone was combined with the daily tofacitinib therapy. However, the study emphasized the importance of maintenance therapy, as 8 patients experienced hair loss with discontinuation after previously having hair regrowth; 5 (63%) of these patients experienced regrowth with augmentation of dosing or addition of adjuvant therapy.¹⁰

Another group of investigators assessed the efficacy of tofacitinib 5 mg in 13 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, most with alopecia universalis (46% [6/13]); 10 of 13 (77%) patients responded to treatment with a mean duration of 6.5 months. The patients who had alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis for more than 10 years were poor responders to tofacitinib, and in fact, 1 of 13 (33%) patients in the study who did not respond to therapy had disease for 12 years.¹¹ Therefore, starting tofacitinib either long-term or intermittently should be considered in children diagnosed early with severe AA, alopecia totalis, or alopecia universalis to prevent irreversible hair loss or progressive disease^12,13; however, further data are required to assess efficacy and long-term benefits of this type of regimen.

Safety Profile—Widespread use of a medication is determined not only by its efficacy profile but also its safety profile. With any medication that exhibits immunosuppressive effects, adverse events must be considered and thoroughly discussed with patients and their primary care physicians. A prospective, open-label, single-arm trial examined the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily in the treatment of AA and its more severe forms over 3 months.¹² Of the 66 patients who completed the trial, 64% (42/66) exhibited a positive response to tofacitinib. Relapse was noted in 8.5 weeks after discontinuation of tofacitinib, reiterating the potential need for a maintenance regimen. In this study, 25.8% (17/66) of patients experienced infections as adverse events including (in decreasing order) upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, herpes zoster, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, mononucleosis, and paronychia. No reports of new or recurrent malignancy were noted. Other more constitutional adverse events were noted including headaches, abdominal pain, acne, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, pruritus, hot flashes, cough, folliculitis, weight gain, dry eyes, and amenorrhea. One patient with a pre-existing liver condition experienced transaminitis that resolved with weight loss. There also were noted increases in low- and high-density lipoprotein levels.¹² Our patient with baseline thrombocytopenia had mild drops in platelet count that subsequently stabilized and did not result in any bleeding abnormalities.

Duration of Therapy—Tofacitinib has demonstrated some preliminary success in the management of AA, but the appropriate duration of treatment requires further investigation. Our patient has been on tofacitinib for more than 5 years. She started at a total dosage of 10 mg/d, which increased to 16 mg/d. Initial dosing with maintenance regimens needs to be established for further widespread use to maximize benefit and minimize harm.

At what point do we decide to continue or stop treatment in patients who do not respond as expected or plateau? This is another critical question; our patient had periods of slowed growth and plateauing, but knowing the risks and benefits, she continued the medication and eventually experienced improved regrowth again.

Conclusion

Throughout the literature and in our patient, tofacitinib has demonstrated efficacy in treating AA. When other conventional therapies have failed, use of tofacitinib should be considered.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease that immunopathogenetically is thought to be due to breakdown of the immune privilege of the proximal hair follicle during the anagen growth phase. Alopecia areata has been reported to have a lifetime prevalence of 1.7%.¹ Recent studies have specifically identified cytotoxic CD8⁺ NKG2D⁺ T cells as being responsible for the activation of AA.^2-4 Two interleukins—IL-2 and IL-15—have been implicated to be cytotoxic sensitizers allowing CD8⁺ T cells to secrete IFN-γ and recognize autoantigens via major histocompatibility complex class I.^5,6 Janus kinases (JAKs) are enzymes that play major roles in many different molecular processes. Specifically, JAK1/3 has been determined to arbitrate IL-15 activation of receptors on CD8⁺ T cells.⁷ These cells then interact with CD4 T cells, mast cells, and other inflammatory cells to cause destruction of the hair follicle without damage to the keratinocyte and melanocyte stem cells, allowing for reversible yet relapsing hair loss.⁸

Treatment of AA is difficult, requiring patience and strict compliance while taking into account duration of disease, age at presentation, site involvement, patient expectations, cost and insurance coverage, prior therapies, and any comorbidities. At the time of this case, no US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug regimen existed for the treatment of AA, and, to date, no treatment is preventative.⁴ We present a case of a patient with alopecia universalis of 11 years’ duration that was refractory to intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, minoxidil, and UVB brush therapy yet was successfully treated with tofacitinib.

Case Report

A 29-year-old otherwise-healthy woman presented to our clinic for treatment of alopecia universalis of 11 years’ duration that flared intermittently despite various treatments. Her medical history was unremarkable; however, she had a brother with alopecia universalis. She had no family history of any other autoimmune disorders. At the current presentation, the patient was known to have alopecia universalis with scant evidence of exclamation-point hairs on dermoscopy. Her treatment plan at this point consisted of intralesional triamcinolone to the active areas at 10 mg/mL every 4 weeks, plus clobetasol foam 0.05% at bedtime, minoxidil foam 5% at bedtime, and a UVB brush 3 times a week for 6 months before progressing to universalis type because of hair loss in the eyebrows and eyelashes. This treatment plan continued for 1 year with minimal improvement of the alopecia (Figure 1).

The patient was dissatisfied and wanted to discontinue therapy. Because these treatment options were exhausted with minimal benefit, the patient was then considered for treatment with tofacitinib. Baseline studies were performed, including purified protein derivative, complete blood cell count with differential, comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid profile, and liver function tests, all of which were within reference range. Insurance initially denied coverage of this therapy; a prior authorization was subsequently submitted and denied. A letter of medical necessity was then proposed, and approval for tofacitinib was finally granted. The patient was started on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily and was monitored every 2 months with a complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panels, and liver function tests. She had a platelet count of 112,000/μL (reference range, 150,000–450,000/μL) at baseline, and continued monitoring revealed a platelet count of 83,000 after 7 months of treatment. This platelet abnormality was evaluated by a hematologist and found to be within reference range; subsequent monitoring did not reveal any abnormalities.

Initial hair growth on the scalp was diffuse with thin, white to light brown hairs in areas of hair loss at months 1 and 2, with progressive hair growth over months 3 to 7. Eyebrow hair growth was noted beginning at month 6. One year later, only hair regrowth occurred without any adverse events (Figure 2). After 5 years of treatment, the patient had a full head of thick hair (Figure 3). The tofacitinib dosage was 5 mg twice daily at initiation, and after 1 year increased to 10 mg twice daily. Her medical insurance subsequently changed and the regimen was adjusted to an 11-mg tablet and 5-mg tablet daily. She remained on this regimen with success.

Comment

Use of JAK Inhibitors—Reports and studies have shed light on the use and efficacy of JAK inhibitors in AA (Table).^5-11 Tofacitinib is a selective JAK1/3 inhibitor that predominantly inhibits JAK3 but also inhibits JAK1, albeit to a lesser degree, which interferes with the JAK/STAT (signal transducer and activator of transcription) cascade responsible for the production, differentiation, and function of various B cells, T cells, and natural killer cells.² Although it was developed for the management of allograft rejection, tofacitinib has made headway in rheumatology for treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who are unable to take or are not responding to methotrexate.² Since 2014, tofacitinib has been introduced to the therapeutic realm for AA but is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.^3,4

In 2014, Craiglow and King⁵ reported use of tofacitinib with dosages beginning at 10 mg/d and increasing to 15 mg/d in a patient with alopecia universalis and psoriasis. Total hair regrowth was noted after 8 months of therapy.⁵ Xing et al⁶ described 3 patients treated with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis, at an oral dose of 20 mg twice daily with near-complete hair regrowth after 5 months of treatment.⁶ Biopsies from lesions at baseline and after 3 months of therapy revealed a reduction in perifollicular T cells and in HLA class I and II expression in follicles.⁶ A patient in Italy with essential thrombocythemia and concurrent alopecia universalis was enrolled in a clinical trial with ruxolitinib and was treated with 15 mg twice daily. After 10 months of treatment, the patient had progressive hair regrowth that was sustained for more than 50 months of therapy.⁷ Baricitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, was used in a 17-year-old adolescent boy to assess efficacy of the drug in chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperature syndrome.⁸ The patient also had longstanding patch-type AA that was resistance to treatment and progressed to an ophiasis pattern even though he was on immunosuppressive therapies. He was on 12 mg of prednisone daily at the start of therapy with baricitinib 7 mg daily initially. The baricitinib regimen was titrated up to 7 mg in the morning and 4 mg in the evening, with tapering of prednisone to 3 mg daily after 6 months of initiation. Within 3 months of therapy, hair regrowth occurred, with only a resultant patch on the occipital scalp that further resolved after 6 more months of therapy, resulting in total persistent hair growth.⁸ A 40-year-old woman with moderate to severe alopecia universalis was treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, revealing near-complete hair regrowth after 4 months of treatment; regrowth of eyebrows and eyelashes also was seen.⁹ However, discontinuation of treatment resulted in hair loss. Microarray analyses of biopsy specimens of lesioned sites at baseline revealed elevated IFN-γ and cytotoxic T cell-level signatures that subsequently decreased—albeit not to normal control levels—after 4 weeks of treatment.⁹ Being that IFN-γ receptors mediate their effects through JAK1/2, JAK1/3, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, and baricitinib seem to be in sync with the immunopathogenesis of AA and thus may be the therapy of choice in the near future.

A recent retrospective study assessing response to tofacitinib in adults with AA (>40% hair loss), alopecia totalis, alopecia universalis, and stable or progressive diseases for at least 6 months determined a clinical response in 50 of 65 (77%) patients, with 13 patients exhibiting a complete response.¹⁰ Patients in this study were started on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily with the addition of adjuvant pulsed prednisone (300 mg once monthly for 3 doses) with or without doubled dosing of tofacitinib if they had a halt in hair regrowth. This study demonstrated some benefit when pulsed prednisone was combined with the daily tofacitinib therapy. However, the study emphasized the importance of maintenance therapy, as 8 patients experienced hair loss with discontinuation after previously having hair regrowth; 5 (63%) of these patients experienced regrowth with augmentation of dosing or addition of adjuvant therapy.¹⁰

Another group of investigators assessed the efficacy of tofacitinib 5 mg in 13 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, most with alopecia universalis (46% [6/13]); 10 of 13 (77%) patients responded to treatment with a mean duration of 6.5 months. The patients who had alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis for more than 10 years were poor responders to tofacitinib, and in fact, 1 of 13 (33%) patients in the study who did not respond to therapy had disease for 12 years.¹¹ Therefore, starting tofacitinib either long-term or intermittently should be considered in children diagnosed early with severe AA, alopecia totalis, or alopecia universalis to prevent irreversible hair loss or progressive disease^12,13; however, further data are required to assess efficacy and long-term benefits of this type of regimen.

Safety Profile—Widespread use of a medication is determined not only by its efficacy profile but also its safety profile. With any medication that exhibits immunosuppressive effects, adverse events must be considered and thoroughly discussed with patients and their primary care physicians. A prospective, open-label, single-arm trial examined the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily in the treatment of AA and its more severe forms over 3 months.¹² Of the 66 patients who completed the trial, 64% (42/66) exhibited a positive response to tofacitinib. Relapse was noted in 8.5 weeks after discontinuation of tofacitinib, reiterating the potential need for a maintenance regimen. In this study, 25.8% (17/66) of patients experienced infections as adverse events including (in decreasing order) upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, herpes zoster, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, mononucleosis, and paronychia. No reports of new or recurrent malignancy were noted. Other more constitutional adverse events were noted including headaches, abdominal pain, acne, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, pruritus, hot flashes, cough, folliculitis, weight gain, dry eyes, and amenorrhea. One patient with a pre-existing liver condition experienced transaminitis that resolved with weight loss. There also were noted increases in low- and high-density lipoprotein levels.¹² Our patient with baseline thrombocytopenia had mild drops in platelet count that subsequently stabilized and did not result in any bleeding abnormalities.

Duration of Therapy—Tofacitinib has demonstrated some preliminary success in the management of AA, but the appropriate duration of treatment requires further investigation. Our patient has been on tofacitinib for more than 5 years. She started at a total dosage of 10 mg/d, which increased to 16 mg/d. Initial dosing with maintenance regimens needs to be established for further widespread use to maximize benefit and minimize harm.

At what point do we decide to continue or stop treatment in patients who do not respond as expected or plateau? This is another critical question; our patient had periods of slowed growth and plateauing, but knowing the risks and benefits, she continued the medication and eventually experienced improved regrowth again.

Conclusion

Throughout the literature and in our patient, tofacitinib has demonstrated efficacy in treating AA. When other conventional therapies have failed, use of tofacitinib should be considered.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was referred to pediatric dermatology with multiple asymptomatic erythematous papules throughout the trunk and arms of 6 months’ duration. He denied fevers, night sweats, or weight loss. A punch biopsy revealed a dense atypical lymphoid infiltrate with follicular prominence extending periadnexally and perivascularly, which was most consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (Figures 1A and 1B). Cells were positive for Bcl-2, CD23, and CD20 (Figure 1C). Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the immunoglobulin heavy and κ chain gene rearrangements were positive, indicating the presence of a clonal B-cell expansion. The patient’s complete blood cell count, complete metabolic profile, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. Lyme disease antibodies, Helicobacter pylori testing, thyroid function testing, thyroid antibodies, anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, and anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen B were negative. Additionally, positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) revealed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed with stage T3b primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) due to cutaneous involvement of 3 or more body regions.

The patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily to the affected areas. After 2 months, he had progression of cutaneous disease, including increased number of lesions; erythema; and induration of lesions on the chest, back, and arms (Figure 2A) and was started on oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily with subsequent notable improvement of the skin lesions at 2-week follow-up, including decreased erythema and induration of all lesions. He then received intralesional triamcinolone 20 mg/mL injections to 4 residual lesions; clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily was continued for the remaining lesions as needed for pruritus. He continued doxycycline for 4 months with further improvement of lesions (Figure 2B). Six months after discontinuing doxycycline, 2 small residual lesions remained on the left arm and back, but the patient did not develop any new or recurrent lesions.

Comment

Clinical Presentation—Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas include PCMZL, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma. Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma is an indolent extranodal B-cell lymphoma composed of small B cells, marginal zone cells, lymphoplasmacytoid cells, and mature plasma cells.¹

Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma typically presents in the fourth to sixth decades of life and is rare in children, with fewer than 40 cases in patients younger than 20 years.² Amitay-Laish and colleagues² reported 29 patients with pediatric PCMZL ranging in age from 1 to 19.5 years at diagnosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed after 10 years of age. Clinically, patients present with multifocal, erythematous to brown, dermal papules, plaques, and nodules most commonly distributed on the trunk and arms. A retrospective review of 11 pediatric patients with PCMZL over a median of 5.5 years demonstrated that the clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular findings, and prognosis of pediatric PCMZL appears similar to adult PCMZL.² Cutaneous relapse is common, but extracutaneous spread is rare. The prognosis is excellent, with a disease-free survival rate of 93%.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of PCMZL requires histopathologic analysis of involved skin as well as exclusion of extracutaneous disease at the time of diagnosis during initial staging evaluation. Histologically there are nodular infiltrates of small lymphocytes in interfollicular compartments, reactive germinal centers, and clonality with monotypic immunoglobulin heavy chain genes.⁴ Laboratory workup should include complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, and serum lactate dehydrogenase level. If lymphocytosis is present, flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells should be performed. Radiographic imaging with contrast-enhanced CT or PET/CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed for routine staging in most patients, with imaging of the neck recommended when cervical lymphadenopathy is detected.⁵ Patients with multifocal skin lesions should receive PET/CT to exclude systemic disease and assess lymph nodes. Bone marrow studies are not required for diagnosis.^5,6

Associated Conditions—Systemic marginal zone lymphoma has been associated with autoimmune conditions, including Hashimoto thyroiditis and Sjögren syndrome; however, this association has not been shown in PCMZL and was not found in our patient.^7,8Borrelia-positive serology has been described in cases of PCMZL in Europe. The pathogenesis has been speculated to be due to chronic antigen stimulation related to the geographic distribution of Borrelia species.⁹ In endemic areas, Borrelia testing with serology or DNA testing of skin is recommended; however, there has been no strong correlation between Borrelia burgdorferi and PCMZL found in North America or Asia.^9,10Helicobacter pylori has been associated with gastric mucosal-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma, which responds well to antibiotic therapy. However, an association between PCMZL and H pylori has not been well described.¹¹

Management—Several treatment modalities have been attempted in patients with PCMZL with varying efficacy. Given the rarity of this disease, there is no standard therapy. Treatment options include radiation therapy, excision, topical steroids, intralesional steroids, intralesional rituximab, and antibiotics.^2,12-14 Case reports of pediatric patients have demonstrated improvement with excision,^15-19 intralesional steroids,^20,21 intralesional rituximab,²² and clobetasol cream.^23,24 In asymptomatic patients, watchful waiting often is employed given the overall indolent nature of PCMZL. Antibiotic therapy may be favored in Borrelia-positive cases. However, even in B burgdorferi–negative patients, there have been cases where there is response to antibiotics, particularly doxycycline.^2,15,25 We elected for a trial of doxycycline in our patient based on these prior reports, along with the overall favorable side-effect profile of doxycycline for adolescents and our patient’s widespread cutaneous involvement.

Doxycycline is utilized in pediatric patients 8 years and older for numerous indications, including treatment of acne, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease. Use of doxycycline in younger patients typically is avoided given the risk for dental enamel hypoplasia, tooth discoloration, and possible delays in skeletal development. Originally utilized for its antibacterial effects as an intracellular inhibitor of protein synthesis, doxycycline has been repurposed for oncologic therapies. It has been shown to have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties in various cancer cells and also may inhibit leukemic cell migration.²⁶ In PCMZL, doxycycline initially was utilized in Borrelia-positive patients in Europe and found to improve disease clearance.²⁷ In patients without Borrelia infection, doxycycline is thought to enhance apoptosis through caspase-3 activation along with p53 and Bax upregulation.²⁸

Intralesional triamcinolone alone may not be feasible in pediatric PCMZL patients because of widespread involvement, and doxycycline may be considered as a treatment option. Multiple low-risk treatment modalities may be used in conjunction to clear disease in pediatric patients, as demonstrated in our case.

Acknowledgment—We thank Ali Nael Amzajerdi, MD (Orange, California), for his contributions to the pathologic imaging in this report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was referred to pediatric dermatology with multiple asymptomatic erythematous papules throughout the trunk and arms of 6 months’ duration. He denied fevers, night sweats, or weight loss. A punch biopsy revealed a dense atypical lymphoid infiltrate with follicular prominence extending periadnexally and perivascularly, which was most consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (Figures 1A and 1B). Cells were positive for Bcl-2, CD23, and CD20 (Figure 1C). Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the immunoglobulin heavy and κ chain gene rearrangements were positive, indicating the presence of a clonal B-cell expansion. The patient’s complete blood cell count, complete metabolic profile, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. Lyme disease antibodies, Helicobacter pylori testing, thyroid function testing, thyroid antibodies, anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, and anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen B were negative. Additionally, positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) revealed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed with stage T3b primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) due to cutaneous involvement of 3 or more body regions.

The patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily to the affected areas. After 2 months, he had progression of cutaneous disease, including increased number of lesions; erythema; and induration of lesions on the chest, back, and arms (Figure 2A) and was started on oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily with subsequent notable improvement of the skin lesions at 2-week follow-up, including decreased erythema and induration of all lesions. He then received intralesional triamcinolone 20 mg/mL injections to 4 residual lesions; clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily was continued for the remaining lesions as needed for pruritus. He continued doxycycline for 4 months with further improvement of lesions (Figure 2B). Six months after discontinuing doxycycline, 2 small residual lesions remained on the left arm and back, but the patient did not develop any new or recurrent lesions.

Comment

Clinical Presentation—Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas include PCMZL, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma. Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma is an indolent extranodal B-cell lymphoma composed of small B cells, marginal zone cells, lymphoplasmacytoid cells, and mature plasma cells.¹

Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma typically presents in the fourth to sixth decades of life and is rare in children, with fewer than 40 cases in patients younger than 20 years.² Amitay-Laish and colleagues² reported 29 patients with pediatric PCMZL ranging in age from 1 to 19.5 years at diagnosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed after 10 years of age. Clinically, patients present with multifocal, erythematous to brown, dermal papules, plaques, and nodules most commonly distributed on the trunk and arms. A retrospective review of 11 pediatric patients with PCMZL over a median of 5.5 years demonstrated that the clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular findings, and prognosis of pediatric PCMZL appears similar to adult PCMZL.² Cutaneous relapse is common, but extracutaneous spread is rare. The prognosis is excellent, with a disease-free survival rate of 93%.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of PCMZL requires histopathologic analysis of involved skin as well as exclusion of extracutaneous disease at the time of diagnosis during initial staging evaluation. Histologically there are nodular infiltrates of small lymphocytes in interfollicular compartments, reactive germinal centers, and clonality with monotypic immunoglobulin heavy chain genes.⁴ Laboratory workup should include complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, and serum lactate dehydrogenase level. If lymphocytosis is present, flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells should be performed. Radiographic imaging with contrast-enhanced CT or PET/CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed for routine staging in most patients, with imaging of the neck recommended when cervical lymphadenopathy is detected.⁵ Patients with multifocal skin lesions should receive PET/CT to exclude systemic disease and assess lymph nodes. Bone marrow studies are not required for diagnosis.^5,6

Associated Conditions—Systemic marginal zone lymphoma has been associated with autoimmune conditions, including Hashimoto thyroiditis and Sjögren syndrome; however, this association has not been shown in PCMZL and was not found in our patient.^7,8Borrelia-positive serology has been described in cases of PCMZL in Europe. The pathogenesis has been speculated to be due to chronic antigen stimulation related to the geographic distribution of Borrelia species.⁹ In endemic areas, Borrelia testing with serology or DNA testing of skin is recommended; however, there has been no strong correlation between Borrelia burgdorferi and PCMZL found in North America or Asia.^9,10Helicobacter pylori has been associated with gastric mucosal-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma, which responds well to antibiotic therapy. However, an association between PCMZL and H pylori has not been well described.¹¹

Management—Several treatment modalities have been attempted in patients with PCMZL with varying efficacy. Given the rarity of this disease, there is no standard therapy. Treatment options include radiation therapy, excision, topical steroids, intralesional steroids, intralesional rituximab, and antibiotics.^2,12-14 Case reports of pediatric patients have demonstrated improvement with excision,^15-19 intralesional steroids,^20,21 intralesional rituximab,²² and clobetasol cream.^23,24 In asymptomatic patients, watchful waiting often is employed given the overall indolent nature of PCMZL. Antibiotic therapy may be favored in Borrelia-positive cases. However, even in B burgdorferi–negative patients, there have been cases where there is response to antibiotics, particularly doxycycline.^2,15,25 We elected for a trial of doxycycline in our patient based on these prior reports, along with the overall favorable side-effect profile of doxycycline for adolescents and our patient’s widespread cutaneous involvement.

Doxycycline is utilized in pediatric patients 8 years and older for numerous indications, including treatment of acne, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease. Use of doxycycline in younger patients typically is avoided given the risk for dental enamel hypoplasia, tooth discoloration, and possible delays in skeletal development. Originally utilized for its antibacterial effects as an intracellular inhibitor of protein synthesis, doxycycline has been repurposed for oncologic therapies. It has been shown to have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties in various cancer cells and also may inhibit leukemic cell migration.²⁶ In PCMZL, doxycycline initially was utilized in Borrelia-positive patients in Europe and found to improve disease clearance.²⁷ In patients without Borrelia infection, doxycycline is thought to enhance apoptosis through caspase-3 activation along with p53 and Bax upregulation.²⁸

Intralesional triamcinolone alone may not be feasible in pediatric PCMZL patients because of widespread involvement, and doxycycline may be considered as a treatment option. Multiple low-risk treatment modalities may be used in conjunction to clear disease in pediatric patients, as demonstrated in our case.

Acknowledgment—We thank Ali Nael Amzajerdi, MD (Orange, California), for his contributions to the pathologic imaging in this report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was referred to pediatric dermatology with multiple asymptomatic erythematous papules throughout the trunk and arms of 6 months’ duration. He denied fevers, night sweats, or weight loss. A punch biopsy revealed a dense atypical lymphoid infiltrate with follicular prominence extending periadnexally and perivascularly, which was most consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (Figures 1A and 1B). Cells were positive for Bcl-2, CD23, and CD20 (Figure 1C). Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the immunoglobulin heavy and κ chain gene rearrangements were positive, indicating the presence of a clonal B-cell expansion. The patient’s complete blood cell count, complete metabolic profile, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. Lyme disease antibodies, Helicobacter pylori testing, thyroid function testing, thyroid antibodies, anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, and anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen B were negative. Additionally, positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) revealed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed with stage T3b primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) due to cutaneous involvement of 3 or more body regions.

The patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily to the affected areas. After 2 months, he had progression of cutaneous disease, including increased number of lesions; erythema; and induration of lesions on the chest, back, and arms (Figure 2A) and was started on oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily with subsequent notable improvement of the skin lesions at 2-week follow-up, including decreased erythema and induration of all lesions. He then received intralesional triamcinolone 20 mg/mL injections to 4 residual lesions; clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily was continued for the remaining lesions as needed for pruritus. He continued doxycycline for 4 months with further improvement of lesions (Figure 2B). Six months after discontinuing doxycycline, 2 small residual lesions remained on the left arm and back, but the patient did not develop any new or recurrent lesions.

Comment

Clinical Presentation—Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas include PCMZL, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma. Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma is an indolent extranodal B-cell lymphoma composed of small B cells, marginal zone cells, lymphoplasmacytoid cells, and mature plasma cells.¹

Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma typically presents in the fourth to sixth decades of life and is rare in children, with fewer than 40 cases in patients younger than 20 years.² Amitay-Laish and colleagues² reported 29 patients with pediatric PCMZL ranging in age from 1 to 19.5 years at diagnosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed after 10 years of age. Clinically, patients present with multifocal, erythematous to brown, dermal papules, plaques, and nodules most commonly distributed on the trunk and arms. A retrospective review of 11 pediatric patients with PCMZL over a median of 5.5 years demonstrated that the clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular findings, and prognosis of pediatric PCMZL appears similar to adult PCMZL.² Cutaneous relapse is common, but extracutaneous spread is rare. The prognosis is excellent, with a disease-free survival rate of 93%.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of PCMZL requires histopathologic analysis of involved skin as well as exclusion of extracutaneous disease at the time of diagnosis during initial staging evaluation. Histologically there are nodular infiltrates of small lymphocytes in interfollicular compartments, reactive germinal centers, and clonality with monotypic immunoglobulin heavy chain genes.⁴ Laboratory workup should include complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, and serum lactate dehydrogenase level. If lymphocytosis is present, flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells should be performed. Radiographic imaging with contrast-enhanced CT or PET/CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed for routine staging in most patients, with imaging of the neck recommended when cervical lymphadenopathy is detected.⁵ Patients with multifocal skin lesions should receive PET/CT to exclude systemic disease and assess lymph nodes. Bone marrow studies are not required for diagnosis.^5,6

Associated Conditions—Systemic marginal zone lymphoma has been associated with autoimmune conditions, including Hashimoto thyroiditis and Sjögren syndrome; however, this association has not been shown in PCMZL and was not found in our patient.^7,8Borrelia-positive serology has been described in cases of PCMZL in Europe. The pathogenesis has been speculated to be due to chronic antigen stimulation related to the geographic distribution of Borrelia species.⁹ In endemic areas, Borrelia testing with serology or DNA testing of skin is recommended; however, there has been no strong correlation between Borrelia burgdorferi and PCMZL found in North America or Asia.^9,10Helicobacter pylori has been associated with gastric mucosal-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma, which responds well to antibiotic therapy. However, an association between PCMZL and H pylori has not been well described.¹¹

Management—Several treatment modalities have been attempted in patients with PCMZL with varying efficacy. Given the rarity of this disease, there is no standard therapy. Treatment options include radiation therapy, excision, topical steroids, intralesional steroids, intralesional rituximab, and antibiotics.^2,12-14 Case reports of pediatric patients have demonstrated improvement with excision,^15-19 intralesional steroids,^20,21 intralesional rituximab,²² and clobetasol cream.^23,24 In asymptomatic patients, watchful waiting often is employed given the overall indolent nature of PCMZL. Antibiotic therapy may be favored in Borrelia-positive cases. However, even in B burgdorferi–negative patients, there have been cases where there is response to antibiotics, particularly doxycycline.^2,15,25 We elected for a trial of doxycycline in our patient based on these prior reports, along with the overall favorable side-effect profile of doxycycline for adolescents and our patient’s widespread cutaneous involvement.

Doxycycline is utilized in pediatric patients 8 years and older for numerous indications, including treatment of acne, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease. Use of doxycycline in younger patients typically is avoided given the risk for dental enamel hypoplasia, tooth discoloration, and possible delays in skeletal development. Originally utilized for its antibacterial effects as an intracellular inhibitor of protein synthesis, doxycycline has been repurposed for oncologic therapies. It has been shown to have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties in various cancer cells and also may inhibit leukemic cell migration.²⁶ In PCMZL, doxycycline initially was utilized in Borrelia-positive patients in Europe and found to improve disease clearance.²⁷ In patients without Borrelia infection, doxycycline is thought to enhance apoptosis through caspase-3 activation along with p53 and Bax upregulation.²⁸

Intralesional triamcinolone alone may not be feasible in pediatric PCMZL patients because of widespread involvement, and doxycycline may be considered as a treatment option. Multiple low-risk treatment modalities may be used in conjunction to clear disease in pediatric patients, as demonstrated in our case.

Acknowledgment—We thank Ali Nael Amzajerdi, MD (Orange, California), for his contributions to the pathologic imaging in this report.

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; [email protected]

FLOTCH (leukonychia totalis-trichilemmal cysts-ciliary dystrophy syndrome) syndrome is a rare genetic cutaneous disorder primarily characterized by multiple recurrent trichilemmal pilar cysts and leukonychia. It may be associated with ciliary dystrophy, koilonychia, and/or less frequently renal calculi and pancreatitis. This disorder often presents in an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance. Leukonychia and associated pilar cysts originally were termed Bauer syndrome in 1920 and later described in 1986 as FLOTCH syndrome secondary to the association with ciliary dystrophy. ^1,2 The term FLOTCH was coined by Friedel et al ¹ to describe a combination of diagnoses experienced by a family in which several members had multiple pilar cysts, leukonychia, and ciliary dystrophy. We present a 25-year-old Black woman with suspected FLOTCH syndrome who was seen in our clinic for enlarging cysts. 

Case Report

A 25-year-old Black woman with no notable medical history presented to the clinic for a surgical evaluation of cysts of several years’ duration that were enlarging and tender. Physical examination revealed multiple firm, fixed, tender nodules on the left superior parietal scalp, left inferior frontal scalp (Figure 1A), right inferior parietal scalp, right central postauricular skin, and right inferior occipital scalp. Similar-appearing cysts measuring 1.5 to 2 cm were seen on the left rib cage (Figure 1B) and left lateral forearm. Upon further examination, there was homogeneous, nonblanchable, white discoloration of all 10 fingernails consistent with true leukonychia (Figure 1C). When questioned about the nails, the patient stated they had been this color her whole life. Moreover, the patient confirmed that her brother’s nails had a similar appearance.

The patient subsequently underwent elliptical excision of the cysts located on the left medial forehead and left rib cage, and histopathology revealed trichilemmal pilar cysts with dystrophic calcification, dermal fibrosis, and mild chronic inflammation (Figure 2). The pathology report also noted that the anatomic site was somewhat unusual; however, the features were otherwise typical and diagnostic. Given the presentation of multiple pilar cysts throughout the body, leukonychia totalis, and positive family history, the patient was diagnosed with FLOTCH syndrome. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up following the excision, and no further management could be provided.

Comment

Leukonychia is an abnormality of the nail that results in a visible distribution of white color across the nail plate. It can be classified as totalis when covering the entire nail or partialis when covering localized areas of the nail. The disease also is categorized as acquired or inherited. Acquired leukonychia may appear after damage to a particular area of the nail or secondary to an underlying systemic disease, clinically appearing as white puncta or transverse striae. Hereditary leukonychia is rare, primarily covering the entire nail (totalis), and often is inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern.^3,4 The appearance of this disease can be an isolated occurrence or may be a component of a condition such as FLOTCH syndrome, as proposed in this case.

Pilar cysts (also known as trichilemmal cysts) are benign, slowly growing, firm, subcutaneous nodules that are similar to epidermoid cysts but arise from the root sheaths of hair follicles. Pilar cysts are inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern and are caused by a mutation involving a 2-hit mechanism of variants of the phospholipase C delta 1 gene, PLCD1. Patients typically present with multiple cysts,⁵ as in our case.

This association of leukonychia and multiple pilar cysts previously has been reported in 7 family lines.^1-3,6-9 The molecular basis of FLOTCH syndrome is unknown, and these combined diagnoses may be of syndromic nature. Histologic observations of leukonychia and the mechanism of the creation of pilar cysts suggest derivation from similar abnormal keratinization in the nail beds and hair follicles, respectively.⁶

The first familial association between leukonychia totalis and sebaceous cysts was described by Bauer² in 1920. In 1975, Bushkell and Gorlin⁷ reported a similar inherited association with the addition of a history of renal calculi. In 1986, Friedel et al¹ coined the term FLOTCH syndrome when reporting a case of an affected family presenting with leukonychia, recurrent cysts, and ciliary dystrophy. Slee et al⁸ reported 2 cases of pancreatitis experienced by patients presenting with these cysts and leukonychia. The etiology of the pancreatitis was unknown, leading researchers to believe it may be a complication associated with the spectrum of diseases.⁸ In 2008, Morin et al⁶ proposed that those with linked leukonychia and trichilemmal cysts may be at risk for neuromas or spinal tumors and suggested systematic screening after observing a family member with an ependymoma and bilateral multiple acoustic tumors. Rodríguez-Lojo et al³ described a 5-generation family with leukonychia totalis and numerous pilar cysts. Mutoh et al⁹ reported another 5-generation family with associated leukonychia and multiple pilar cysts as well as koilonychia. One family member had a reported history of renal calculus.⁹

In our case, FLOTCH syndrome was suspected given the patient’s concurrent pilar and follicular infundibular cysts. No specific treatment was indicated; however, as seen in prior cases and in ours, many patients prefer to have the cysts excised. A more comprehensive investigation could have revealed other associations, such as ciliary dystrophy, renal calculi, or pancreatitis. It is possible that in conjunction with the syndrome, patients could develop other such clinical manifestations. Pilar cysts most frequently are found on the scalp, yet in patients with concurrent leukonychia, the cysts have been shown to also develop in other regions of the body, as seen in our patient and in the case reported by Mutoh et al.⁹ Given the autosomal-dominant nature of this disease and the keratinizing structures affected, we confer with the hypotheses that a general keratin dysfunction is suspected. Further investigation is needed to determine the exact altered genetic mechanism or deficiency that may be causing this abnormal keratinization as well as a more extensive examination of patients to confirm if other described symptoms may be related.

FLOTCH (leukonychia totalis-trichilemmal cysts-ciliary dystrophy syndrome) syndrome is a rare genetic cutaneous disorder primarily characterized by multiple recurrent trichilemmal pilar cysts and leukonychia. It may be associated with ciliary dystrophy, koilonychia, and/or less frequently renal calculi and pancreatitis. This disorder often presents in an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance. Leukonychia and associated pilar cysts originally were termed Bauer syndrome in 1920 and later described in 1986 as FLOTCH syndrome secondary to the association with ciliary dystrophy. ^1,2 The term FLOTCH was coined by Friedel et al ¹ to describe a combination of diagnoses experienced by a family in which several members had multiple pilar cysts, leukonychia, and ciliary dystrophy. We present a 25-year-old Black woman with suspected FLOTCH syndrome who was seen in our clinic for enlarging cysts. 

Case Report

A 25-year-old Black woman with no notable medical history presented to the clinic for a surgical evaluation of cysts of several years’ duration that were enlarging and tender. Physical examination revealed multiple firm, fixed, tender nodules on the left superior parietal scalp, left inferior frontal scalp (Figure 1A), right inferior parietal scalp, right central postauricular skin, and right inferior occipital scalp. Similar-appearing cysts measuring 1.5 to 2 cm were seen on the left rib cage (Figure 1B) and left lateral forearm. Upon further examination, there was homogeneous, nonblanchable, white discoloration of all 10 fingernails consistent with true leukonychia (Figure 1C). When questioned about the nails, the patient stated they had been this color her whole life. Moreover, the patient confirmed that her brother’s nails had a similar appearance.

The patient subsequently underwent elliptical excision of the cysts located on the left medial forehead and left rib cage, and histopathology revealed trichilemmal pilar cysts with dystrophic calcification, dermal fibrosis, and mild chronic inflammation (Figure 2). The pathology report also noted that the anatomic site was somewhat unusual; however, the features were otherwise typical and diagnostic. Given the presentation of multiple pilar cysts throughout the body, leukonychia totalis, and positive family history, the patient was diagnosed with FLOTCH syndrome. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up following the excision, and no further management could be provided.

Comment

Leukonychia is an abnormality of the nail that results in a visible distribution of white color across the nail plate. It can be classified as totalis when covering the entire nail or partialis when covering localized areas of the nail. The disease also is categorized as acquired or inherited. Acquired leukonychia may appear after damage to a particular area of the nail or secondary to an underlying systemic disease, clinically appearing as white puncta or transverse striae. Hereditary leukonychia is rare, primarily covering the entire nail (totalis), and often is inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern.^3,4 The appearance of this disease can be an isolated occurrence or may be a component of a condition such as FLOTCH syndrome, as proposed in this case.

Pilar cysts (also known as trichilemmal cysts) are benign, slowly growing, firm, subcutaneous nodules that are similar to epidermoid cysts but arise from the root sheaths of hair follicles. Pilar cysts are inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern and are caused by a mutation involving a 2-hit mechanism of variants of the phospholipase C delta 1 gene, PLCD1. Patients typically present with multiple cysts,⁵ as in our case.

This association of leukonychia and multiple pilar cysts previously has been reported in 7 family lines.^1-3,6-9 The molecular basis of FLOTCH syndrome is unknown, and these combined diagnoses may be of syndromic nature. Histologic observations of leukonychia and the mechanism of the creation of pilar cysts suggest derivation from similar abnormal keratinization in the nail beds and hair follicles, respectively.⁶

The first familial association between leukonychia totalis and sebaceous cysts was described by Bauer² in 1920. In 1975, Bushkell and Gorlin⁷ reported a similar inherited association with the addition of a history of renal calculi. In 1986, Friedel et al¹ coined the term FLOTCH syndrome when reporting a case of an affected family presenting with leukonychia, recurrent cysts, and ciliary dystrophy. Slee et al⁸ reported 2 cases of pancreatitis experienced by patients presenting with these cysts and leukonychia. The etiology of the pancreatitis was unknown, leading researchers to believe it may be a complication associated with the spectrum of diseases.⁸ In 2008, Morin et al⁶ proposed that those with linked leukonychia and trichilemmal cysts may be at risk for neuromas or spinal tumors and suggested systematic screening after observing a family member with an ependymoma and bilateral multiple acoustic tumors. Rodríguez-Lojo et al³ described a 5-generation family with leukonychia totalis and numerous pilar cysts. Mutoh et al⁹ reported another 5-generation family with associated leukonychia and multiple pilar cysts as well as koilonychia. One family member had a reported history of renal calculus.⁹

In our case, FLOTCH syndrome was suspected given the patient’s concurrent pilar and follicular infundibular cysts. No specific treatment was indicated; however, as seen in prior cases and in ours, many patients prefer to have the cysts excised. A more comprehensive investigation could have revealed other associations, such as ciliary dystrophy, renal calculi, or pancreatitis. It is possible that in conjunction with the syndrome, patients could develop other such clinical manifestations. Pilar cysts most frequently are found on the scalp, yet in patients with concurrent leukonychia, the cysts have been shown to also develop in other regions of the body, as seen in our patient and in the case reported by Mutoh et al.⁹ Given the autosomal-dominant nature of this disease and the keratinizing structures affected, we confer with the hypotheses that a general keratin dysfunction is suspected. Further investigation is needed to determine the exact altered genetic mechanism or deficiency that may be causing this abnormal keratinization as well as a more extensive examination of patients to confirm if other described symptoms may be related.

FLOTCH (leukonychia totalis-trichilemmal cysts-ciliary dystrophy syndrome) syndrome is a rare genetic cutaneous disorder primarily characterized by multiple recurrent trichilemmal pilar cysts and leukonychia. It may be associated with ciliary dystrophy, koilonychia, and/or less frequently renal calculi and pancreatitis. This disorder often presents in an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance. Leukonychia and associated pilar cysts originally were termed Bauer syndrome in 1920 and later described in 1986 as FLOTCH syndrome secondary to the association with ciliary dystrophy. ^1,2 The term FLOTCH was coined by Friedel et al ¹ to describe a combination of diagnoses experienced by a family in which several members had multiple pilar cysts, leukonychia, and ciliary dystrophy. We present a 25-year-old Black woman with suspected FLOTCH syndrome who was seen in our clinic for enlarging cysts. 

Case Report

A 25-year-old Black woman with no notable medical history presented to the clinic for a surgical evaluation of cysts of several years’ duration that were enlarging and tender. Physical examination revealed multiple firm, fixed, tender nodules on the left superior parietal scalp, left inferior frontal scalp (Figure 1A), right inferior parietal scalp, right central postauricular skin, and right inferior occipital scalp. Similar-appearing cysts measuring 1.5 to 2 cm were seen on the left rib cage (Figure 1B) and left lateral forearm. Upon further examination, there was homogeneous, nonblanchable, white discoloration of all 10 fingernails consistent with true leukonychia (Figure 1C). When questioned about the nails, the patient stated they had been this color her whole life. Moreover, the patient confirmed that her brother’s nails had a similar appearance.

The patient subsequently underwent elliptical excision of the cysts located on the left medial forehead and left rib cage, and histopathology revealed trichilemmal pilar cysts with dystrophic calcification, dermal fibrosis, and mild chronic inflammation (Figure 2). The pathology report also noted that the anatomic site was somewhat unusual; however, the features were otherwise typical and diagnostic. Given the presentation of multiple pilar cysts throughout the body, leukonychia totalis, and positive family history, the patient was diagnosed with FLOTCH syndrome. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up following the excision, and no further management could be provided.

Comment

Leukonychia is an abnormality of the nail that results in a visible distribution of white color across the nail plate. It can be classified as totalis when covering the entire nail or partialis when covering localized areas of the nail. The disease also is categorized as acquired or inherited. Acquired leukonychia may appear after damage to a particular area of the nail or secondary to an underlying systemic disease, clinically appearing as white puncta or transverse striae. Hereditary leukonychia is rare, primarily covering the entire nail (totalis), and often is inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern.^3,4 The appearance of this disease can be an isolated occurrence or may be a component of a condition such as FLOTCH syndrome, as proposed in this case.

Pilar cysts (also known as trichilemmal cysts) are benign, slowly growing, firm, subcutaneous nodules that are similar to epidermoid cysts but arise from the root sheaths of hair follicles. Pilar cysts are inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern and are caused by a mutation involving a 2-hit mechanism of variants of the phospholipase C delta 1 gene, PLCD1. Patients typically present with multiple cysts,⁵ as in our case.

This association of leukonychia and multiple pilar cysts previously has been reported in 7 family lines.^1-3,6-9 The molecular basis of FLOTCH syndrome is unknown, and these combined diagnoses may be of syndromic nature. Histologic observations of leukonychia and the mechanism of the creation of pilar cysts suggest derivation from similar abnormal keratinization in the nail beds and hair follicles, respectively.⁶

The first familial association between leukonychia totalis and sebaceous cysts was described by Bauer² in 1920. In 1975, Bushkell and Gorlin⁷ reported a similar inherited association with the addition of a history of renal calculi. In 1986, Friedel et al¹ coined the term FLOTCH syndrome when reporting a case of an affected family presenting with leukonychia, recurrent cysts, and ciliary dystrophy. Slee et al⁸ reported 2 cases of pancreatitis experienced by patients presenting with these cysts and leukonychia. The etiology of the pancreatitis was unknown, leading researchers to believe it may be a complication associated with the spectrum of diseases.⁸ In 2008, Morin et al⁶ proposed that those with linked leukonychia and trichilemmal cysts may be at risk for neuromas or spinal tumors and suggested systematic screening after observing a family member with an ependymoma and bilateral multiple acoustic tumors. Rodríguez-Lojo et al³ described a 5-generation family with leukonychia totalis and numerous pilar cysts. Mutoh et al⁹ reported another 5-generation family with associated leukonychia and multiple pilar cysts as well as koilonychia. One family member had a reported history of renal calculus.⁹

In our case, FLOTCH syndrome was suspected given the patient’s concurrent pilar and follicular infundibular cysts. No specific treatment was indicated; however, as seen in prior cases and in ours, many patients prefer to have the cysts excised. A more comprehensive investigation could have revealed other associations, such as ciliary dystrophy, renal calculi, or pancreatitis. It is possible that in conjunction with the syndrome, patients could develop other such clinical manifestations. Pilar cysts most frequently are found on the scalp, yet in patients with concurrent leukonychia, the cysts have been shown to also develop in other regions of the body, as seen in our patient and in the case reported by Mutoh et al.⁹ Given the autosomal-dominant nature of this disease and the keratinizing structures affected, we confer with the hypotheses that a general keratin dysfunction is suspected. Further investigation is needed to determine the exact altered genetic mechanism or deficiency that may be causing this abnormal keratinization as well as a more extensive examination of patients to confirm if other described symptoms may be related.

To the Editor:

Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) has been described as a rare side effect of MEK and BRAF inhibitor use in the treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who developed GD while being treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib for BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

A 52-year-old White woman presented with faint patches of nonpalpable violaceous mottling that extended distally to proximally from the ankles to the thighs on the medial aspects of both legs. She was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma 10 months prior, with metastases to the lung, liver, and sternum. She underwent treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin therapy. Computed tomography after several treatment cycles revealed progressive disease with multiple pulmonary nodules as well as metastatic intrathoracic and abdominal adenopathy. Treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin failed to produce a favorable response and was discontinued after 6 treatment cycles.

Genomic testing performed at the time of diagnosis revealed a positive mutation for BRAF V600E. The patient subsequently enrolled in a clinical trial and started treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. She developed sun sensitivity and multiple sunburns after starting these therapies. The patient tolerated the next few cycles of therapy well with only moderate concerns of dry sensitive skin.

During the sixth cycle of therapy, she presented to dermatology after developing a rash. Over the next 2 weeks, similar lesions appeared on the arms. The patient denied the use of any new lotions, soaps, or other medications. Punch biopsies of the right forearm and right medial thigh revealed nonnecrotizing granulomas in the superficial dermis that extended into the subcutaneous adipose tissue (Figure 1). Surrounding chronic inflammation was scant, and the presence of rare eosinophils was noted (Figure 2). The histiocytes were highlighted by a CD68 immunohistochemical stain. An auramine-O special stain test was negative for acid-fast bacilli, and a Grocott methenamine-silver special stain test for fungal organisms was negative. These findings were consistent with GD. Computed tomography of the chest performed 2 months prior and 1 month after biopsy of the skin lesions revealed no axillary, mediastinal, or hilar lymphadenopathy. The calcium level at the time of skin biopsy was within reference range.

A topical steroid was prescribed; however, it was not utilized by the patient. Within 2 months of onset, the GD lesions resolved with no treatment. The GD lesions did not affect the patient’s enrollment in the clinical trial, and no dose reductions were made. Due to progressive disease with metastases to the brain, the patient eventually discontinued the clinical trial.

BRAF inhibitors are US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma to deactivate the serine-threonine kinase BRAF gene mutation, which leads to decreased generation and survival of melanoma cells.^1,2 Vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are the only BRAF inhibitors approved in the United States.³ The most common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgia, fatigue, rash, and photosensitivity.^1,4 There are 4 MEK inhibitors currently available in the United States: cobimetinib, trametinib, selumetinib and binimetinib. The addition of a MEK inhibitor to BRAF inhibitor therapy has shown increased patient response rates and prolonged survival in 3 phase 3 studies.^5-10

Response rates remain low in the treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma with standard chemotherapy. Recent research has explored if targeted therapies at the molecular level would be of benefit.¹¹ Our patient was enrolled in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) trial, a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized trial that matches eligible participants to US Food and Drug Administration–approved study medications based on specific data from their molecular testing results.¹² Some of the most common mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma include HER2, KRAS, MET, and BRAF.^13-17 Our patient’s molecular test results were positive for a BRAF V600E–positive mutation, and she subsequently started therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. The use of personalized genomic treatment approaches for BRAF V600E mutation–positive cholangiocarcinoma has produced a dramatic patient response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies.^11,18-20

Drug-induced GD most likely is caused by vascular insults that lead to deposition of immune complexes in vessels causing inflammation and a consequent granulomatous infiltrate.^21,22 Although cordlike lesions in the subcutaneous tissue on the trunk commonly are reported, the presentation of GD can vary considerably. Other presentations include areas of violaceous or erythematous patches or plaques on the limbs, intertriginous areas, and upper trunk. Diffuse macular erythema or small flesh-colored papules also can be observed.²³

Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to drug reactions can have varying morphologies. The infiltrate often can have an interstitial appearance with the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells.²⁴ These findings can be confused with interstitial granuloma annulare. Other cases, such as in our patient, can have discrete granulomata formation with a sarcoidlike appearance. These naked granulomas lack surrounding inflammation and suggest a differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and infection. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and kinase inhibitors has been proven to cause sarcoidosislike reactions.²⁵ The development of granulomatous/sarcoidlike lesions associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors may clinically and radiographically mimic disease recurrence. An awareness of this type of reaction by clinicians and pathologists is important to ensure appropriate management in patients who develop GD.²⁶

Checkpoint inhibitor–induced GD that remains asymptomatic does not necessarily warrant treatment; however, corticosteroid use and elimination of CI therapies have resolved GD in prior cases. Responsiveness of the cancer to CI therapy and severity of GD symptoms should be considered before discontinuation of a CI trial.²⁵

One case report described complete resolution of a GD eruption without interruption of the scheduled BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There was no reported use of a steroidal cream or other topical medication to aid in controlling the eruption.²⁷ The exact mechanism of how GD resolves while continuing therapy is unknown; however, it has been suggested that a GD eruption may be the consequence of a BRAF and MEK inhibitor–mediated immune response against a subclinical area of metastatic melanoma.²⁸ If the immune response successfully eliminates the subclinical tumor, one could postulate that the inflammatory response and granulomatous eruption would resolve. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved.

There have been several case reports of GD with vemurafenib treatment,^29,30 1 report of GD and erythema induratum with vemurafenib and cobimetinib treatment,³¹ 2 reports of GD with dabrafenib treatment,^27,30 and a few reports of GD with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib,^28,32,33 all for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Additionally, a report described a 3-year-old boy who developed GD secondary to vemurafenib for the treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis.³⁴ We present a unique case of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy–induced GD in the treatment of metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with vemurafenib and cobimetinib.

BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is used in patients with metastatic melanomas with a positive BRAF V600E mutation. Due to advancements in next-generation DNA sequencing, these therapies also are being tested in clinical trials for use in the treatment of other cancers with the same checkpoint mutation, such as metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cutaneous reactions frequently are documented side effects that occur during treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors; GD is an uncommon finding. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of other cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation.

To the Editor:

Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) has been described as a rare side effect of MEK and BRAF inhibitor use in the treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who developed GD while being treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib for BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

A 52-year-old White woman presented with faint patches of nonpalpable violaceous mottling that extended distally to proximally from the ankles to the thighs on the medial aspects of both legs. She was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma 10 months prior, with metastases to the lung, liver, and sternum. She underwent treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin therapy. Computed tomography after several treatment cycles revealed progressive disease with multiple pulmonary nodules as well as metastatic intrathoracic and abdominal adenopathy. Treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin failed to produce a favorable response and was discontinued after 6 treatment cycles.

Genomic testing performed at the time of diagnosis revealed a positive mutation for BRAF V600E. The patient subsequently enrolled in a clinical trial and started treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. She developed sun sensitivity and multiple sunburns after starting these therapies. The patient tolerated the next few cycles of therapy well with only moderate concerns of dry sensitive skin.

During the sixth cycle of therapy, she presented to dermatology after developing a rash. Over the next 2 weeks, similar lesions appeared on the arms. The patient denied the use of any new lotions, soaps, or other medications. Punch biopsies of the right forearm and right medial thigh revealed nonnecrotizing granulomas in the superficial dermis that extended into the subcutaneous adipose tissue (Figure 1). Surrounding chronic inflammation was scant, and the presence of rare eosinophils was noted (Figure 2). The histiocytes were highlighted by a CD68 immunohistochemical stain. An auramine-O special stain test was negative for acid-fast bacilli, and a Grocott methenamine-silver special stain test for fungal organisms was negative. These findings were consistent with GD. Computed tomography of the chest performed 2 months prior and 1 month after biopsy of the skin lesions revealed no axillary, mediastinal, or hilar lymphadenopathy. The calcium level at the time of skin biopsy was within reference range.

A topical steroid was prescribed; however, it was not utilized by the patient. Within 2 months of onset, the GD lesions resolved with no treatment. The GD lesions did not affect the patient’s enrollment in the clinical trial, and no dose reductions were made. Due to progressive disease with metastases to the brain, the patient eventually discontinued the clinical trial.

BRAF inhibitors are US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma to deactivate the serine-threonine kinase BRAF gene mutation, which leads to decreased generation and survival of melanoma cells.^1,2 Vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are the only BRAF inhibitors approved in the United States.³ The most common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgia, fatigue, rash, and photosensitivity.^1,4 There are 4 MEK inhibitors currently available in the United States: cobimetinib, trametinib, selumetinib and binimetinib. The addition of a MEK inhibitor to BRAF inhibitor therapy has shown increased patient response rates and prolonged survival in 3 phase 3 studies.^5-10

Response rates remain low in the treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma with standard chemotherapy. Recent research has explored if targeted therapies at the molecular level would be of benefit.¹¹ Our patient was enrolled in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) trial, a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized trial that matches eligible participants to US Food and Drug Administration–approved study medications based on specific data from their molecular testing results.¹² Some of the most common mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma include HER2, KRAS, MET, and BRAF.^13-17 Our patient’s molecular test results were positive for a BRAF V600E–positive mutation, and she subsequently started therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. The use of personalized genomic treatment approaches for BRAF V600E mutation–positive cholangiocarcinoma has produced a dramatic patient response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies.^11,18-20

Drug-induced GD most likely is caused by vascular insults that lead to deposition of immune complexes in vessels causing inflammation and a consequent granulomatous infiltrate.^21,22 Although cordlike lesions in the subcutaneous tissue on the trunk commonly are reported, the presentation of GD can vary considerably. Other presentations include areas of violaceous or erythematous patches or plaques on the limbs, intertriginous areas, and upper trunk. Diffuse macular erythema or small flesh-colored papules also can be observed.²³

Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to drug reactions can have varying morphologies. The infiltrate often can have an interstitial appearance with the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells.²⁴ These findings can be confused with interstitial granuloma annulare. Other cases, such as in our patient, can have discrete granulomata formation with a sarcoidlike appearance. These naked granulomas lack surrounding inflammation and suggest a differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and infection. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and kinase inhibitors has been proven to cause sarcoidosislike reactions.²⁵ The development of granulomatous/sarcoidlike lesions associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors may clinically and radiographically mimic disease recurrence. An awareness of this type of reaction by clinicians and pathologists is important to ensure appropriate management in patients who develop GD.²⁶

Checkpoint inhibitor–induced GD that remains asymptomatic does not necessarily warrant treatment; however, corticosteroid use and elimination of CI therapies have resolved GD in prior cases. Responsiveness of the cancer to CI therapy and severity of GD symptoms should be considered before discontinuation of a CI trial.²⁵

One case report described complete resolution of a GD eruption without interruption of the scheduled BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There was no reported use of a steroidal cream or other topical medication to aid in controlling the eruption.²⁷ The exact mechanism of how GD resolves while continuing therapy is unknown; however, it has been suggested that a GD eruption may be the consequence of a BRAF and MEK inhibitor–mediated immune response against a subclinical area of metastatic melanoma.²⁸ If the immune response successfully eliminates the subclinical tumor, one could postulate that the inflammatory response and granulomatous eruption would resolve. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved.

There have been several case reports of GD with vemurafenib treatment,^29,30 1 report of GD and erythema induratum with vemurafenib and cobimetinib treatment,³¹ 2 reports of GD with dabrafenib treatment,^27,30 and a few reports of GD with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib,^28,32,33 all for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Additionally, a report described a 3-year-old boy who developed GD secondary to vemurafenib for the treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis.³⁴ We present a unique case of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy–induced GD in the treatment of metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with vemurafenib and cobimetinib.

BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is used in patients with metastatic melanomas with a positive BRAF V600E mutation. Due to advancements in next-generation DNA sequencing, these therapies also are being tested in clinical trials for use in the treatment of other cancers with the same checkpoint mutation, such as metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cutaneous reactions frequently are documented side effects that occur during treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors; GD is an uncommon finding. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of other cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation.

To the Editor:

Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) has been described as a rare side effect of MEK and BRAF inhibitor use in the treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who developed GD while being treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib for BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

A 52-year-old White woman presented with faint patches of nonpalpable violaceous mottling that extended distally to proximally from the ankles to the thighs on the medial aspects of both legs. She was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma 10 months prior, with metastases to the lung, liver, and sternum. She underwent treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin therapy. Computed tomography after several treatment cycles revealed progressive disease with multiple pulmonary nodules as well as metastatic intrathoracic and abdominal adenopathy. Treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin failed to produce a favorable response and was discontinued after 6 treatment cycles.

Genomic testing performed at the time of diagnosis revealed a positive mutation for BRAF V600E. The patient subsequently enrolled in a clinical trial and started treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. She developed sun sensitivity and multiple sunburns after starting these therapies. The patient tolerated the next few cycles of therapy well with only moderate concerns of dry sensitive skin.

During the sixth cycle of therapy, she presented to dermatology after developing a rash. Over the next 2 weeks, similar lesions appeared on the arms. The patient denied the use of any new lotions, soaps, or other medications. Punch biopsies of the right forearm and right medial thigh revealed nonnecrotizing granulomas in the superficial dermis that extended into the subcutaneous adipose tissue (Figure 1). Surrounding chronic inflammation was scant, and the presence of rare eosinophils was noted (Figure 2). The histiocytes were highlighted by a CD68 immunohistochemical stain. An auramine-O special stain test was negative for acid-fast bacilli, and a Grocott methenamine-silver special stain test for fungal organisms was negative. These findings were consistent with GD. Computed tomography of the chest performed 2 months prior and 1 month after biopsy of the skin lesions revealed no axillary, mediastinal, or hilar lymphadenopathy. The calcium level at the time of skin biopsy was within reference range.

A topical steroid was prescribed; however, it was not utilized by the patient. Within 2 months of onset, the GD lesions resolved with no treatment. The GD lesions did not affect the patient’s enrollment in the clinical trial, and no dose reductions were made. Due to progressive disease with metastases to the brain, the patient eventually discontinued the clinical trial.

BRAF inhibitors are US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma to deactivate the serine-threonine kinase BRAF gene mutation, which leads to decreased generation and survival of melanoma cells.^1,2 Vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are the only BRAF inhibitors approved in the United States.³ The most common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgia, fatigue, rash, and photosensitivity.^1,4 There are 4 MEK inhibitors currently available in the United States: cobimetinib, trametinib, selumetinib and binimetinib. The addition of a MEK inhibitor to BRAF inhibitor therapy has shown increased patient response rates and prolonged survival in 3 phase 3 studies.^5-10

Response rates remain low in the treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma with standard chemotherapy. Recent research has explored if targeted therapies at the molecular level would be of benefit.¹¹ Our patient was enrolled in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) trial, a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized trial that matches eligible participants to US Food and Drug Administration–approved study medications based on specific data from their molecular testing results.¹² Some of the most common mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma include HER2, KRAS, MET, and BRAF.^13-17 Our patient’s molecular test results were positive for a BRAF V600E–positive mutation, and she subsequently started therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. The use of personalized genomic treatment approaches for BRAF V600E mutation–positive cholangiocarcinoma has produced a dramatic patient response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies.^11,18-20

Drug-induced GD most likely is caused by vascular insults that lead to deposition of immune complexes in vessels causing inflammation and a consequent granulomatous infiltrate.^21,22 Although cordlike lesions in the subcutaneous tissue on the trunk commonly are reported, the presentation of GD can vary considerably. Other presentations include areas of violaceous or erythematous patches or plaques on the limbs, intertriginous areas, and upper trunk. Diffuse macular erythema or small flesh-colored papules also can be observed.²³

Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to drug reactions can have varying morphologies. The infiltrate often can have an interstitial appearance with the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells.²⁴ These findings can be confused with interstitial granuloma annulare. Other cases, such as in our patient, can have discrete granulomata formation with a sarcoidlike appearance. These naked granulomas lack surrounding inflammation and suggest a differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and infection. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and kinase inhibitors has been proven to cause sarcoidosislike reactions.²⁵ The development of granulomatous/sarcoidlike lesions associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors may clinically and radiographically mimic disease recurrence. An awareness of this type of reaction by clinicians and pathologists is important to ensure appropriate management in patients who develop GD.²⁶

Checkpoint inhibitor–induced GD that remains asymptomatic does not necessarily warrant treatment; however, corticosteroid use and elimination of CI therapies have resolved GD in prior cases. Responsiveness of the cancer to CI therapy and severity of GD symptoms should be considered before discontinuation of a CI trial.²⁵

One case report described complete resolution of a GD eruption without interruption of the scheduled BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There was no reported use of a steroidal cream or other topical medication to aid in controlling the eruption.²⁷ The exact mechanism of how GD resolves while continuing therapy is unknown; however, it has been suggested that a GD eruption may be the consequence of a BRAF and MEK inhibitor–mediated immune response against a subclinical area of metastatic melanoma.²⁸ If the immune response successfully eliminates the subclinical tumor, one could postulate that the inflammatory response and granulomatous eruption would resolve. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved.

There have been several case reports of GD with vemurafenib treatment,^29,30 1 report of GD and erythema induratum with vemurafenib and cobimetinib treatment,³¹ 2 reports of GD with dabrafenib treatment,^27,30 and a few reports of GD with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib,^28,32,33 all for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Additionally, a report described a 3-year-old boy who developed GD secondary to vemurafenib for the treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis.³⁴ We present a unique case of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy–induced GD in the treatment of metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with vemurafenib and cobimetinib.

BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is used in patients with metastatic melanomas with a positive BRAF V600E mutation. Due to advancements in next-generation DNA sequencing, these therapies also are being tested in clinical trials for use in the treatment of other cancers with the same checkpoint mutation, such as metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cutaneous reactions frequently are documented side effects that occur during treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors; GD is an uncommon finding. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of other cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.¹ There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.² Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.^3,4

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (T_H2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a T_H17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-17³; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum^2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.^1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.¹ Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.^2,5

Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.^7,8

We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.

Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.

After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.

Comment

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.

Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves T_H1, T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 cells; T_H2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.^9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to T_H2-cell activation, T_H1 cells and T_H22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. T_H17 cells and T_H9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.⁹ Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.¹ Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.¹¹ Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.

Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate T_H17 cells through IL-23. T_H17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of T_H22 and T_H1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.^3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.¹² Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.³

Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.¹⁰ Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of T_H17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.¹³ Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of T_H2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.

Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.¹⁴

Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.

Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.

Conclusion

Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.¹ There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.² Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.^3,4

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (T_H2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a T_H17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-17³; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum^2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.^1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.¹ Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.^2,5

Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.^7,8

We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.

Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.

After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.

Comment

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.

Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves T_H1, T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 cells; T_H2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.^9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to T_H2-cell activation, T_H1 cells and T_H22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. T_H17 cells and T_H9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.⁹ Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.¹ Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.¹¹ Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.

Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate T_H17 cells through IL-23. T_H17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of T_H22 and T_H1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.^3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.¹² Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.³

Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.¹⁰ Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of T_H17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.¹³ Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of T_H2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.

Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.¹⁴

Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.

Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.

Conclusion

Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.¹ There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.² Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.^3,4

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (T_H2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a T_H17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-17³; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum^2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.^1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.¹ Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.^2,5

Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.^7,8

We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.

Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.

After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.

Comment

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.

Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves T_H1, T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 cells; T_H2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.^9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to T_H2-cell activation, T_H1 cells and T_H22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. T_H17 cells and T_H9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.⁹ Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.¹ Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.¹¹ Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.

Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate T_H17 cells through IL-23. T_H17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of T_H22 and T_H1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.^3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.¹² Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.³

Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.¹⁰ Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of T_H17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.¹³ Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of T_H2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.

Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.¹⁴

Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.

Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.

Conclusion

Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.