Contact Dermatitis

Leishmaniasis describes any disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania¹ and can manifest in 3 different forms: cutaneous (the most common); mucosal, a destructive metastatic sequela of the cutaneous form; and visceral, which is potentially fatal.² According to the World Health Organization, the leishmaniases are endemic in 88 countries.³ It is estimated that 95% of cutaneous cases occur in the Americas (most notably Central and South America), the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East, and Central Asia.² Most cutaneous cases diagnosed among nonmilitary personnel in the United States are acquired in Mexico and Central America.⁴ In Central and South America, the causative human pathogens include species of the Leishmania (Viannia) complex (eg, Leishmania panamensis, Leishmania braziliensis, Leishmania guyanensis, Leishmania peruviana) and the Leishmania mexicana complex (eg, Leishmania mexicana, Leishmania amazonensis, Leishmania venezuelensis). All of these species can cause localized cutaneous lesions, but only L panamensis, L braziliensis, and L guyanensis are associated with metastatic mucosal lesions. In Central and South Americas, only Leishmaniasis chagasi (also known as Leishmaniasis infantum) is known to cause visceral leishmaniasis.⁵

Case Report

A 26-year-old man was referred to the dermatology clinic by his primary care provider for evaluation of a nonhealing sore on the left volar forearm of 6 weeks’ duration. The patient described the initial lesion as a red bump resembling a mosquito bite. Over 6 weeks the papule evolved into an indurated plaque with painless ulceration. The patient’s primary care provider had prescribed antibiotics for a presumed Staphylococcus aureus infection of the skin 5 weeks prior to presentation; however, the lesion continued to enlarge in size, resulting in referral to our dermatology clinic.

Skin examination revealed a solitary, 4-cm, painless, ulcerated plaque on the left volar forearm (Figure 1). No lymphadenopathy was noted. The patient reported that he had returned from a mission trip to rural Costa Rica 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion. His medical history was otherwise unremarkable and his vital signs were within normal limits. Our initial differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum, Sweet syndrome, cutaneous leishmaniasis, and an insect bite.

Histopathologic study of a 5-mm punch biopsy specimen from the lesion showed a dense nodular and diffuse lymphohistiocytic infiltrate containing foci of suppuration. Within these suppurative foci were histiocytes parasitized by intracellular organisms that appeared to be of uniform size and shape on Giemsa staining, all of which are considered to be pathognomonic features of cutaneous leishmaniasis⁶ (Figures 2 and 3). The dermatopathologist’s diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The species was identified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as L panamensis.

The patient was treated with intravenous sodium stibogluconate 20 mg/kg for 20 consecutive days as recommended by expert consensus. The decision to treat a frequently self-limited cutaneous lesion with a highly toxic systemic drug was based on the small but real risk of metastatic mucosal lesions, which is caused by the Viannia subgenus, including L panamensis. Of note, sodium stibogluconate and other antimony drugs are not sold in the United States. Sodium stibogluconate is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to be distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under a protocol requiring baseline and weekly electrocardiograms and monitoring of patients’ creatinine, transaminase, lipase, amylase, and complete blood count levels.⁷ Our patient tolerated treatment but experienced mild to moderate flulike symptoms. The patient experienced no remarkable sequelae other than scarring in the affected area. He was warned to notify his health care providers of any persistent nasal symptoms, including nasal stuffiness, mucosal bleeding, and increased secretions, heralding the possibility of mucosal metastasis.
 

Figure 2. Dense nodular and diffuse lymphohistiocytic infiltrate containing foci of suppuration (H&E, original magnification ×10).		Figure 3. Histiocytes parasitized by intracellular organisms of uniform shape and size on Giemsa staining (original magnification ×1000).

Comment

The true incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in American travelers returning from Mexico and South and Central Americas is not known. The best incidence estimates are based on the number of physician requests for sodium stibogluconate and travel surveillance data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One study estimated the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Americans to be 1 case per every 100,000 travelers to Mexico.⁹ Data on the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in American travelers seen in travel clinics for skin lesions gives a different perspective.¹⁰ Leishmaniasis is one of the most common dermatologic diseases seen in patients (European, North American, and other) returning from South America, accounting for 143 of every 1000 patients diagnosed with a skin disease acquired in South America.

Although males are thought to be at higher risk for cutaneous leishmaniasis infection than females, other demographic and behavioral risk factors are not well defined. In a case series of US travelers diagnosed with cutaneous leishmaniasis between January 1985 and April 1990, Herwaldt et al⁹ found that 46% (27/59) were conducting field studies, while 39% (23/59) were tourists, visitors, or tour guides. At least 15 of the 58 travelers interviewed (26%) were in forested areas for 1 week or less, and of these 15 respondents, at least 6 had a maximum exposure of 2 days.⁹

Evidence suggests that cutaneous leishmaniasis is inefficiently diagnosed in the United States. One study showed that some patients may consult up to 7 physicians before a definitive diagnosis is made, and the median time from noticing eruption of the lesions to definitive treatment was 112 days.⁹ Several factors may contribute to delays and inefficiencies in diagnosis. First, the lesions of cutaneous leishmaniasis are varied in morphology, and although ulcers are thought to be the most commonly presenting lesions,¹¹ there are no specific morphologic features that are pathognomonic for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Second, the temporal association with travel to endemic countries is not necessarily apparent, with lesions developing gradually or weeks after the patient returns home. In the one study, 17% (10/58) of patients were home for more than 1 month before they noticed skin lesions.⁹ Finally, definitive diagnosis requires biopsy or scraping of the lesion followed by PCR, special histopathological staining (Giemsa), or culture. Polymerase chain reaction is currently the best means of identifying the causative Leishmania species.^12-14 However, since skin biopsies are not routine in primary care settings and few practitioners are familiar with PCR for identification of leishmaniasis, diagnosis is typically made only after referral to a specialist.

Leishmaniasis transmission occurs in diverse geographical settings though a variety of mechanisms (Figure 4). The morphology of cutaneous leishmaniasis varies and may include papules, nodules, psoriasiform plaques, or ulcers. The differential diagnosis may include staphylococcal skin infection, insect bite, cutaneous neoplasm, pyoderma gangrenosum, sporotrichosis, blastomycosis, chromomycosis, lobomycosis, cutaneous tuberculosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, syphilis, yaws, leprosy, Hansen disease, and sarcoidosis. A definitive diagnosis can be made only after identifying the causative parasite. A scraping or punch biopsy taken from a cleaned lesion provides an adequate sample. Identification can then be accomplished by histopathology, tissue culture, or PCR.⁵

We present a rhyme that can be used to promote greater awareness of cutaneous leishmaniasis among US health care practitioners:

Although clinical resolution of cutaneous leishmaniasis usually occurs over months to years, the unsightly appearance of the lesions as well as the potential for scarring and mucosal metastasis (associated with some species) drives medical treatment.¹⁵ Pentavalent antimonial drugs, which have been the mainstay of treatment for more than 50 years, remain the most popular treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Two antimony compounds, sodium stibogluconate and meglumine antimoniate, often lead to clinical cure in less than 1 month⁷; however, these drugs are far from ideal because of the inconvenience of obtaining them, emerging parasite resistance, long treatment course, parenteral route of administration, and serious side effects including infusion reactions, arrhythmias, pancreatitis, and liver toxicity. Moreover, the subclinical persistence of cutaneous leishmaniasis years after treatment and clinical cure is common. There have been reports of spontaneous disease reactivation in immunocompromised individuals, and Leishmania has been detected in old cutaneous leishmaniasis scars on PCR testing.^16-18 Other therapies that have been used to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis include allopurinol, aminosidine sulphate, amphotericin B, the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine, cotrimoxazole, cryotherapy, dapsone, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, laser therapy, metronidazole, miltefosine, paromomycin, pentamidine, pentoxifylline, photodynamic therapy, rifampicin, and surgical excision of the entire lesion.⁸ A 2009 Cochrane review of the various treatments for cutaneous leishmaniasis concluded that “no general consensus on optimal treatment has been achieved” and suggested “the creation of an international platform to improve the quality and standardization of future trials in order to develop a better evidence-based approach.”⁸

Conclusion

Cutaneous leishmaniasis should be included in the differential diagnosis for travelers returning from endemic areas who present with new skin lesions. Since no specific lesion types are pathognomonic for cutaneous leishmaniasis, tissue biopsy for histopathology and PCR are essential for diagnosis. Prevention of cutaneous leishmaniasis hinges on appropriate counseling of travelers to endemic regions.

Leishmaniasis describes any disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania¹ and can manifest in 3 different forms: cutaneous (the most common); mucosal, a destructive metastatic sequela of the cutaneous form; and visceral, which is potentially fatal.² According to the World Health Organization, the leishmaniases are endemic in 88 countries.³ It is estimated that 95% of cutaneous cases occur in the Americas (most notably Central and South America), the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East, and Central Asia.² Most cutaneous cases diagnosed among nonmilitary personnel in the United States are acquired in Mexico and Central America.⁴ In Central and South America, the causative human pathogens include species of the Leishmania (Viannia) complex (eg, Leishmania panamensis, Leishmania braziliensis, Leishmania guyanensis, Leishmania peruviana) and the Leishmania mexicana complex (eg, Leishmania mexicana, Leishmania amazonensis, Leishmania venezuelensis). All of these species can cause localized cutaneous lesions, but only L panamensis, L braziliensis, and L guyanensis are associated with metastatic mucosal lesions. In Central and South Americas, only Leishmaniasis chagasi (also known as Leishmaniasis infantum) is known to cause visceral leishmaniasis.⁵

Case Report

A 26-year-old man was referred to the dermatology clinic by his primary care provider for evaluation of a nonhealing sore on the left volar forearm of 6 weeks’ duration. The patient described the initial lesion as a red bump resembling a mosquito bite. Over 6 weeks the papule evolved into an indurated plaque with painless ulceration. The patient’s primary care provider had prescribed antibiotics for a presumed Staphylococcus aureus infection of the skin 5 weeks prior to presentation; however, the lesion continued to enlarge in size, resulting in referral to our dermatology clinic.

Skin examination revealed a solitary, 4-cm, painless, ulcerated plaque on the left volar forearm (Figure 1). No lymphadenopathy was noted. The patient reported that he had returned from a mission trip to rural Costa Rica 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion. His medical history was otherwise unremarkable and his vital signs were within normal limits. Our initial differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum, Sweet syndrome, cutaneous leishmaniasis, and an insect bite.

Histopathologic study of a 5-mm punch biopsy specimen from the lesion showed a dense nodular and diffuse lymphohistiocytic infiltrate containing foci of suppuration. Within these suppurative foci were histiocytes parasitized by intracellular organisms that appeared to be of uniform size and shape on Giemsa staining, all of which are considered to be pathognomonic features of cutaneous leishmaniasis⁶ (Figures 2 and 3). The dermatopathologist’s diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The species was identified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as L panamensis.

The patient was treated with intravenous sodium stibogluconate 20 mg/kg for 20 consecutive days as recommended by expert consensus. The decision to treat a frequently self-limited cutaneous lesion with a highly toxic systemic drug was based on the small but real risk of metastatic mucosal lesions, which is caused by the Viannia subgenus, including L panamensis. Of note, sodium stibogluconate and other antimony drugs are not sold in the United States. Sodium stibogluconate is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to be distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under a protocol requiring baseline and weekly electrocardiograms and monitoring of patients’ creatinine, transaminase, lipase, amylase, and complete blood count levels.⁷ Our patient tolerated treatment but experienced mild to moderate flulike symptoms. The patient experienced no remarkable sequelae other than scarring in the affected area. He was warned to notify his health care providers of any persistent nasal symptoms, including nasal stuffiness, mucosal bleeding, and increased secretions, heralding the possibility of mucosal metastasis.
 

Figure 2. Dense nodular and diffuse lymphohistiocytic infiltrate containing foci of suppuration (H&E, original magnification ×10).		Figure 3. Histiocytes parasitized by intracellular organisms of uniform shape and size on Giemsa staining (original magnification ×1000).

Comment

The true incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in American travelers returning from Mexico and South and Central Americas is not known. The best incidence estimates are based on the number of physician requests for sodium stibogluconate and travel surveillance data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One study estimated the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Americans to be 1 case per every 100,000 travelers to Mexico.⁹ Data on the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in American travelers seen in travel clinics for skin lesions gives a different perspective.¹⁰ Leishmaniasis is one of the most common dermatologic diseases seen in patients (European, North American, and other) returning from South America, accounting for 143 of every 1000 patients diagnosed with a skin disease acquired in South America.

Although males are thought to be at higher risk for cutaneous leishmaniasis infection than females, other demographic and behavioral risk factors are not well defined. In a case series of US travelers diagnosed with cutaneous leishmaniasis between January 1985 and April 1990, Herwaldt et al⁹ found that 46% (27/59) were conducting field studies, while 39% (23/59) were tourists, visitors, or tour guides. At least 15 of the 58 travelers interviewed (26%) were in forested areas for 1 week or less, and of these 15 respondents, at least 6 had a maximum exposure of 2 days.⁹

Evidence suggests that cutaneous leishmaniasis is inefficiently diagnosed in the United States. One study showed that some patients may consult up to 7 physicians before a definitive diagnosis is made, and the median time from noticing eruption of the lesions to definitive treatment was 112 days.⁹ Several factors may contribute to delays and inefficiencies in diagnosis. First, the lesions of cutaneous leishmaniasis are varied in morphology, and although ulcers are thought to be the most commonly presenting lesions,¹¹ there are no specific morphologic features that are pathognomonic for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Second, the temporal association with travel to endemic countries is not necessarily apparent, with lesions developing gradually or weeks after the patient returns home. In the one study, 17% (10/58) of patients were home for more than 1 month before they noticed skin lesions.⁹ Finally, definitive diagnosis requires biopsy or scraping of the lesion followed by PCR, special histopathological staining (Giemsa), or culture. Polymerase chain reaction is currently the best means of identifying the causative Leishmania species.^12-14 However, since skin biopsies are not routine in primary care settings and few practitioners are familiar with PCR for identification of leishmaniasis, diagnosis is typically made only after referral to a specialist.

Leishmaniasis transmission occurs in diverse geographical settings though a variety of mechanisms (Figure 4). The morphology of cutaneous leishmaniasis varies and may include papules, nodules, psoriasiform plaques, or ulcers. The differential diagnosis may include staphylococcal skin infection, insect bite, cutaneous neoplasm, pyoderma gangrenosum, sporotrichosis, blastomycosis, chromomycosis, lobomycosis, cutaneous tuberculosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, syphilis, yaws, leprosy, Hansen disease, and sarcoidosis. A definitive diagnosis can be made only after identifying the causative parasite. A scraping or punch biopsy taken from a cleaned lesion provides an adequate sample. Identification can then be accomplished by histopathology, tissue culture, or PCR.⁵

We present a rhyme that can be used to promote greater awareness of cutaneous leishmaniasis among US health care practitioners:

Although clinical resolution of cutaneous leishmaniasis usually occurs over months to years, the unsightly appearance of the lesions as well as the potential for scarring and mucosal metastasis (associated with some species) drives medical treatment.¹⁵ Pentavalent antimonial drugs, which have been the mainstay of treatment for more than 50 years, remain the most popular treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Two antimony compounds, sodium stibogluconate and meglumine antimoniate, often lead to clinical cure in less than 1 month⁷; however, these drugs are far from ideal because of the inconvenience of obtaining them, emerging parasite resistance, long treatment course, parenteral route of administration, and serious side effects including infusion reactions, arrhythmias, pancreatitis, and liver toxicity. Moreover, the subclinical persistence of cutaneous leishmaniasis years after treatment and clinical cure is common. There have been reports of spontaneous disease reactivation in immunocompromised individuals, and Leishmania has been detected in old cutaneous leishmaniasis scars on PCR testing.^16-18 Other therapies that have been used to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis include allopurinol, aminosidine sulphate, amphotericin B, the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine, cotrimoxazole, cryotherapy, dapsone, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, laser therapy, metronidazole, miltefosine, paromomycin, pentamidine, pentoxifylline, photodynamic therapy, rifampicin, and surgical excision of the entire lesion.⁸ A 2009 Cochrane review of the various treatments for cutaneous leishmaniasis concluded that “no general consensus on optimal treatment has been achieved” and suggested “the creation of an international platform to improve the quality and standardization of future trials in order to develop a better evidence-based approach.”⁸

Conclusion

Cutaneous leishmaniasis should be included in the differential diagnosis for travelers returning from endemic areas who present with new skin lesions. Since no specific lesion types are pathognomonic for cutaneous leishmaniasis, tissue biopsy for histopathology and PCR are essential for diagnosis. Prevention of cutaneous leishmaniasis hinges on appropriate counseling of travelers to endemic regions.

Leishmaniasis describes any disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania¹ and can manifest in 3 different forms: cutaneous (the most common); mucosal, a destructive metastatic sequela of the cutaneous form; and visceral, which is potentially fatal.² According to the World Health Organization, the leishmaniases are endemic in 88 countries.³ It is estimated that 95% of cutaneous cases occur in the Americas (most notably Central and South America), the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East, and Central Asia.² Most cutaneous cases diagnosed among nonmilitary personnel in the United States are acquired in Mexico and Central America.⁴ In Central and South America, the causative human pathogens include species of the Leishmania (Viannia) complex (eg, Leishmania panamensis, Leishmania braziliensis, Leishmania guyanensis, Leishmania peruviana) and the Leishmania mexicana complex (eg, Leishmania mexicana, Leishmania amazonensis, Leishmania venezuelensis). All of these species can cause localized cutaneous lesions, but only L panamensis, L braziliensis, and L guyanensis are associated with metastatic mucosal lesions. In Central and South Americas, only Leishmaniasis chagasi (also known as Leishmaniasis infantum) is known to cause visceral leishmaniasis.⁵

Case Report

A 26-year-old man was referred to the dermatology clinic by his primary care provider for evaluation of a nonhealing sore on the left volar forearm of 6 weeks’ duration. The patient described the initial lesion as a red bump resembling a mosquito bite. Over 6 weeks the papule evolved into an indurated plaque with painless ulceration. The patient’s primary care provider had prescribed antibiotics for a presumed Staphylococcus aureus infection of the skin 5 weeks prior to presentation; however, the lesion continued to enlarge in size, resulting in referral to our dermatology clinic.

Skin examination revealed a solitary, 4-cm, painless, ulcerated plaque on the left volar forearm (Figure 1). No lymphadenopathy was noted. The patient reported that he had returned from a mission trip to rural Costa Rica 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion. His medical history was otherwise unremarkable and his vital signs were within normal limits. Our initial differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum, Sweet syndrome, cutaneous leishmaniasis, and an insect bite.

Histopathologic study of a 5-mm punch biopsy specimen from the lesion showed a dense nodular and diffuse lymphohistiocytic infiltrate containing foci of suppuration. Within these suppurative foci were histiocytes parasitized by intracellular organisms that appeared to be of uniform size and shape on Giemsa staining, all of which are considered to be pathognomonic features of cutaneous leishmaniasis⁶ (Figures 2 and 3). The dermatopathologist’s diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The species was identified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as L panamensis.

The patient was treated with intravenous sodium stibogluconate 20 mg/kg for 20 consecutive days as recommended by expert consensus. The decision to treat a frequently self-limited cutaneous lesion with a highly toxic systemic drug was based on the small but real risk of metastatic mucosal lesions, which is caused by the Viannia subgenus, including L panamensis. Of note, sodium stibogluconate and other antimony drugs are not sold in the United States. Sodium stibogluconate is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to be distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under a protocol requiring baseline and weekly electrocardiograms and monitoring of patients’ creatinine, transaminase, lipase, amylase, and complete blood count levels.⁷ Our patient tolerated treatment but experienced mild to moderate flulike symptoms. The patient experienced no remarkable sequelae other than scarring in the affected area. He was warned to notify his health care providers of any persistent nasal symptoms, including nasal stuffiness, mucosal bleeding, and increased secretions, heralding the possibility of mucosal metastasis.
 

Figure 2. Dense nodular and diffuse lymphohistiocytic infiltrate containing foci of suppuration (H&E, original magnification ×10).		Figure 3. Histiocytes parasitized by intracellular organisms of uniform shape and size on Giemsa staining (original magnification ×1000).

Comment

The true incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in American travelers returning from Mexico and South and Central Americas is not known. The best incidence estimates are based on the number of physician requests for sodium stibogluconate and travel surveillance data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One study estimated the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Americans to be 1 case per every 100,000 travelers to Mexico.⁹ Data on the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis in American travelers seen in travel clinics for skin lesions gives a different perspective.¹⁰ Leishmaniasis is one of the most common dermatologic diseases seen in patients (European, North American, and other) returning from South America, accounting for 143 of every 1000 patients diagnosed with a skin disease acquired in South America.

Although males are thought to be at higher risk for cutaneous leishmaniasis infection than females, other demographic and behavioral risk factors are not well defined. In a case series of US travelers diagnosed with cutaneous leishmaniasis between January 1985 and April 1990, Herwaldt et al⁹ found that 46% (27/59) were conducting field studies, while 39% (23/59) were tourists, visitors, or tour guides. At least 15 of the 58 travelers interviewed (26%) were in forested areas for 1 week or less, and of these 15 respondents, at least 6 had a maximum exposure of 2 days.⁹

Evidence suggests that cutaneous leishmaniasis is inefficiently diagnosed in the United States. One study showed that some patients may consult up to 7 physicians before a definitive diagnosis is made, and the median time from noticing eruption of the lesions to definitive treatment was 112 days.⁹ Several factors may contribute to delays and inefficiencies in diagnosis. First, the lesions of cutaneous leishmaniasis are varied in morphology, and although ulcers are thought to be the most commonly presenting lesions,¹¹ there are no specific morphologic features that are pathognomonic for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Second, the temporal association with travel to endemic countries is not necessarily apparent, with lesions developing gradually or weeks after the patient returns home. In the one study, 17% (10/58) of patients were home for more than 1 month before they noticed skin lesions.⁹ Finally, definitive diagnosis requires biopsy or scraping of the lesion followed by PCR, special histopathological staining (Giemsa), or culture. Polymerase chain reaction is currently the best means of identifying the causative Leishmania species.^12-14 However, since skin biopsies are not routine in primary care settings and few practitioners are familiar with PCR for identification of leishmaniasis, diagnosis is typically made only after referral to a specialist.

Leishmaniasis transmission occurs in diverse geographical settings though a variety of mechanisms (Figure 4). The morphology of cutaneous leishmaniasis varies and may include papules, nodules, psoriasiform plaques, or ulcers. The differential diagnosis may include staphylococcal skin infection, insect bite, cutaneous neoplasm, pyoderma gangrenosum, sporotrichosis, blastomycosis, chromomycosis, lobomycosis, cutaneous tuberculosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, syphilis, yaws, leprosy, Hansen disease, and sarcoidosis. A definitive diagnosis can be made only after identifying the causative parasite. A scraping or punch biopsy taken from a cleaned lesion provides an adequate sample. Identification can then be accomplished by histopathology, tissue culture, or PCR.⁵

We present a rhyme that can be used to promote greater awareness of cutaneous leishmaniasis among US health care practitioners:

Although clinical resolution of cutaneous leishmaniasis usually occurs over months to years, the unsightly appearance of the lesions as well as the potential for scarring and mucosal metastasis (associated with some species) drives medical treatment.¹⁵ Pentavalent antimonial drugs, which have been the mainstay of treatment for more than 50 years, remain the most popular treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Two antimony compounds, sodium stibogluconate and meglumine antimoniate, often lead to clinical cure in less than 1 month⁷; however, these drugs are far from ideal because of the inconvenience of obtaining them, emerging parasite resistance, long treatment course, parenteral route of administration, and serious side effects including infusion reactions, arrhythmias, pancreatitis, and liver toxicity. Moreover, the subclinical persistence of cutaneous leishmaniasis years after treatment and clinical cure is common. There have been reports of spontaneous disease reactivation in immunocompromised individuals, and Leishmania has been detected in old cutaneous leishmaniasis scars on PCR testing.^16-18 Other therapies that have been used to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis include allopurinol, aminosidine sulphate, amphotericin B, the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine, cotrimoxazole, cryotherapy, dapsone, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, laser therapy, metronidazole, miltefosine, paromomycin, pentamidine, pentoxifylline, photodynamic therapy, rifampicin, and surgical excision of the entire lesion.⁸ A 2009 Cochrane review of the various treatments for cutaneous leishmaniasis concluded that “no general consensus on optimal treatment has been achieved” and suggested “the creation of an international platform to improve the quality and standardization of future trials in order to develop a better evidence-based approach.”⁸

Conclusion

Cutaneous leishmaniasis should be included in the differential diagnosis for travelers returning from endemic areas who present with new skin lesions. Since no specific lesion types are pathognomonic for cutaneous leishmaniasis, tissue biopsy for histopathology and PCR are essential for diagnosis. Prevention of cutaneous leishmaniasis hinges on appropriate counseling of travelers to endemic regions.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Corporis

Although contact dermatitis from the metal on the back of the watch was suspected, many modern wrist watches are made with stainless steel rather than nickel, which is a common contact allergen; therefore, other diagnoses were considered in the differential including irritant contact dermatitis, psoriasis, and tinea infection. A potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation was performed to rule out tinea infection. Unexpectedly, the KOH preparation was positive for fungal hyphae, confirming a diagnosis of tinea corporis. The patient was treated with clotrimazole cream 1% twice daily for 3 weeks during which time the rash completely resolved.

We present this case to stress the importance of performing KOH preparations even when the likelihood of tinea infection seems remote. At our institution, we teach our residents, “If it’s scaly, scrape it.” This adage has served us well. Tinea corporis may be mistaken for many other skin diseases, including eczema, psoriasis, and seborrheic dermatitis.¹ A KOH preparation often is a helpful tool in confirming the diagnosis and should be performed when a dermatophyte infection is suspected. The KOH preparation is the most sensitive diagnostic test used to confirm dermatophyte infection, with 90% of infections showing positive results.^2,3

Tinea infections may occur anywhere on the body, but areas that are prone to excessive heat and/or moisture are particularly susceptible.⁴ Dermatophyte infections typically present as annular, scaly, pruritic patches or plaques often with central clearing and an active border.¹ In our patient, the lesion showed characteristics that were suggestive of a dermatophyte infection but was somewhat atypical in appearance, as it lacked central clearing (Figure). The 3 genera of dermatophytes—Trichophyton, Microsporum, and Epidermophyton—are common causes of fungal infections.² The pathogenesis of dermatophytosis is the synthesis of keratinases that digest keratin and sustain the presence of the fungi. Local factors such as sweating and occlusion facilitate the activity of these organisms.² In our case, the pathogenesis was believed to be due to the entrapment of moisture behind the patient’s watch, creating a favorable environment for fungal growth.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Corporis

Although contact dermatitis from the metal on the back of the watch was suspected, many modern wrist watches are made with stainless steel rather than nickel, which is a common contact allergen; therefore, other diagnoses were considered in the differential including irritant contact dermatitis, psoriasis, and tinea infection. A potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation was performed to rule out tinea infection. Unexpectedly, the KOH preparation was positive for fungal hyphae, confirming a diagnosis of tinea corporis. The patient was treated with clotrimazole cream 1% twice daily for 3 weeks during which time the rash completely resolved.

We present this case to stress the importance of performing KOH preparations even when the likelihood of tinea infection seems remote. At our institution, we teach our residents, “If it’s scaly, scrape it.” This adage has served us well. Tinea corporis may be mistaken for many other skin diseases, including eczema, psoriasis, and seborrheic dermatitis.¹ A KOH preparation often is a helpful tool in confirming the diagnosis and should be performed when a dermatophyte infection is suspected. The KOH preparation is the most sensitive diagnostic test used to confirm dermatophyte infection, with 90% of infections showing positive results.^2,3

Tinea infections may occur anywhere on the body, but areas that are prone to excessive heat and/or moisture are particularly susceptible.⁴ Dermatophyte infections typically present as annular, scaly, pruritic patches or plaques often with central clearing and an active border.¹ In our patient, the lesion showed characteristics that were suggestive of a dermatophyte infection but was somewhat atypical in appearance, as it lacked central clearing (Figure). The 3 genera of dermatophytes—Trichophyton, Microsporum, and Epidermophyton—are common causes of fungal infections.² The pathogenesis of dermatophytosis is the synthesis of keratinases that digest keratin and sustain the presence of the fungi. Local factors such as sweating and occlusion facilitate the activity of these organisms.² In our case, the pathogenesis was believed to be due to the entrapment of moisture behind the patient’s watch, creating a favorable environment for fungal growth.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Corporis

Although contact dermatitis from the metal on the back of the watch was suspected, many modern wrist watches are made with stainless steel rather than nickel, which is a common contact allergen; therefore, other diagnoses were considered in the differential including irritant contact dermatitis, psoriasis, and tinea infection. A potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation was performed to rule out tinea infection. Unexpectedly, the KOH preparation was positive for fungal hyphae, confirming a diagnosis of tinea corporis. The patient was treated with clotrimazole cream 1% twice daily for 3 weeks during which time the rash completely resolved.

We present this case to stress the importance of performing KOH preparations even when the likelihood of tinea infection seems remote. At our institution, we teach our residents, “If it’s scaly, scrape it.” This adage has served us well. Tinea corporis may be mistaken for many other skin diseases, including eczema, psoriasis, and seborrheic dermatitis.¹ A KOH preparation often is a helpful tool in confirming the diagnosis and should be performed when a dermatophyte infection is suspected. The KOH preparation is the most sensitive diagnostic test used to confirm dermatophyte infection, with 90% of infections showing positive results.^2,3

Tinea infections may occur anywhere on the body, but areas that are prone to excessive heat and/or moisture are particularly susceptible.⁴ Dermatophyte infections typically present as annular, scaly, pruritic patches or plaques often with central clearing and an active border.¹ In our patient, the lesion showed characteristics that were suggestive of a dermatophyte infection but was somewhat atypical in appearance, as it lacked central clearing (Figure). The 3 genera of dermatophytes—Trichophyton, Microsporum, and Epidermophyton—are common causes of fungal infections.² The pathogenesis of dermatophytosis is the synthesis of keratinases that digest keratin and sustain the presence of the fungi. Local factors such as sweating and occlusion facilitate the activity of these organisms.² In our case, the pathogenesis was believed to be due to the entrapment of moisture behind the patient’s watch, creating a favorable environment for fungal growth.

Mycobacterium chelonae, along with Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium abscessus, belongs to a rapidly growing group of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), which are classified as environmental saprophytes found in soil, water, and dust. Under certain circumstances, NTM can cause infection in humans. Nontuberculous mycobacteria are known to cause infection in immunosuppressed patients (such as in the setting of AIDS or immunotherapy following solid organ transplantation); however, they can also cause serious morbidity in immunocompetent patients with certain predisposing factors (eg, recent history of a traumatic wound, recent drug injections, impaired cell-mediated immunity).^1-4

We present the case of a patient who presented with multiple reddish blue, nodular, suppurative lesions on the bilateral legs of 1 month’s duration. The patient had a history of renal transplantation 6 years prior followed by immunosuppressive therapy. A punch biopsy of a sample nodule was performed, followed by histologic examination and culture of the biopsy specimen, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for genotyping of the specimen was necessary to determine the responsible Mycobacterium species.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital for evaluation and treatment of multiple subcutaneous nodules on the bilateral legs. The patient had undergone successful cadaveric renal transplantation 6 years prior due to polycystic kidney disease and was undergoing maintenance immunosuppressive combination therapy with tacrolimus 4 mg and methylprednisolone 4 mg daily. No other medications or concomitant diseases were reported.

Physical examination revealed multiple slightly tender, brown to purple papules and nodules on the lower legs ranging in size from 2 mm to 1 cm in diameter (Figure 1), some of which exhibited central necrosis (Figure 2). The patient did not recall any previous trauma to the lower legs. Her body temperature was measured at 37.9°C and no regional lymphadenopathy or any other physical abnormalities were observed. Multiple blood culture samples were negative for bacteria, fungi, and mycobacteria.

Figure 1. Multiple slightly tender, brown to purple papules and nodules on the lower left leg.		Figure 2. A nodule on the lower right leg exhibited central necrosis.

During her 2 weeks in the hospital, the patient’s tacrolimus and methylprednisolone dosages were decreased to 2 mg daily. Routine laboratory tests and serum chemistry were normal with the exception of elevated creatinine levels (1.88 mg/dL [reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mg/dL]). Chest radiography and interferon-γ release assay were negative. A punch biopsy from a sample nodule was performed and revealed granulomatous inflammation surrounded by giant cells on histopathology. Microscopic examination of the specimen revealed alcohol- and acid-resistant bacilli on Ziehl-Neelsen staining. A biopsy specimen was cultured on Löwenstein-Jensen medium at 25°C, 37°C, and 42°C according to NTM detection protocol⁵ and showed growth of NTM at 37°C. On the basis of the positive culture, genetic analysis of the specimen was performed using a strip test that permits identification of 13 common species of NTM. The organism was identified as M chelonae.

While awaiting species identification and results of drug susceptibility testing, treatment with oral clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily was initiated and continued for 10 days until the patient developed gastrointestinal adverse effects, at which point oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily was substituted. In laboratory testing, the isolated M chelonae strain showed sensitivity to ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, tobramycin, and amikacin at minimum inhibitory concentrations of less than 1, 2, 4, and 16, respectively. Treatment with ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily was continued for 6 months, which resulted in slow resolution of the lesions until the end of treatment (Figure 3). No recurrence of the lesions was noted at 24-month follow-up, but areas of hyperpigmentation were noted at the lesion sites (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Following 6 months of treatment with oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily, nodules on the left leg had resolved and papules had decreased in size.			Figure 4. Skin lesions had resolved without recurrence at 24-month follow-up, although hyperpigmented areas remained.

Comment

Mycobacterium chelonae, a member of the NTM group, grows rapidly on Löwenstein-Jensen medium, usually following incubation for 5 to 7 days at temperatures of 28°C to 32°C, and is characterized by its lack of pigmentation. Nontuberculous mycobacteria, which are resistant to standard disinfectants such as chlorine, organomercurials, and alkaline glutaraldehydes, may cause nosocomial outbreaks, infecting otherwise healthy individuals receiving any type of injection (eg, in cosmetic procedures), as well as those with suppressed immunity.⁶

In addition to cutaneous manifestations, NTM may cause various extracutaneous diseases, such as osteomyelitis, infective bronchiectasis, endocarditis, pericarditis, lymphadenopathy, and ocular infections.^1-4 The species M chelonae may cause localized skin infections, soft tissue lesions (eg, granulomatous nodules, ulcers, abscesses, sporotrichoid lesions), and cutaneous disseminated infections.

Immunosuppression associated with treatment following renal transplantation was the primary cause of M chelonae infection in our patient, as has previously been reported in the literature.^3-4 This was further supported by the lack of prior trauma or invasive procedure (eg, mesotherapy) in the affected areas. Specifically, our patient had more than 5 lesions on the lower legs; in accordance with a previous comprehensive study,¹ the presence of more than 5 lesions indicates a disseminated cutaneous infection, which usually is correlated with immunosuppression (such as in our patient). Localized infections generally are observed in immunocompetent hosts.¹

The exact pathogenetic mechanism of M chelonae infection in our patient is not clear. In patients with suppressed immunity, the variable clinical presentation of infection with NTM often impedes diagnosis. Cutaneous M chelonae lesions may be mistakenly diagnosed as Kaposi sarcoma or rarely as pyoderma gangrenosum. The differential diagnosis of subcutaneous nodules includes histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, nocardiosis, mycetoma, sporotrichosis, actinomycosis, and tuberculosis. In our patient, approximately 2 months elapsed between presentation of symptoms and definitive diagnosis, which was less than that reported in previously published cases.^2,7-9

Histology and tissue culture followed by proper genetic analysis remains the gold standard for diagnosing NTM infection.^10,11 In the interest of patients, time-consuming biochemical analyses should be replaced by molecular genetic diagnostic strip tests, which are fast, exact, and available in commercial kits for both common mycobacteria and additional species.¹²

Once the diagnosis of NTM infection has been established, sensitivity testing is mandatory to guide targeted therapy; however, clinicians should bear in mind that susceptibility testing does not guarantee clinical success, as correlations of susceptibility testing and clinical response have not been assessed.⁸ Standard antituberculous drugs (eg, isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide) have no role in the treatment of M chelonae infection. The first-line antibiotics are clarithromycin, tobramycin, and linezolid, followed by imipenem, amikacin, clofazimine, doxycycline, and ciprofloxacin.¹⁰ Optimal outcomes have been reported in patients treated both with antibiotics and with surgical debridement. Although monotherapy with quinolones is not recommended for treatment of infection with NTM due to the high risk of mutational resistance, our patient received long-term antibiotic treatment with ciprofloxacin over a 6-month period and showed no recurrence at 24-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Clinicians who treat patients with chronic skin or soft tissue infections should consider infection with NTM in the differential diagnosis, particularly in patients with suppressed immunity, but also in immunocompetent patients following any invasive procedure. Detailed medical history and skin biopsy followed by histology and culture are recommended for the diagnosis. Infection with NTM requires rapid action. Sensitivity testing is necessary in choosing an effective treatment. New molecular genetic diagnostic strip tests can differentiate species of NTM sooner than biochemical analyses, thereby helping clinicians initiate appropriate antimicrobial treatment in a timely fashion.

Mycobacterium chelonae, along with Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium abscessus, belongs to a rapidly growing group of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), which are classified as environmental saprophytes found in soil, water, and dust. Under certain circumstances, NTM can cause infection in humans. Nontuberculous mycobacteria are known to cause infection in immunosuppressed patients (such as in the setting of AIDS or immunotherapy following solid organ transplantation); however, they can also cause serious morbidity in immunocompetent patients with certain predisposing factors (eg, recent history of a traumatic wound, recent drug injections, impaired cell-mediated immunity).^1-4

We present the case of a patient who presented with multiple reddish blue, nodular, suppurative lesions on the bilateral legs of 1 month’s duration. The patient had a history of renal transplantation 6 years prior followed by immunosuppressive therapy. A punch biopsy of a sample nodule was performed, followed by histologic examination and culture of the biopsy specimen, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for genotyping of the specimen was necessary to determine the responsible Mycobacterium species.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital for evaluation and treatment of multiple subcutaneous nodules on the bilateral legs. The patient had undergone successful cadaveric renal transplantation 6 years prior due to polycystic kidney disease and was undergoing maintenance immunosuppressive combination therapy with tacrolimus 4 mg and methylprednisolone 4 mg daily. No other medications or concomitant diseases were reported.

Physical examination revealed multiple slightly tender, brown to purple papules and nodules on the lower legs ranging in size from 2 mm to 1 cm in diameter (Figure 1), some of which exhibited central necrosis (Figure 2). The patient did not recall any previous trauma to the lower legs. Her body temperature was measured at 37.9°C and no regional lymphadenopathy or any other physical abnormalities were observed. Multiple blood culture samples were negative for bacteria, fungi, and mycobacteria.

Figure 1. Multiple slightly tender, brown to purple papules and nodules on the lower left leg.		Figure 2. A nodule on the lower right leg exhibited central necrosis.

During her 2 weeks in the hospital, the patient’s tacrolimus and methylprednisolone dosages were decreased to 2 mg daily. Routine laboratory tests and serum chemistry were normal with the exception of elevated creatinine levels (1.88 mg/dL [reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mg/dL]). Chest radiography and interferon-γ release assay were negative. A punch biopsy from a sample nodule was performed and revealed granulomatous inflammation surrounded by giant cells on histopathology. Microscopic examination of the specimen revealed alcohol- and acid-resistant bacilli on Ziehl-Neelsen staining. A biopsy specimen was cultured on Löwenstein-Jensen medium at 25°C, 37°C, and 42°C according to NTM detection protocol⁵ and showed growth of NTM at 37°C. On the basis of the positive culture, genetic analysis of the specimen was performed using a strip test that permits identification of 13 common species of NTM. The organism was identified as M chelonae.

While awaiting species identification and results of drug susceptibility testing, treatment with oral clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily was initiated and continued for 10 days until the patient developed gastrointestinal adverse effects, at which point oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily was substituted. In laboratory testing, the isolated M chelonae strain showed sensitivity to ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, tobramycin, and amikacin at minimum inhibitory concentrations of less than 1, 2, 4, and 16, respectively. Treatment with ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily was continued for 6 months, which resulted in slow resolution of the lesions until the end of treatment (Figure 3). No recurrence of the lesions was noted at 24-month follow-up, but areas of hyperpigmentation were noted at the lesion sites (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Following 6 months of treatment with oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily, nodules on the left leg had resolved and papules had decreased in size.			Figure 4. Skin lesions had resolved without recurrence at 24-month follow-up, although hyperpigmented areas remained.

Comment

Mycobacterium chelonae, a member of the NTM group, grows rapidly on Löwenstein-Jensen medium, usually following incubation for 5 to 7 days at temperatures of 28°C to 32°C, and is characterized by its lack of pigmentation. Nontuberculous mycobacteria, which are resistant to standard disinfectants such as chlorine, organomercurials, and alkaline glutaraldehydes, may cause nosocomial outbreaks, infecting otherwise healthy individuals receiving any type of injection (eg, in cosmetic procedures), as well as those with suppressed immunity.⁶

In addition to cutaneous manifestations, NTM may cause various extracutaneous diseases, such as osteomyelitis, infective bronchiectasis, endocarditis, pericarditis, lymphadenopathy, and ocular infections.^1-4 The species M chelonae may cause localized skin infections, soft tissue lesions (eg, granulomatous nodules, ulcers, abscesses, sporotrichoid lesions), and cutaneous disseminated infections.

Immunosuppression associated with treatment following renal transplantation was the primary cause of M chelonae infection in our patient, as has previously been reported in the literature.^3-4 This was further supported by the lack of prior trauma or invasive procedure (eg, mesotherapy) in the affected areas. Specifically, our patient had more than 5 lesions on the lower legs; in accordance with a previous comprehensive study,¹ the presence of more than 5 lesions indicates a disseminated cutaneous infection, which usually is correlated with immunosuppression (such as in our patient). Localized infections generally are observed in immunocompetent hosts.¹

The exact pathogenetic mechanism of M chelonae infection in our patient is not clear. In patients with suppressed immunity, the variable clinical presentation of infection with NTM often impedes diagnosis. Cutaneous M chelonae lesions may be mistakenly diagnosed as Kaposi sarcoma or rarely as pyoderma gangrenosum. The differential diagnosis of subcutaneous nodules includes histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, nocardiosis, mycetoma, sporotrichosis, actinomycosis, and tuberculosis. In our patient, approximately 2 months elapsed between presentation of symptoms and definitive diagnosis, which was less than that reported in previously published cases.^2,7-9

Histology and tissue culture followed by proper genetic analysis remains the gold standard for diagnosing NTM infection.^10,11 In the interest of patients, time-consuming biochemical analyses should be replaced by molecular genetic diagnostic strip tests, which are fast, exact, and available in commercial kits for both common mycobacteria and additional species.¹²

Once the diagnosis of NTM infection has been established, sensitivity testing is mandatory to guide targeted therapy; however, clinicians should bear in mind that susceptibility testing does not guarantee clinical success, as correlations of susceptibility testing and clinical response have not been assessed.⁸ Standard antituberculous drugs (eg, isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide) have no role in the treatment of M chelonae infection. The first-line antibiotics are clarithromycin, tobramycin, and linezolid, followed by imipenem, amikacin, clofazimine, doxycycline, and ciprofloxacin.¹⁰ Optimal outcomes have been reported in patients treated both with antibiotics and with surgical debridement. Although monotherapy with quinolones is not recommended for treatment of infection with NTM due to the high risk of mutational resistance, our patient received long-term antibiotic treatment with ciprofloxacin over a 6-month period and showed no recurrence at 24-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Clinicians who treat patients with chronic skin or soft tissue infections should consider infection with NTM in the differential diagnosis, particularly in patients with suppressed immunity, but also in immunocompetent patients following any invasive procedure. Detailed medical history and skin biopsy followed by histology and culture are recommended for the diagnosis. Infection with NTM requires rapid action. Sensitivity testing is necessary in choosing an effective treatment. New molecular genetic diagnostic strip tests can differentiate species of NTM sooner than biochemical analyses, thereby helping clinicians initiate appropriate antimicrobial treatment in a timely fashion.

Mycobacterium chelonae, along with Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium abscessus, belongs to a rapidly growing group of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), which are classified as environmental saprophytes found in soil, water, and dust. Under certain circumstances, NTM can cause infection in humans. Nontuberculous mycobacteria are known to cause infection in immunosuppressed patients (such as in the setting of AIDS or immunotherapy following solid organ transplantation); however, they can also cause serious morbidity in immunocompetent patients with certain predisposing factors (eg, recent history of a traumatic wound, recent drug injections, impaired cell-mediated immunity).^1-4

We present the case of a patient who presented with multiple reddish blue, nodular, suppurative lesions on the bilateral legs of 1 month’s duration. The patient had a history of renal transplantation 6 years prior followed by immunosuppressive therapy. A punch biopsy of a sample nodule was performed, followed by histologic examination and culture of the biopsy specimen, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for genotyping of the specimen was necessary to determine the responsible Mycobacterium species.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital for evaluation and treatment of multiple subcutaneous nodules on the bilateral legs. The patient had undergone successful cadaveric renal transplantation 6 years prior due to polycystic kidney disease and was undergoing maintenance immunosuppressive combination therapy with tacrolimus 4 mg and methylprednisolone 4 mg daily. No other medications or concomitant diseases were reported.

Physical examination revealed multiple slightly tender, brown to purple papules and nodules on the lower legs ranging in size from 2 mm to 1 cm in diameter (Figure 1), some of which exhibited central necrosis (Figure 2). The patient did not recall any previous trauma to the lower legs. Her body temperature was measured at 37.9°C and no regional lymphadenopathy or any other physical abnormalities were observed. Multiple blood culture samples were negative for bacteria, fungi, and mycobacteria.

Figure 1. Multiple slightly tender, brown to purple papules and nodules on the lower left leg.		Figure 2. A nodule on the lower right leg exhibited central necrosis.

During her 2 weeks in the hospital, the patient’s tacrolimus and methylprednisolone dosages were decreased to 2 mg daily. Routine laboratory tests and serum chemistry were normal with the exception of elevated creatinine levels (1.88 mg/dL [reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mg/dL]). Chest radiography and interferon-γ release assay were negative. A punch biopsy from a sample nodule was performed and revealed granulomatous inflammation surrounded by giant cells on histopathology. Microscopic examination of the specimen revealed alcohol- and acid-resistant bacilli on Ziehl-Neelsen staining. A biopsy specimen was cultured on Löwenstein-Jensen medium at 25°C, 37°C, and 42°C according to NTM detection protocol⁵ and showed growth of NTM at 37°C. On the basis of the positive culture, genetic analysis of the specimen was performed using a strip test that permits identification of 13 common species of NTM. The organism was identified as M chelonae.

While awaiting species identification and results of drug susceptibility testing, treatment with oral clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily was initiated and continued for 10 days until the patient developed gastrointestinal adverse effects, at which point oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily was substituted. In laboratory testing, the isolated M chelonae strain showed sensitivity to ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, tobramycin, and amikacin at minimum inhibitory concentrations of less than 1, 2, 4, and 16, respectively. Treatment with ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily was continued for 6 months, which resulted in slow resolution of the lesions until the end of treatment (Figure 3). No recurrence of the lesions was noted at 24-month follow-up, but areas of hyperpigmentation were noted at the lesion sites (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Following 6 months of treatment with oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily, nodules on the left leg had resolved and papules had decreased in size.			Figure 4. Skin lesions had resolved without recurrence at 24-month follow-up, although hyperpigmented areas remained.

Comment

Mycobacterium chelonae, a member of the NTM group, grows rapidly on Löwenstein-Jensen medium, usually following incubation for 5 to 7 days at temperatures of 28°C to 32°C, and is characterized by its lack of pigmentation. Nontuberculous mycobacteria, which are resistant to standard disinfectants such as chlorine, organomercurials, and alkaline glutaraldehydes, may cause nosocomial outbreaks, infecting otherwise healthy individuals receiving any type of injection (eg, in cosmetic procedures), as well as those with suppressed immunity.⁶

In addition to cutaneous manifestations, NTM may cause various extracutaneous diseases, such as osteomyelitis, infective bronchiectasis, endocarditis, pericarditis, lymphadenopathy, and ocular infections.^1-4 The species M chelonae may cause localized skin infections, soft tissue lesions (eg, granulomatous nodules, ulcers, abscesses, sporotrichoid lesions), and cutaneous disseminated infections.

Immunosuppression associated with treatment following renal transplantation was the primary cause of M chelonae infection in our patient, as has previously been reported in the literature.^3-4 This was further supported by the lack of prior trauma or invasive procedure (eg, mesotherapy) in the affected areas. Specifically, our patient had more than 5 lesions on the lower legs; in accordance with a previous comprehensive study,¹ the presence of more than 5 lesions indicates a disseminated cutaneous infection, which usually is correlated with immunosuppression (such as in our patient). Localized infections generally are observed in immunocompetent hosts.¹

The exact pathogenetic mechanism of M chelonae infection in our patient is not clear. In patients with suppressed immunity, the variable clinical presentation of infection with NTM often impedes diagnosis. Cutaneous M chelonae lesions may be mistakenly diagnosed as Kaposi sarcoma or rarely as pyoderma gangrenosum. The differential diagnosis of subcutaneous nodules includes histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, nocardiosis, mycetoma, sporotrichosis, actinomycosis, and tuberculosis. In our patient, approximately 2 months elapsed between presentation of symptoms and definitive diagnosis, which was less than that reported in previously published cases.^2,7-9

Histology and tissue culture followed by proper genetic analysis remains the gold standard for diagnosing NTM infection.^10,11 In the interest of patients, time-consuming biochemical analyses should be replaced by molecular genetic diagnostic strip tests, which are fast, exact, and available in commercial kits for both common mycobacteria and additional species.¹²

Once the diagnosis of NTM infection has been established, sensitivity testing is mandatory to guide targeted therapy; however, clinicians should bear in mind that susceptibility testing does not guarantee clinical success, as correlations of susceptibility testing and clinical response have not been assessed.⁸ Standard antituberculous drugs (eg, isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide) have no role in the treatment of M chelonae infection. The first-line antibiotics are clarithromycin, tobramycin, and linezolid, followed by imipenem, amikacin, clofazimine, doxycycline, and ciprofloxacin.¹⁰ Optimal outcomes have been reported in patients treated both with antibiotics and with surgical debridement. Although monotherapy with quinolones is not recommended for treatment of infection with NTM due to the high risk of mutational resistance, our patient received long-term antibiotic treatment with ciprofloxacin over a 6-month period and showed no recurrence at 24-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Clinicians who treat patients with chronic skin or soft tissue infections should consider infection with NTM in the differential diagnosis, particularly in patients with suppressed immunity, but also in immunocompetent patients following any invasive procedure. Detailed medical history and skin biopsy followed by histology and culture are recommended for the diagnosis. Infection with NTM requires rapid action. Sensitivity testing is necessary in choosing an effective treatment. New molecular genetic diagnostic strip tests can differentiate species of NTM sooner than biochemical analyses, thereby helping clinicians initiate appropriate antimicrobial treatment in a timely fashion.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a potentially widespread, pustular, cutaneous eruption. In 90% of cases, AGEP results from drug administration.^1,2 It manifests as numerous subcorneal, nonfollicular, sterile pustules of rapid onset on an erythematous base,² often in conjunction with fever, peripheral leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.³ Numerous drug therapies have been implicated in the etiology of AGEP, most commonly the β-lactam antibiotics, such as the penicillin derivatives and cephalosporins.² Typically, AGEP occurs soon after drug ingestion and resolves spontaneously, shortly after the causative drug is discontinued.

Ranolazine is an antianginal, anti-ischemic medication with an undetermined mechanism of action. Its antianginal and anti-ischemic effects do not depend on reduced heart rate or blood pressure. At therapeutic levels, it inhibits the cardiac late sodium current (I_Na), reducing the sodium-induced calcium overload in ischemic cardiac myocytes. Severe adverse reactions include angioedema; paresthesia; pancytopenia; and, in animal studies, tumorigenicity.⁴ Herein we report a case of AGEP associated with the use of ranolazine.

Case Report

An 83-year-old man presented with a generalized rash of approximately 12 days’ duration. The patient reported that the small “pimple-like” bumps initially erupted on the back of the neck but gradually spread to the chest, back, and extremities. The lesions were asymptomatic at the outset and became pruritic over time. For the last several years, the patient had been taking tamsulosin for benign prostatic hypertrophy and rosuvastatin for hyperlipidemia. Twelve days prior to the exanthem, he had started taking ranolazine for symptomatic ischemia until coronary angiography could be performed. He reported having no associated fevers, chills, or malaise and had no personal history of psoriasis, though he had a maternal history of the disorder.

Examination revealed numerous nonfollicular-based pustules on diffuse erythematous patches (Figure 1). There was no mucosal involvement and the skin was negative for the Nikolsky sign. Spongiform intracorneal collections of neutrophils were visible on punch biopsy (Figures 2 and 3). Periodic acid–Schiff stains for fungi were negative.

Figure 2. A punch biopsy showed spongiform intracorneal collections of neutrophils (H&E, original magnification ×200).		Figure 3. A cornified layer of epidermis with neutrophils, as visible on punch biopsy (H&E, original magnification ×630).

The patient’s primary care physician had initiated a course of oral prednisone 5 mg daily, 3 days before he presented to our outpatient dermatology clinic, but it had little effect on the rash. Upon dermatologic evaluation, we discontinued ranolazine therapy and prescribed the following tapered course of oral prednisone: 60 mg daily for 4 days; 40 mg daily for 
3 days; 30 mg daily for 3 days; 20 mg daily for 3 days; 10 mg daily for 3 days; and 5 mg daily for 3 days). Within a week after this regimen was initiated, the rash showed improvement with eventual resolution and desquamation (Figure 4). Subsequently, the patient underwent successful angioplasty and multiple stent placement, which ultimately alleviated his angina.

Comment

Since its original description in 1968,⁵ AGEP has been misdiagnosed and underreported. Due to its rarity and clinical resemblance to more common pustular eruptions, such as exanthematous pustular psoriasis, the typical characteristics of AGEP were not clearly delineated until Beylot et al³ coined the term AGEP in 1980. Since that time, formalized criteria for the diagnosis and characterization of AGEP have been published.^1,2,6-8

Numerous drug therapies have been implicated in the etiology of AGEP, most commonly antimicrobial agents, such as β-lactam antibiotics. Many other drugs, however, also have been identified as potential causative agents,⁸ including but not limited to antifungal, anticonvulsant, and antihypertensive agents. Other less common etiologies include viral infections,^6,9-11 UV radiation, contrast media, heavy metal exposure (eg, to mercury), ingestion of urushiol (eg, in lacquered chicken), and spider bites.^2,8,12-16 Nevertheless, more than 90% 
of AGEP cases are attributed to drug exposure, with 80% of drug-induced cases believed to be caused 
by antibiotics.^1,8

The incidence of AGEP is estimated to be between 1 and 5 cases per million per year, using inclusion criteria from the EuroSCAR study, a multinational, case-controlled, pharmacoepidemiologic study of severe cutaneous adverse reactions.^8,16 The condition seems to affect males and females equally.^1,4 There are no reports of age or racial predilection.^1,6,17 It has been suggested that those with AGEP may have some form of psoriatic background.¹ Our patient had no personal history of inflammatory skin disease, although his mother had psoriasis.

The dermatitis presents as the sudden onset of a diffuse exanthematous eruption, which typically produces dozens to hundreds of sterile, nonfollicular, superficial pustules on an erythematous and possibly edematous base. Atypical presentations include target lesions, purpura, and vesicles. The reaction usually begins on the face or intertriginous areas of flexural surfaces and quickly disseminates. Patients may experience burning or pruritus. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis may involve mucous membranes but is usually limited to 1 location, most often the oral mucosa.^1,8,16,18 Systemic signs and symptoms include fever, lymphadenopathy, pharyngitis, and hepatosplenomegaly. Unlike most drug allergies that demonstrate eosinophilia, AGEP is associated with leukocytosis and neutrophilic predominance. Only 25% of affected patients exhibit eosinophilia.¹ Approximately 30% of patients in a retrospective analysis demonstrated abnormal renal function,² and there have been reports of mildly elevated transaminases.^8,19

In the EuroSCAR study, for reasons that were not apparent, symptoms developed within 
24 hours of exposure to triggering antibiotics, whereas the median time to rash onset in response to 
non–anti-infective agents was 11 days.⁸ This finding is consistent with the delayed onset of symptoms experienced by our patient after initiating ranolazine therapy.

The differential diagnosis of AGEP primarily includes pustular psoriasis, subcorneal pustulosis, pustular folliculitis, DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, bullous impetigo, and occasionally erythema multiforme and toxic epidermal necrolysis, with the latter typically characterized by more mucous membrane involvement.²⁰ Biopsy does not always support a definitive diagnosis; clinical correlation is often necessary. Because of the EuroSCAR study, Sidoroff et al⁸ devised a clinical validation score based on morphology (presence of pustules and erythema, distribution, and eventual desquamation), histopathology (presence of intraepidermal pustules, spongiosis, and papillary edema), and disease course (duration of symptoms, neutrophilia, fever, acute onset, and time to resolution). A definitive score is 8 to 12 (out of 12), and our patient’s score was 10; the score may have been higher had blood work been performed, but by the time the diagnosis was made the patient’s condition had improved enough to make laboratory workup unnecessary.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of AGEP. Some hold that the causative agent induces the formation of antigen-antibody complexes, thereby activating the complement system, which in turn produces neutrophil chemotaxis.^3,21 A more recent theory suggests that drug exposure causes drug-specific CD4 and CD8 cells to migrate into dermal and epidermal layers of the skin.¹⁷ Both T cells and keratinocytes express IL-8, which attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes, causing them to accumulate in the dermis and then the epidermis. The different clinical presentations of AGEP may be attributed to other cytokines and interleukins that T cells express during this process. In the epidermis, CD8 cells kill keratinocytes, causing focal necrosis and prompting the formation of subcorneal vesicles filled primarily with CD4 cells. CD4 and CD8 cells are then localized to the dermis where neutrophils enter the vesicles, transforming them into sterile pustules.^6,16,17

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis has been characterized as a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction, with affected patients often demonstrating positive patch testing or a history of prior sensitization to the perpetrating agent.^18,19,21 Although there have been reports of positive patch testing for certain drugs, the unknown sensitivity and specificity of such testing as well as preparation-dependent variables may limit the diagnostic utility of this approach.²¹ The additional risk for inducing AGEP by patch testing the suspected drug also is a consideration. Due to our patient’s definitive clinical validation score, we did not perform this test.²¹

The AGEP eruption is typically self-limited and tends to resolve within 4 to 10 days after cessation of the triggering agent. Postpustular desquamation often occurs upon resolution of the primary lesions. Treatment usually involves discontinuation of the suspected causative agent and the use of antihistamines, antipyretics, topical corticosteroids, and emollients. Although there are reports of AGEP responsiveness to oral and intravenous steroids, such treatment rarely is required.^8,16,22 
We prescribed a tapered course of oral prednisone due to our patient’s imminent need for angioplasty.

Conclusion

This case of AGEP induced by ranolazine is notable. Given the potential widespread use of this antianginal medication and the severity of this potential adverse reaction, it is important for clinicians to recognize AGEP, discontinue ranolazine if determined to be a causative agent, and then initiate an appropriate alternative antianginal therapy.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a potentially widespread, pustular, cutaneous eruption. In 90% of cases, AGEP results from drug administration.^1,2 It manifests as numerous subcorneal, nonfollicular, sterile pustules of rapid onset on an erythematous base,² often in conjunction with fever, peripheral leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.³ Numerous drug therapies have been implicated in the etiology of AGEP, most commonly the β-lactam antibiotics, such as the penicillin derivatives and cephalosporins.² Typically, AGEP occurs soon after drug ingestion and resolves spontaneously, shortly after the causative drug is discontinued.

Ranolazine is an antianginal, anti-ischemic medication with an undetermined mechanism of action. Its antianginal and anti-ischemic effects do not depend on reduced heart rate or blood pressure. At therapeutic levels, it inhibits the cardiac late sodium current (I_Na), reducing the sodium-induced calcium overload in ischemic cardiac myocytes. Severe adverse reactions include angioedema; paresthesia; pancytopenia; and, in animal studies, tumorigenicity.⁴ Herein we report a case of AGEP associated with the use of ranolazine.

Case Report

An 83-year-old man presented with a generalized rash of approximately 12 days’ duration. The patient reported that the small “pimple-like” bumps initially erupted on the back of the neck but gradually spread to the chest, back, and extremities. The lesions were asymptomatic at the outset and became pruritic over time. For the last several years, the patient had been taking tamsulosin for benign prostatic hypertrophy and rosuvastatin for hyperlipidemia. Twelve days prior to the exanthem, he had started taking ranolazine for symptomatic ischemia until coronary angiography could be performed. He reported having no associated fevers, chills, or malaise and had no personal history of psoriasis, though he had a maternal history of the disorder.

Examination revealed numerous nonfollicular-based pustules on diffuse erythematous patches (Figure 1). There was no mucosal involvement and the skin was negative for the Nikolsky sign. Spongiform intracorneal collections of neutrophils were visible on punch biopsy (Figures 2 and 3). Periodic acid–Schiff stains for fungi were negative.

Figure 2. A punch biopsy showed spongiform intracorneal collections of neutrophils (H&E, original magnification ×200).		Figure 3. A cornified layer of epidermis with neutrophils, as visible on punch biopsy (H&E, original magnification ×630).

The patient’s primary care physician had initiated a course of oral prednisone 5 mg daily, 3 days before he presented to our outpatient dermatology clinic, but it had little effect on the rash. Upon dermatologic evaluation, we discontinued ranolazine therapy and prescribed the following tapered course of oral prednisone: 60 mg daily for 4 days; 40 mg daily for 
3 days; 30 mg daily for 3 days; 20 mg daily for 3 days; 10 mg daily for 3 days; and 5 mg daily for 3 days). Within a week after this regimen was initiated, the rash showed improvement with eventual resolution and desquamation (Figure 4). Subsequently, the patient underwent successful angioplasty and multiple stent placement, which ultimately alleviated his angina.

Comment

Since its original description in 1968,⁵ AGEP has been misdiagnosed and underreported. Due to its rarity and clinical resemblance to more common pustular eruptions, such as exanthematous pustular psoriasis, the typical characteristics of AGEP were not clearly delineated until Beylot et al³ coined the term AGEP in 1980. Since that time, formalized criteria for the diagnosis and characterization of AGEP have been published.^1,2,6-8

Numerous drug therapies have been implicated in the etiology of AGEP, most commonly antimicrobial agents, such as β-lactam antibiotics. Many other drugs, however, also have been identified as potential causative agents,⁸ including but not limited to antifungal, anticonvulsant, and antihypertensive agents. Other less common etiologies include viral infections,^6,9-11 UV radiation, contrast media, heavy metal exposure (eg, to mercury), ingestion of urushiol (eg, in lacquered chicken), and spider bites.^2,8,12-16 Nevertheless, more than 90% 
of AGEP cases are attributed to drug exposure, with 80% of drug-induced cases believed to be caused 
by antibiotics.^1,8

The incidence of AGEP is estimated to be between 1 and 5 cases per million per year, using inclusion criteria from the EuroSCAR study, a multinational, case-controlled, pharmacoepidemiologic study of severe cutaneous adverse reactions.^8,16 The condition seems to affect males and females equally.^1,4 There are no reports of age or racial predilection.^1,6,17 It has been suggested that those with AGEP may have some form of psoriatic background.¹ Our patient had no personal history of inflammatory skin disease, although his mother had psoriasis.

The dermatitis presents as the sudden onset of a diffuse exanthematous eruption, which typically produces dozens to hundreds of sterile, nonfollicular, superficial pustules on an erythematous and possibly edematous base. Atypical presentations include target lesions, purpura, and vesicles. The reaction usually begins on the face or intertriginous areas of flexural surfaces and quickly disseminates. Patients may experience burning or pruritus. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis may involve mucous membranes but is usually limited to 1 location, most often the oral mucosa.^1,8,16,18 Systemic signs and symptoms include fever, lymphadenopathy, pharyngitis, and hepatosplenomegaly. Unlike most drug allergies that demonstrate eosinophilia, AGEP is associated with leukocytosis and neutrophilic predominance. Only 25% of affected patients exhibit eosinophilia.¹ Approximately 30% of patients in a retrospective analysis demonstrated abnormal renal function,² and there have been reports of mildly elevated transaminases.^8,19

In the EuroSCAR study, for reasons that were not apparent, symptoms developed within 
24 hours of exposure to triggering antibiotics, whereas the median time to rash onset in response to 
non–anti-infective agents was 11 days.⁸ This finding is consistent with the delayed onset of symptoms experienced by our patient after initiating ranolazine therapy.

The differential diagnosis of AGEP primarily includes pustular psoriasis, subcorneal pustulosis, pustular folliculitis, DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, bullous impetigo, and occasionally erythema multiforme and toxic epidermal necrolysis, with the latter typically characterized by more mucous membrane involvement.²⁰ Biopsy does not always support a definitive diagnosis; clinical correlation is often necessary. Because of the EuroSCAR study, Sidoroff et al⁸ devised a clinical validation score based on morphology (presence of pustules and erythema, distribution, and eventual desquamation), histopathology (presence of intraepidermal pustules, spongiosis, and papillary edema), and disease course (duration of symptoms, neutrophilia, fever, acute onset, and time to resolution). A definitive score is 8 to 12 (out of 12), and our patient’s score was 10; the score may have been higher had blood work been performed, but by the time the diagnosis was made the patient’s condition had improved enough to make laboratory workup unnecessary.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of AGEP. Some hold that the causative agent induces the formation of antigen-antibody complexes, thereby activating the complement system, which in turn produces neutrophil chemotaxis.^3,21 A more recent theory suggests that drug exposure causes drug-specific CD4 and CD8 cells to migrate into dermal and epidermal layers of the skin.¹⁷ Both T cells and keratinocytes express IL-8, which attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes, causing them to accumulate in the dermis and then the epidermis. The different clinical presentations of AGEP may be attributed to other cytokines and interleukins that T cells express during this process. In the epidermis, CD8 cells kill keratinocytes, causing focal necrosis and prompting the formation of subcorneal vesicles filled primarily with CD4 cells. CD4 and CD8 cells are then localized to the dermis where neutrophils enter the vesicles, transforming them into sterile pustules.^6,16,17

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis has been characterized as a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction, with affected patients often demonstrating positive patch testing or a history of prior sensitization to the perpetrating agent.^18,19,21 Although there have been reports of positive patch testing for certain drugs, the unknown sensitivity and specificity of such testing as well as preparation-dependent variables may limit the diagnostic utility of this approach.²¹ The additional risk for inducing AGEP by patch testing the suspected drug also is a consideration. Due to our patient’s definitive clinical validation score, we did not perform this test.²¹

The AGEP eruption is typically self-limited and tends to resolve within 4 to 10 days after cessation of the triggering agent. Postpustular desquamation often occurs upon resolution of the primary lesions. Treatment usually involves discontinuation of the suspected causative agent and the use of antihistamines, antipyretics, topical corticosteroids, and emollients. Although there are reports of AGEP responsiveness to oral and intravenous steroids, such treatment rarely is required.^8,16,22 
We prescribed a tapered course of oral prednisone due to our patient’s imminent need for angioplasty.

Conclusion

This case of AGEP induced by ranolazine is notable. Given the potential widespread use of this antianginal medication and the severity of this potential adverse reaction, it is important for clinicians to recognize AGEP, discontinue ranolazine if determined to be a causative agent, and then initiate an appropriate alternative antianginal therapy.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a potentially widespread, pustular, cutaneous eruption. In 90% of cases, AGEP results from drug administration.^1,2 It manifests as numerous subcorneal, nonfollicular, sterile pustules of rapid onset on an erythematous base,² often in conjunction with fever, peripheral leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.³ Numerous drug therapies have been implicated in the etiology of AGEP, most commonly the β-lactam antibiotics, such as the penicillin derivatives and cephalosporins.² Typically, AGEP occurs soon after drug ingestion and resolves spontaneously, shortly after the causative drug is discontinued.

Ranolazine is an antianginal, anti-ischemic medication with an undetermined mechanism of action. Its antianginal and anti-ischemic effects do not depend on reduced heart rate or blood pressure. At therapeutic levels, it inhibits the cardiac late sodium current (I_Na), reducing the sodium-induced calcium overload in ischemic cardiac myocytes. Severe adverse reactions include angioedema; paresthesia; pancytopenia; and, in animal studies, tumorigenicity.⁴ Herein we report a case of AGEP associated with the use of ranolazine.

Case Report

An 83-year-old man presented with a generalized rash of approximately 12 days’ duration. The patient reported that the small “pimple-like” bumps initially erupted on the back of the neck but gradually spread to the chest, back, and extremities. The lesions were asymptomatic at the outset and became pruritic over time. For the last several years, the patient had been taking tamsulosin for benign prostatic hypertrophy and rosuvastatin for hyperlipidemia. Twelve days prior to the exanthem, he had started taking ranolazine for symptomatic ischemia until coronary angiography could be performed. He reported having no associated fevers, chills, or malaise and had no personal history of psoriasis, though he had a maternal history of the disorder.

Examination revealed numerous nonfollicular-based pustules on diffuse erythematous patches (Figure 1). There was no mucosal involvement and the skin was negative for the Nikolsky sign. Spongiform intracorneal collections of neutrophils were visible on punch biopsy (Figures 2 and 3). Periodic acid–Schiff stains for fungi were negative.

Figure 2. A punch biopsy showed spongiform intracorneal collections of neutrophils (H&E, original magnification ×200).		Figure 3. A cornified layer of epidermis with neutrophils, as visible on punch biopsy (H&E, original magnification ×630).

The patient’s primary care physician had initiated a course of oral prednisone 5 mg daily, 3 days before he presented to our outpatient dermatology clinic, but it had little effect on the rash. Upon dermatologic evaluation, we discontinued ranolazine therapy and prescribed the following tapered course of oral prednisone: 60 mg daily for 4 days; 40 mg daily for 
3 days; 30 mg daily for 3 days; 20 mg daily for 3 days; 10 mg daily for 3 days; and 5 mg daily for 3 days). Within a week after this regimen was initiated, the rash showed improvement with eventual resolution and desquamation (Figure 4). Subsequently, the patient underwent successful angioplasty and multiple stent placement, which ultimately alleviated his angina.

Comment

Since its original description in 1968,⁵ AGEP has been misdiagnosed and underreported. Due to its rarity and clinical resemblance to more common pustular eruptions, such as exanthematous pustular psoriasis, the typical characteristics of AGEP were not clearly delineated until Beylot et al³ coined the term AGEP in 1980. Since that time, formalized criteria for the diagnosis and characterization of AGEP have been published.^1,2,6-8

Numerous drug therapies have been implicated in the etiology of AGEP, most commonly antimicrobial agents, such as β-lactam antibiotics. Many other drugs, however, also have been identified as potential causative agents,⁸ including but not limited to antifungal, anticonvulsant, and antihypertensive agents. Other less common etiologies include viral infections,^6,9-11 UV radiation, contrast media, heavy metal exposure (eg, to mercury), ingestion of urushiol (eg, in lacquered chicken), and spider bites.^2,8,12-16 Nevertheless, more than 90% 
of AGEP cases are attributed to drug exposure, with 80% of drug-induced cases believed to be caused 
by antibiotics.^1,8

The incidence of AGEP is estimated to be between 1 and 5 cases per million per year, using inclusion criteria from the EuroSCAR study, a multinational, case-controlled, pharmacoepidemiologic study of severe cutaneous adverse reactions.^8,16 The condition seems to affect males and females equally.^1,4 There are no reports of age or racial predilection.^1,6,17 It has been suggested that those with AGEP may have some form of psoriatic background.¹ Our patient had no personal history of inflammatory skin disease, although his mother had psoriasis.

The dermatitis presents as the sudden onset of a diffuse exanthematous eruption, which typically produces dozens to hundreds of sterile, nonfollicular, superficial pustules on an erythematous and possibly edematous base. Atypical presentations include target lesions, purpura, and vesicles. The reaction usually begins on the face or intertriginous areas of flexural surfaces and quickly disseminates. Patients may experience burning or pruritus. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis may involve mucous membranes but is usually limited to 1 location, most often the oral mucosa.^1,8,16,18 Systemic signs and symptoms include fever, lymphadenopathy, pharyngitis, and hepatosplenomegaly. Unlike most drug allergies that demonstrate eosinophilia, AGEP is associated with leukocytosis and neutrophilic predominance. Only 25% of affected patients exhibit eosinophilia.¹ Approximately 30% of patients in a retrospective analysis demonstrated abnormal renal function,² and there have been reports of mildly elevated transaminases.^8,19

In the EuroSCAR study, for reasons that were not apparent, symptoms developed within 
24 hours of exposure to triggering antibiotics, whereas the median time to rash onset in response to 
non–anti-infective agents was 11 days.⁸ This finding is consistent with the delayed onset of symptoms experienced by our patient after initiating ranolazine therapy.

The differential diagnosis of AGEP primarily includes pustular psoriasis, subcorneal pustulosis, pustular folliculitis, DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, bullous impetigo, and occasionally erythema multiforme and toxic epidermal necrolysis, with the latter typically characterized by more mucous membrane involvement.²⁰ Biopsy does not always support a definitive diagnosis; clinical correlation is often necessary. Because of the EuroSCAR study, Sidoroff et al⁸ devised a clinical validation score based on morphology (presence of pustules and erythema, distribution, and eventual desquamation), histopathology (presence of intraepidermal pustules, spongiosis, and papillary edema), and disease course (duration of symptoms, neutrophilia, fever, acute onset, and time to resolution). A definitive score is 8 to 12 (out of 12), and our patient’s score was 10; the score may have been higher had blood work been performed, but by the time the diagnosis was made the patient’s condition had improved enough to make laboratory workup unnecessary.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of AGEP. Some hold that the causative agent induces the formation of antigen-antibody complexes, thereby activating the complement system, which in turn produces neutrophil chemotaxis.^3,21 A more recent theory suggests that drug exposure causes drug-specific CD4 and CD8 cells to migrate into dermal and epidermal layers of the skin.¹⁷ Both T cells and keratinocytes express IL-8, which attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes, causing them to accumulate in the dermis and then the epidermis. The different clinical presentations of AGEP may be attributed to other cytokines and interleukins that T cells express during this process. In the epidermis, CD8 cells kill keratinocytes, causing focal necrosis and prompting the formation of subcorneal vesicles filled primarily with CD4 cells. CD4 and CD8 cells are then localized to the dermis where neutrophils enter the vesicles, transforming them into sterile pustules.^6,16,17

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis has been characterized as a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction, with affected patients often demonstrating positive patch testing or a history of prior sensitization to the perpetrating agent.^18,19,21 Although there have been reports of positive patch testing for certain drugs, the unknown sensitivity and specificity of such testing as well as preparation-dependent variables may limit the diagnostic utility of this approach.²¹ The additional risk for inducing AGEP by patch testing the suspected drug also is a consideration. Due to our patient’s definitive clinical validation score, we did not perform this test.²¹

The AGEP eruption is typically self-limited and tends to resolve within 4 to 10 days after cessation of the triggering agent. Postpustular desquamation often occurs upon resolution of the primary lesions. Treatment usually involves discontinuation of the suspected causative agent and the use of antihistamines, antipyretics, topical corticosteroids, and emollients. Although there are reports of AGEP responsiveness to oral and intravenous steroids, such treatment rarely is required.^8,16,22 
We prescribed a tapered course of oral prednisone due to our patient’s imminent need for angioplasty.

Conclusion

This case of AGEP induced by ranolazine is notable. Given the potential widespread use of this antianginal medication and the severity of this potential adverse reaction, it is important for clinicians to recognize AGEP, discontinue ranolazine if determined to be a causative agent, and then initiate an appropriate alternative antianginal therapy.

For thousands of years, humans have used fragrances to change or affect their mood and enhance an “aura of beauty.”¹ Fragrance is a primary driver in consumer choice and purchasing decisions, especially when considering personal care products.² In addition to fragrance, consumers choose cleanser products based on compatibility with skin, cleansing properties, and sensory attributes such as viscosity and foaming.^3,4 However, fragrance sensitivity is among the most common causes of allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics and personal care products,⁵ and estimates of the prevalence of fragrance sensitivity range from 1.8% to 4.2%.⁶

A panel of 26 fragrance ingredients that frequently induce contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals has been identified.⁷ Since 2003, regulatory authorities in the European Union require these compounds to be listed on the labels of consumer products to protect presensitized consumers.^7,8 However, manufacturers of cosmetics are not required to specify allergenic fragrance ingredients outside the European Union, and therefore it is difficult for consumers in the United States to avoid fragrance allergens.

Creation of a fragranced product for 
fragrance-sensitive individuals begins with careful selection of ingredients and extensive formulation testing and evaluation. This process usually is followed by testing in normal individuals to confirm that the fragranced product is well accepted and then evaluation is done in clinically confirmed fragrance-sensitive patients and those with a compromised skin barrier from atopic dermatitis, rosacea, or eczema.

Sensitive skin may be due to increased immune responsiveness, altered neurosensory input, and/or decreased skin barrier function, and presents a complex challenge for dermatologists.⁹ Subjective perceptions of sensitive skin include stinging, burning, pruritus, and tightness following product application. Clinically sensitive skin is defined by the presence of erythema, stratum corneum desquamation, papules, pustules, wheals, vesicles, bullae, and/or erosions.⁹ Although some of these symptoms may be observed immediately, others may be delayed by minutes, hours, or days following the use of an irritating product. Patients who present with subjective symptoms of sensitive skin may or may not show objective symptoms.

Gentle skin cleansing is particularly important for patients with compromised skin barrier integrity, such as those with acne, atopic dermatitis, eczema, or rosacea. Standard alkaline surfactants in skin cleansers help to remove dirt and oily soil and produce lather but can impair the skin barrier function and facilitate development of irritation.^10-13 The tolerability of a cleanser is influenced by its pH, the type and amount of surfactant ingredients, the presence of moisturizing agents, and the amount of residue left on the skin after washing.^11,12 Mild cleansers have been developed for patients with sensitive skin conditions and are expected to provide cleansing benefits without negatively affecting the hydration and viscoelastic properties of skin.¹¹ Mild cleansers interact minimally with skin proteins and lipids because they usually contain nonionic synthetic surfactant mixtures; they also have a pH value close to the slightly acidic pH of normal skin, contain moisturizing agents,^11,14,15 and usually produce less foam.^10,16 In patients with sensitive skin, mild and fragrance-free cleansers often are recommended.^17,18 Because fragrances often affect consumers’ perception of product performance¹⁹ and enhance the cleaning experience of the user, consumer compliance with clinical recommendations to use fragrance-free cleansers often is poor.

Low–molecular-weight, water-soluble, hydrophobically modified polymers (HMPs) have been used to create gentle foaming cleansers with reduced impact on the skin barrier.^12,16,20 In the presence of HMPs, surfactants assemble into larger, more stable polymer-surfactant structures that are less likely to penetrate the skin.¹⁶ Hydrophobically modified polymers can potentially reduce skin irritation by lowering the concentration of free micelles in solution. Additionally, both HMPs and HMP-surfactant complexes stabilize newly formed 
air-water interfaces, leading to thicker, denser, and longer-lasting foams.¹⁶ A gentle, fragrance-free, foaming liquid facial test cleanser with HMPs has been shown to be well tolerated in women with sensitive skin.²⁰

This report describes 2 studies of a new mild, 
HMP-containing, foaming facial cleanser with a 
fragrance that was free of common allergens and irritating essential oils in patients with sensitive skin. Study 1 was designed to evaluate the tolerance and acceptability of 2 variations of the HMP-containing cleanser—one fragrance free and the other with 
fragrance—in a small sample of healthy adults with clinically diagnosed fragrance-sensitive skin. Study 2 was a large, 2-center study of the tolerability and effectiveness of the fragranced HMP-containing cleanser compared with a benchmark dermatologist-recommended, gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser in women with clinically diagnosed sensitive skin.

Methods

Study 1 Design

The primary objective of this prospective, randomized, single-center, crossover study was to evaluate the tolerability of fragranced versus fragrance-free formulations of a mild, HMP-containing liquid facial cleanser in healthy male and female adults with Fitzpatrick skin types I to IV who were clinically diagnosed as having fragrance sensitivity. Fragrance sensitivity was defined as a history of positive reactions to a fragrance mixture of 8 components (fragrance mixture I) and/or a fragrance mixture of 14 fragrances (fragrance mixture II) that included balsam of Peru (Myroxylonpereirae), geraniol, jasmine oil, and oakmoss.⁵ All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study, and both the study protocol and informed consent agreement were approved by an institutional review board.

Participants were instructed to wash their face twice daily, noting the time of cleansing and providing commentary about their cleansing experience in a diary. The liquid facial test cleansers contained the HMP potassium acrylates copolymer, glycerin, and a surfactant system primarily containing cocamidopropyl betaine and lauryl glucoside prepared without added fragrance (as previously described²⁰) or with a fragrance free of common allergens and irritating essential oils.

Half of the participants used the fragranced test cleanser and half used the fragrance-free test cleanser for a 3-week treatment period (weeks 1–3). Each treatment group subsequently switched to the other test cleanser for a second 3-week treatment period 
(weeks 4–6). Clinicians assessed global disease severity (an overall assessment of skin condition that was independent of other evaluation criteria), 
itching/burning, visible irritation, erythema, and desquamation at weekly time points throughout the study and graded each clinical tolerance attribute on a 5-point scale (0=none; 1=minimal; 2=mild; 3=moderate; 4=severe). Ordinal scores at baseline and at weeks 1 and 3 were used to calculate change from baseline.

A 7-item questionnaire also was administered to participants at each visit to assess skin condition, smoothness, softness, cleanliness, radiance, satisfaction with cleansing experience, and lathering. Each item was scored on a 5-point ordinal scale (0=none; 1=minimal; 2=good; 3=excellent; 4=superior). The scores for all parameters were statistically compared with baseline values using a paired t test with a significance level of P≤.05.

Study 2 Design

This prospective, 3-week, 
double-blind, randomized, comparative, 2-center study to evaluate the tolerability of the fragranced, HMP-containing test cleanser from study 1 versus a benchmark gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser in a large population of otherwise healthy females who had been clinically diagnosed with sensitive skin (not limited to fragrance sensitivity). The study sponsor provided blinded test materials, and neither the examiner nor the recorder knew which investigational product was administered to which participants. Additionally, personnel who dispensed the test cleansers to 
participants or supervised their use did not participate in the evaluation to minimize potential bias. All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study, and the study protocol and informed consent agreement were approved by an institutional review board.

Participants included women aged 18 to 65 years with mild to moderate clinical symptoms of atopic dermatitis, eczema, acne, or rosacea within the 90 days prior to the study period. They were randomized into 
2 balanced treatment groups: group 1 received the mild, fragranced, HMP-containing liquid facial cleanser from study 1 and group 2 received a leading, dermatologist-recommended, gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser. Each treatment group used the test cleansers at least once daily for 3 weeks.

Clinicians evaluated facial skin for softness and smoothness, global disease severity (rated visually by the investigator as an overall assessment of skin condition that was independent of other evaluation criteria [as previously described²⁰]), itching, irritation, erythema, and desquamation at baseline and at weeks 1 and 3. The effectiveness of each product to remove facial dirt, cosmetics, and sebum also was assessed; clinical grading was performed as described for study 1 using the same grading scale as in study 1 and percentage change from baseline (improvement) was calculated.

The study also included a self-assessment of skin irritation in which participants responded yes or no to the following question: Have you experienced irritation using this product? Participants also completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to select the most appropriate answer—agree strongly, agree somewhat, neither, disagree somewhat, and disagree strongly— 
to the following statements: the cleanser leaves no residue; cleanses deep to remove dirt, oil, and makeup; the cleanser effectively removes makeup; the cleanser leaves my skin smooth; the cleanser leaves my skin soft; the cleanser rinses completely clean; cleanser does not over dry my skin; and my skin is completely clean.

The statistical analysis was performed using a 
nonparametric, 2-tailed, paired Mann-Whitney U test, and statistical significance was set at P≤.05.

Results

Study 1 Assessment

Eight female participants aged 22 to 60 years with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity were enrolled in the study. After 3 weeks of use, clinician assessment showed that both the fragranced and fragrance-free test cleansers with HMPs improved several skin tolerance attributes, including global disease severity, irritation, and erythema (Figure 1). No notable differences in skin tolerance attributes were reported in the fragranced versus the fragrance-free formulations.

There were no reported differences in 
participant-reported cleanser effectiveness for the fragranced versus the fragrance-free cleanser either at baseline or weeks 1 or 3 (data not shown).

Study 2 Assessment

A total of 153 women aged 25 to 54 years with sensitive skin were enrolled in the study. Seventy-three participants were randomized to receive the fragranced test cleanser and 80 were randomized to receive the benchmark fragrance-free cleanser.

At week 3, there were no differences between the fragranced test cleanser and the benchmark cleanser in any of the clinician-assessed skin parameters 
(Figure 2). Of the parameters assessed, itching, irritation, and desquamation were the most improved from baseline in both treatment groups. Similar results were observed at week 1 (data not shown).

There were no apparent differences in subjective self-assessment of skin irritation between the test and benchmark cleansers at week 1 (15.7% vs 13.0%) or week 3 (24.3% vs 12.3%). When asked to respond to a series of 8 statements related to cleanser effectiveness, most participants either agreed strongly or agreed somewhat with the statements (Figure 3). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups, and responses to all statements indicated that participants were as satisfied with the test cleanser as they were with the benchmark cleanser.

Comment

Consumers value cleansing, fragrance, viscosity, and foaming attributes in skin care products very highly.^3,4,10 Fragrances are added to personal care products to positively affect consumers’ perception of product performance and to add emotional benefits by implying social or economic prestige to the use of a product.¹⁹ In one study, shampoo formulations that varied only in the added fragrance received different consumer evaluations for cleansing effectiveness and foaming.⁴

Although mild nonfoaming cleansers can be effective, adult consumers generally use cleansers that foam^10,16 and often judge the performance of a cleansing product based on its foaming properties.^3,10 Mild cleansers with HMPs maintain the ability to foam while also reducing the likelihood of skin irritation.¹⁶ One study showed that a mild, fragrance-free, foaming cleanser containing HMPs was as effective, well tolerated, and nonirritating in patients with sensitive skin as a benchmark nonfoaming gentle cleanser.²⁰

Results from study 1 presented here show that fragranced and fragrance-free formulations of a mild, HMP-containing cleanser are equally efficacious and well tolerated in a small sample of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity. Skin tolerance attributes improved with both cleansers over a 3-week period, particularly global disease severity, irritation, and erythema. These results suggest that a fragrance free of common allergens and irritating essential oils could be introduced into a mild foaming cleanser containing HMPs without causing adverse reactions, even in patients who are fragrance sensitive.

Although the populations of studies 1 and 2 both included female participants with sensitive skin, they were not identical. While study 1 assessed a limited number of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity, study 2 was larger and included a broader range of participants with clinically diagnosed skin sensitivity, which could include fragrance sensitivity. The well-chosen fragrance of the test cleanser containing HMPs was well tolerated; however, this does not imply that any other fragrances added to this cleanser formulation would be as well tolerated.

Conclusion

The current studies indicate that a gentle fragranced foaming cleanser with HMPs was well tolerated in a small population of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity. In a larger population of female participants with sensitive skin, the gentle fragranced foaming cleanser with HMPs was as effective as a leading dermatologist-recommended, 
fragrance-free, gentle, nonfoaming cleanser. The gentle, 
HMP-containing, foaming cleanser with a fragrance that does not contain common allergens and irritating essential oils offers a new cleansing option for adults with sensitive skin who may prefer to use a fragranced and foaming product.

Acknowledgments—The authors are grateful to the patients and clinicians who participated in these studies. Editorial and medical writing support was provided by Tove Anderson, PhD, and Alex Loeb, PhD, both from Evidence Scientific Solutions, Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was funded by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

For thousands of years, humans have used fragrances to change or affect their mood and enhance an “aura of beauty.”¹ Fragrance is a primary driver in consumer choice and purchasing decisions, especially when considering personal care products.² In addition to fragrance, consumers choose cleanser products based on compatibility with skin, cleansing properties, and sensory attributes such as viscosity and foaming.^3,4 However, fragrance sensitivity is among the most common causes of allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics and personal care products,⁵ and estimates of the prevalence of fragrance sensitivity range from 1.8% to 4.2%.⁶

A panel of 26 fragrance ingredients that frequently induce contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals has been identified.⁷ Since 2003, regulatory authorities in the European Union require these compounds to be listed on the labels of consumer products to protect presensitized consumers.^7,8 However, manufacturers of cosmetics are not required to specify allergenic fragrance ingredients outside the European Union, and therefore it is difficult for consumers in the United States to avoid fragrance allergens.

Creation of a fragranced product for 
fragrance-sensitive individuals begins with careful selection of ingredients and extensive formulation testing and evaluation. This process usually is followed by testing in normal individuals to confirm that the fragranced product is well accepted and then evaluation is done in clinically confirmed fragrance-sensitive patients and those with a compromised skin barrier from atopic dermatitis, rosacea, or eczema.

Sensitive skin may be due to increased immune responsiveness, altered neurosensory input, and/or decreased skin barrier function, and presents a complex challenge for dermatologists.⁹ Subjective perceptions of sensitive skin include stinging, burning, pruritus, and tightness following product application. Clinically sensitive skin is defined by the presence of erythema, stratum corneum desquamation, papules, pustules, wheals, vesicles, bullae, and/or erosions.⁹ Although some of these symptoms may be observed immediately, others may be delayed by minutes, hours, or days following the use of an irritating product. Patients who present with subjective symptoms of sensitive skin may or may not show objective symptoms.

Gentle skin cleansing is particularly important for patients with compromised skin barrier integrity, such as those with acne, atopic dermatitis, eczema, or rosacea. Standard alkaline surfactants in skin cleansers help to remove dirt and oily soil and produce lather but can impair the skin barrier function and facilitate development of irritation.^10-13 The tolerability of a cleanser is influenced by its pH, the type and amount of surfactant ingredients, the presence of moisturizing agents, and the amount of residue left on the skin after washing.^11,12 Mild cleansers have been developed for patients with sensitive skin conditions and are expected to provide cleansing benefits without negatively affecting the hydration and viscoelastic properties of skin.¹¹ Mild cleansers interact minimally with skin proteins and lipids because they usually contain nonionic synthetic surfactant mixtures; they also have a pH value close to the slightly acidic pH of normal skin, contain moisturizing agents,^11,14,15 and usually produce less foam.^10,16 In patients with sensitive skin, mild and fragrance-free cleansers often are recommended.^17,18 Because fragrances often affect consumers’ perception of product performance¹⁹ and enhance the cleaning experience of the user, consumer compliance with clinical recommendations to use fragrance-free cleansers often is poor.

Low–molecular-weight, water-soluble, hydrophobically modified polymers (HMPs) have been used to create gentle foaming cleansers with reduced impact on the skin barrier.^12,16,20 In the presence of HMPs, surfactants assemble into larger, more stable polymer-surfactant structures that are less likely to penetrate the skin.¹⁶ Hydrophobically modified polymers can potentially reduce skin irritation by lowering the concentration of free micelles in solution. Additionally, both HMPs and HMP-surfactant complexes stabilize newly formed 
air-water interfaces, leading to thicker, denser, and longer-lasting foams.¹⁶ A gentle, fragrance-free, foaming liquid facial test cleanser with HMPs has been shown to be well tolerated in women with sensitive skin.²⁰

This report describes 2 studies of a new mild, 
HMP-containing, foaming facial cleanser with a 
fragrance that was free of common allergens and irritating essential oils in patients with sensitive skin. Study 1 was designed to evaluate the tolerance and acceptability of 2 variations of the HMP-containing cleanser—one fragrance free and the other with 
fragrance—in a small sample of healthy adults with clinically diagnosed fragrance-sensitive skin. Study 2 was a large, 2-center study of the tolerability and effectiveness of the fragranced HMP-containing cleanser compared with a benchmark dermatologist-recommended, gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser in women with clinically diagnosed sensitive skin.

Methods

Study 1 Design

The primary objective of this prospective, randomized, single-center, crossover study was to evaluate the tolerability of fragranced versus fragrance-free formulations of a mild, HMP-containing liquid facial cleanser in healthy male and female adults with Fitzpatrick skin types I to IV who were clinically diagnosed as having fragrance sensitivity. Fragrance sensitivity was defined as a history of positive reactions to a fragrance mixture of 8 components (fragrance mixture I) and/or a fragrance mixture of 14 fragrances (fragrance mixture II) that included balsam of Peru (Myroxylonpereirae), geraniol, jasmine oil, and oakmoss.⁵ All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study, and both the study protocol and informed consent agreement were approved by an institutional review board.

Participants were instructed to wash their face twice daily, noting the time of cleansing and providing commentary about their cleansing experience in a diary. The liquid facial test cleansers contained the HMP potassium acrylates copolymer, glycerin, and a surfactant system primarily containing cocamidopropyl betaine and lauryl glucoside prepared without added fragrance (as previously described²⁰) or with a fragrance free of common allergens and irritating essential oils.

Half of the participants used the fragranced test cleanser and half used the fragrance-free test cleanser for a 3-week treatment period (weeks 1–3). Each treatment group subsequently switched to the other test cleanser for a second 3-week treatment period 
(weeks 4–6). Clinicians assessed global disease severity (an overall assessment of skin condition that was independent of other evaluation criteria), 
itching/burning, visible irritation, erythema, and desquamation at weekly time points throughout the study and graded each clinical tolerance attribute on a 5-point scale (0=none; 1=minimal; 2=mild; 3=moderate; 4=severe). Ordinal scores at baseline and at weeks 1 and 3 were used to calculate change from baseline.

A 7-item questionnaire also was administered to participants at each visit to assess skin condition, smoothness, softness, cleanliness, radiance, satisfaction with cleansing experience, and lathering. Each item was scored on a 5-point ordinal scale (0=none; 1=minimal; 2=good; 3=excellent; 4=superior). The scores for all parameters were statistically compared with baseline values using a paired t test with a significance level of P≤.05.

Study 2 Design

This prospective, 3-week, 
double-blind, randomized, comparative, 2-center study to evaluate the tolerability of the fragranced, HMP-containing test cleanser from study 1 versus a benchmark gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser in a large population of otherwise healthy females who had been clinically diagnosed with sensitive skin (not limited to fragrance sensitivity). The study sponsor provided blinded test materials, and neither the examiner nor the recorder knew which investigational product was administered to which participants. Additionally, personnel who dispensed the test cleansers to 
participants or supervised their use did not participate in the evaluation to minimize potential bias. All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study, and the study protocol and informed consent agreement were approved by an institutional review board.

Participants included women aged 18 to 65 years with mild to moderate clinical symptoms of atopic dermatitis, eczema, acne, or rosacea within the 90 days prior to the study period. They were randomized into 
2 balanced treatment groups: group 1 received the mild, fragranced, HMP-containing liquid facial cleanser from study 1 and group 2 received a leading, dermatologist-recommended, gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser. Each treatment group used the test cleansers at least once daily for 3 weeks.

Clinicians evaluated facial skin for softness and smoothness, global disease severity (rated visually by the investigator as an overall assessment of skin condition that was independent of other evaluation criteria [as previously described²⁰]), itching, irritation, erythema, and desquamation at baseline and at weeks 1 and 3. The effectiveness of each product to remove facial dirt, cosmetics, and sebum also was assessed; clinical grading was performed as described for study 1 using the same grading scale as in study 1 and percentage change from baseline (improvement) was calculated.

The study also included a self-assessment of skin irritation in which participants responded yes or no to the following question: Have you experienced irritation using this product? Participants also completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to select the most appropriate answer—agree strongly, agree somewhat, neither, disagree somewhat, and disagree strongly— 
to the following statements: the cleanser leaves no residue; cleanses deep to remove dirt, oil, and makeup; the cleanser effectively removes makeup; the cleanser leaves my skin smooth; the cleanser leaves my skin soft; the cleanser rinses completely clean; cleanser does not over dry my skin; and my skin is completely clean.

The statistical analysis was performed using a 
nonparametric, 2-tailed, paired Mann-Whitney U test, and statistical significance was set at P≤.05.

Results

Study 1 Assessment

Eight female participants aged 22 to 60 years with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity were enrolled in the study. After 3 weeks of use, clinician assessment showed that both the fragranced and fragrance-free test cleansers with HMPs improved several skin tolerance attributes, including global disease severity, irritation, and erythema (Figure 1). No notable differences in skin tolerance attributes were reported in the fragranced versus the fragrance-free formulations.

There were no reported differences in 
participant-reported cleanser effectiveness for the fragranced versus the fragrance-free cleanser either at baseline or weeks 1 or 3 (data not shown).

Study 2 Assessment

A total of 153 women aged 25 to 54 years with sensitive skin were enrolled in the study. Seventy-three participants were randomized to receive the fragranced test cleanser and 80 were randomized to receive the benchmark fragrance-free cleanser.

At week 3, there were no differences between the fragranced test cleanser and the benchmark cleanser in any of the clinician-assessed skin parameters 
(Figure 2). Of the parameters assessed, itching, irritation, and desquamation were the most improved from baseline in both treatment groups. Similar results were observed at week 1 (data not shown).

There were no apparent differences in subjective self-assessment of skin irritation between the test and benchmark cleansers at week 1 (15.7% vs 13.0%) or week 3 (24.3% vs 12.3%). When asked to respond to a series of 8 statements related to cleanser effectiveness, most participants either agreed strongly or agreed somewhat with the statements (Figure 3). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups, and responses to all statements indicated that participants were as satisfied with the test cleanser as they were with the benchmark cleanser.

Comment

Consumers value cleansing, fragrance, viscosity, and foaming attributes in skin care products very highly.^3,4,10 Fragrances are added to personal care products to positively affect consumers’ perception of product performance and to add emotional benefits by implying social or economic prestige to the use of a product.¹⁹ In one study, shampoo formulations that varied only in the added fragrance received different consumer evaluations for cleansing effectiveness and foaming.⁴

Although mild nonfoaming cleansers can be effective, adult consumers generally use cleansers that foam^10,16 and often judge the performance of a cleansing product based on its foaming properties.^3,10 Mild cleansers with HMPs maintain the ability to foam while also reducing the likelihood of skin irritation.¹⁶ One study showed that a mild, fragrance-free, foaming cleanser containing HMPs was as effective, well tolerated, and nonirritating in patients with sensitive skin as a benchmark nonfoaming gentle cleanser.²⁰

Results from study 1 presented here show that fragranced and fragrance-free formulations of a mild, HMP-containing cleanser are equally efficacious and well tolerated in a small sample of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity. Skin tolerance attributes improved with both cleansers over a 3-week period, particularly global disease severity, irritation, and erythema. These results suggest that a fragrance free of common allergens and irritating essential oils could be introduced into a mild foaming cleanser containing HMPs without causing adverse reactions, even in patients who are fragrance sensitive.

Although the populations of studies 1 and 2 both included female participants with sensitive skin, they were not identical. While study 1 assessed a limited number of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity, study 2 was larger and included a broader range of participants with clinically diagnosed skin sensitivity, which could include fragrance sensitivity. The well-chosen fragrance of the test cleanser containing HMPs was well tolerated; however, this does not imply that any other fragrances added to this cleanser formulation would be as well tolerated.

Conclusion

The current studies indicate that a gentle fragranced foaming cleanser with HMPs was well tolerated in a small population of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity. In a larger population of female participants with sensitive skin, the gentle fragranced foaming cleanser with HMPs was as effective as a leading dermatologist-recommended, 
fragrance-free, gentle, nonfoaming cleanser. The gentle, 
HMP-containing, foaming cleanser with a fragrance that does not contain common allergens and irritating essential oils offers a new cleansing option for adults with sensitive skin who may prefer to use a fragranced and foaming product.

Acknowledgments—The authors are grateful to the patients and clinicians who participated in these studies. Editorial and medical writing support was provided by Tove Anderson, PhD, and Alex Loeb, PhD, both from Evidence Scientific Solutions, Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was funded by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

For thousands of years, humans have used fragrances to change or affect their mood and enhance an “aura of beauty.”¹ Fragrance is a primary driver in consumer choice and purchasing decisions, especially when considering personal care products.² In addition to fragrance, consumers choose cleanser products based on compatibility with skin, cleansing properties, and sensory attributes such as viscosity and foaming.^3,4 However, fragrance sensitivity is among the most common causes of allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics and personal care products,⁵ and estimates of the prevalence of fragrance sensitivity range from 1.8% to 4.2%.⁶

A panel of 26 fragrance ingredients that frequently induce contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals has been identified.⁷ Since 2003, regulatory authorities in the European Union require these compounds to be listed on the labels of consumer products to protect presensitized consumers.^7,8 However, manufacturers of cosmetics are not required to specify allergenic fragrance ingredients outside the European Union, and therefore it is difficult for consumers in the United States to avoid fragrance allergens.

Creation of a fragranced product for 
fragrance-sensitive individuals begins with careful selection of ingredients and extensive formulation testing and evaluation. This process usually is followed by testing in normal individuals to confirm that the fragranced product is well accepted and then evaluation is done in clinically confirmed fragrance-sensitive patients and those with a compromised skin barrier from atopic dermatitis, rosacea, or eczema.

Sensitive skin may be due to increased immune responsiveness, altered neurosensory input, and/or decreased skin barrier function, and presents a complex challenge for dermatologists.⁹ Subjective perceptions of sensitive skin include stinging, burning, pruritus, and tightness following product application. Clinically sensitive skin is defined by the presence of erythema, stratum corneum desquamation, papules, pustules, wheals, vesicles, bullae, and/or erosions.⁹ Although some of these symptoms may be observed immediately, others may be delayed by minutes, hours, or days following the use of an irritating product. Patients who present with subjective symptoms of sensitive skin may or may not show objective symptoms.

Gentle skin cleansing is particularly important for patients with compromised skin barrier integrity, such as those with acne, atopic dermatitis, eczema, or rosacea. Standard alkaline surfactants in skin cleansers help to remove dirt and oily soil and produce lather but can impair the skin barrier function and facilitate development of irritation.^10-13 The tolerability of a cleanser is influenced by its pH, the type and amount of surfactant ingredients, the presence of moisturizing agents, and the amount of residue left on the skin after washing.^11,12 Mild cleansers have been developed for patients with sensitive skin conditions and are expected to provide cleansing benefits without negatively affecting the hydration and viscoelastic properties of skin.¹¹ Mild cleansers interact minimally with skin proteins and lipids because they usually contain nonionic synthetic surfactant mixtures; they also have a pH value close to the slightly acidic pH of normal skin, contain moisturizing agents,^11,14,15 and usually produce less foam.^10,16 In patients with sensitive skin, mild and fragrance-free cleansers often are recommended.^17,18 Because fragrances often affect consumers’ perception of product performance¹⁹ and enhance the cleaning experience of the user, consumer compliance with clinical recommendations to use fragrance-free cleansers often is poor.

Low–molecular-weight, water-soluble, hydrophobically modified polymers (HMPs) have been used to create gentle foaming cleansers with reduced impact on the skin barrier.^12,16,20 In the presence of HMPs, surfactants assemble into larger, more stable polymer-surfactant structures that are less likely to penetrate the skin.¹⁶ Hydrophobically modified polymers can potentially reduce skin irritation by lowering the concentration of free micelles in solution. Additionally, both HMPs and HMP-surfactant complexes stabilize newly formed 
air-water interfaces, leading to thicker, denser, and longer-lasting foams.¹⁶ A gentle, fragrance-free, foaming liquid facial test cleanser with HMPs has been shown to be well tolerated in women with sensitive skin.²⁰

This report describes 2 studies of a new mild, 
HMP-containing, foaming facial cleanser with a 
fragrance that was free of common allergens and irritating essential oils in patients with sensitive skin. Study 1 was designed to evaluate the tolerance and acceptability of 2 variations of the HMP-containing cleanser—one fragrance free and the other with 
fragrance—in a small sample of healthy adults with clinically diagnosed fragrance-sensitive skin. Study 2 was a large, 2-center study of the tolerability and effectiveness of the fragranced HMP-containing cleanser compared with a benchmark dermatologist-recommended, gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser in women with clinically diagnosed sensitive skin.

Methods

Study 1 Design

The primary objective of this prospective, randomized, single-center, crossover study was to evaluate the tolerability of fragranced versus fragrance-free formulations of a mild, HMP-containing liquid facial cleanser in healthy male and female adults with Fitzpatrick skin types I to IV who were clinically diagnosed as having fragrance sensitivity. Fragrance sensitivity was defined as a history of positive reactions to a fragrance mixture of 8 components (fragrance mixture I) and/or a fragrance mixture of 14 fragrances (fragrance mixture II) that included balsam of Peru (Myroxylonpereirae), geraniol, jasmine oil, and oakmoss.⁵ All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study, and both the study protocol and informed consent agreement were approved by an institutional review board.

Participants were instructed to wash their face twice daily, noting the time of cleansing and providing commentary about their cleansing experience in a diary. The liquid facial test cleansers contained the HMP potassium acrylates copolymer, glycerin, and a surfactant system primarily containing cocamidopropyl betaine and lauryl glucoside prepared without added fragrance (as previously described²⁰) or with a fragrance free of common allergens and irritating essential oils.

Half of the participants used the fragranced test cleanser and half used the fragrance-free test cleanser for a 3-week treatment period (weeks 1–3). Each treatment group subsequently switched to the other test cleanser for a second 3-week treatment period 
(weeks 4–6). Clinicians assessed global disease severity (an overall assessment of skin condition that was independent of other evaluation criteria), 
itching/burning, visible irritation, erythema, and desquamation at weekly time points throughout the study and graded each clinical tolerance attribute on a 5-point scale (0=none; 1=minimal; 2=mild; 3=moderate; 4=severe). Ordinal scores at baseline and at weeks 1 and 3 were used to calculate change from baseline.

A 7-item questionnaire also was administered to participants at each visit to assess skin condition, smoothness, softness, cleanliness, radiance, satisfaction with cleansing experience, and lathering. Each item was scored on a 5-point ordinal scale (0=none; 1=minimal; 2=good; 3=excellent; 4=superior). The scores for all parameters were statistically compared with baseline values using a paired t test with a significance level of P≤.05.

Study 2 Design

This prospective, 3-week, 
double-blind, randomized, comparative, 2-center study to evaluate the tolerability of the fragranced, HMP-containing test cleanser from study 1 versus a benchmark gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser in a large population of otherwise healthy females who had been clinically diagnosed with sensitive skin (not limited to fragrance sensitivity). The study sponsor provided blinded test materials, and neither the examiner nor the recorder knew which investigational product was administered to which participants. Additionally, personnel who dispensed the test cleansers to 
participants or supervised their use did not participate in the evaluation to minimize potential bias. All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study, and the study protocol and informed consent agreement were approved by an institutional review board.

Participants included women aged 18 to 65 years with mild to moderate clinical symptoms of atopic dermatitis, eczema, acne, or rosacea within the 90 days prior to the study period. They were randomized into 
2 balanced treatment groups: group 1 received the mild, fragranced, HMP-containing liquid facial cleanser from study 1 and group 2 received a leading, dermatologist-recommended, gentle, fragrance-free, nonfoaming cleanser. Each treatment group used the test cleansers at least once daily for 3 weeks.

Clinicians evaluated facial skin for softness and smoothness, global disease severity (rated visually by the investigator as an overall assessment of skin condition that was independent of other evaluation criteria [as previously described²⁰]), itching, irritation, erythema, and desquamation at baseline and at weeks 1 and 3. The effectiveness of each product to remove facial dirt, cosmetics, and sebum also was assessed; clinical grading was performed as described for study 1 using the same grading scale as in study 1 and percentage change from baseline (improvement) was calculated.

The study also included a self-assessment of skin irritation in which participants responded yes or no to the following question: Have you experienced irritation using this product? Participants also completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to select the most appropriate answer—agree strongly, agree somewhat, neither, disagree somewhat, and disagree strongly— 
to the following statements: the cleanser leaves no residue; cleanses deep to remove dirt, oil, and makeup; the cleanser effectively removes makeup; the cleanser leaves my skin smooth; the cleanser leaves my skin soft; the cleanser rinses completely clean; cleanser does not over dry my skin; and my skin is completely clean.

The statistical analysis was performed using a 
nonparametric, 2-tailed, paired Mann-Whitney U test, and statistical significance was set at P≤.05.

Results

Study 1 Assessment

Eight female participants aged 22 to 60 years with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity were enrolled in the study. After 3 weeks of use, clinician assessment showed that both the fragranced and fragrance-free test cleansers with HMPs improved several skin tolerance attributes, including global disease severity, irritation, and erythema (Figure 1). No notable differences in skin tolerance attributes were reported in the fragranced versus the fragrance-free formulations.

There were no reported differences in 
participant-reported cleanser effectiveness for the fragranced versus the fragrance-free cleanser either at baseline or weeks 1 or 3 (data not shown).

Study 2 Assessment

A total of 153 women aged 25 to 54 years with sensitive skin were enrolled in the study. Seventy-three participants were randomized to receive the fragranced test cleanser and 80 were randomized to receive the benchmark fragrance-free cleanser.

At week 3, there were no differences between the fragranced test cleanser and the benchmark cleanser in any of the clinician-assessed skin parameters 
(Figure 2). Of the parameters assessed, itching, irritation, and desquamation were the most improved from baseline in both treatment groups. Similar results were observed at week 1 (data not shown).

There were no apparent differences in subjective self-assessment of skin irritation between the test and benchmark cleansers at week 1 (15.7% vs 13.0%) or week 3 (24.3% vs 12.3%). When asked to respond to a series of 8 statements related to cleanser effectiveness, most participants either agreed strongly or agreed somewhat with the statements (Figure 3). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups, and responses to all statements indicated that participants were as satisfied with the test cleanser as they were with the benchmark cleanser.

Comment

Consumers value cleansing, fragrance, viscosity, and foaming attributes in skin care products very highly.^3,4,10 Fragrances are added to personal care products to positively affect consumers’ perception of product performance and to add emotional benefits by implying social or economic prestige to the use of a product.¹⁹ In one study, shampoo formulations that varied only in the added fragrance received different consumer evaluations for cleansing effectiveness and foaming.⁴

Although mild nonfoaming cleansers can be effective, adult consumers generally use cleansers that foam^10,16 and often judge the performance of a cleansing product based on its foaming properties.^3,10 Mild cleansers with HMPs maintain the ability to foam while also reducing the likelihood of skin irritation.¹⁶ One study showed that a mild, fragrance-free, foaming cleanser containing HMPs was as effective, well tolerated, and nonirritating in patients with sensitive skin as a benchmark nonfoaming gentle cleanser.²⁰

Results from study 1 presented here show that fragranced and fragrance-free formulations of a mild, HMP-containing cleanser are equally efficacious and well tolerated in a small sample of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity. Skin tolerance attributes improved with both cleansers over a 3-week period, particularly global disease severity, irritation, and erythema. These results suggest that a fragrance free of common allergens and irritating essential oils could be introduced into a mild foaming cleanser containing HMPs without causing adverse reactions, even in patients who are fragrance sensitive.

Although the populations of studies 1 and 2 both included female participants with sensitive skin, they were not identical. While study 1 assessed a limited number of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity, study 2 was larger and included a broader range of participants with clinically diagnosed skin sensitivity, which could include fragrance sensitivity. The well-chosen fragrance of the test cleanser containing HMPs was well tolerated; however, this does not imply that any other fragrances added to this cleanser formulation would be as well tolerated.

Conclusion

The current studies indicate that a gentle fragranced foaming cleanser with HMPs was well tolerated in a small population of participants with clinically diagnosed fragrance sensitivity. In a larger population of female participants with sensitive skin, the gentle fragranced foaming cleanser with HMPs was as effective as a leading dermatologist-recommended, 
fragrance-free, gentle, nonfoaming cleanser. The gentle, 
HMP-containing, foaming cleanser with a fragrance that does not contain common allergens and irritating essential oils offers a new cleansing option for adults with sensitive skin who may prefer to use a fragranced and foaming product.

Acknowledgments—The authors are grateful to the patients and clinicians who participated in these studies. Editorial and medical writing support was provided by Tove Anderson, PhD, and Alex Loeb, PhD, both from Evidence Scientific Solutions, Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was funded by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

The Diagnosis: Fixed Cutaneous Sporotrichosis

On further questioning at our dermatology clinic, the patient reported having landed face-first into rocks and gravel during the all-terrain vehicle accident. After his medical history was noted and a physical examination was completed, bacterial and fungal cultures of the wound were taken. The fungal culture was positive for Sporothrix schenckii. The patient was prescribed itraconazole 200 mg 3 times daily for 3 days, then 200 mg twice daily for an additional 4 weeks after the lesions completely resolved. An ophthalmologist was immediately consulted to rule out sinus and periorbital involvement. After computed tomography revealed possible preseptal cellulitis with frontal sinus involvement, the patient was admitted and intravenous amphotericin B was administered. Following consultations with infectious disease specialists and radiologists, amphotericin B was discontinued and the patient was discharged on itraconazole 200 mg twice daily with close monitoring. At 3-month follow-up, the sporotrichosis infection had completely cleared (Figure).

Deep fungal infections comprise 2 distinct groups: systemic and subcutaneous mycoses. Individuals with subcutaneous mycoses present with skin involvement as the primary feature. Sporotrichosis is the most common cause of this type of mycosis¹ and is caused by the dimorphic fungus S schenckii, an environmental saprophyte often residing in soil. Sporothrix schenckii exists as mold in a natural environment but exists as yeast in host tissue, thus causing ensuing infection.

Epidemiology

Sporotrichosis occurs worldwide but most frequently in temperate tropical and subtropical regions. The majority of cases are reported in Mexico and Central and South America¹; however, cases have been seen in the southern United States, Japan, and Australia.² In the United States, sporotrichosis is most commonly found in river valleys of the Midwest.

Sporothrix schenckii is most commonly isolated in hay, sphagnum moss, thorny plants, and soil, but it also has been described in other manifold host environments. Unusual origins of inoculation include an old and rust-stained camping tent in Mexico,³ crawl space joists of a house in Indiana,⁴ and hay bales used as props in a haunted house in Oklahoma.⁵

The incidence of infection is primarily sporadic; however, outbreaks among individuals who share a common environment favorable for the growth of S schenckii are at risk. Those identified to be at risk include rose gardeners, berry pickers, those who work in tree nurseries, horticulturists, landscapers, and miners.

Pathogenesis

As a dimorphic fungus, infection occurs when a conidium in the mold phase is introduced into the skin, usually by traumatic skin injury, and is 
converted to the yeast form in vivo. Distribution of infection by this organism is most commonly 
localized to the cutaneous, subcutaneous, and lymphocutaneous regions in healthy hosts but can involve visceral and osteoarticular structures in immunocompromised hosts.^1,6 Pulmonary and disseminated forms are rare but can occur when 
S schenckii conidia are inhaled. Zoonotic transmission of the fungus also can occur with exposure to infected animals. Sporothrix schenckii has been reported to occur in cats, dogs, horses, donkeys, squirrels, armadillos, and dolphins.^7-11

Pathology

Sporothrix schenckii is typically not visualized on microscopic examination due to the small number of microorganisms present; however, cultures grow rapidly 
(3–5 days) on Sabouraud agar. The fungus most commonly develops as white or off-white compact colonies that progressively darken with age, transitioning to gray and then black.¹ Microscopically, the hyphae produce oval or pyriform conidia, which are assembled 
in a typical bouquetlike manner. Conversion of the organism to yeast on enriched medium such as brain-heart infusion agar or blood-cysteine-glucose agar confirms the diagnosis.

Acute lesions typically show a nonspecific mixed infiltrate, but established lesions may reveal granulomatous formation and neutrophilic microabscesses.^1,2 Asteroid bodies, which are cigar-shaped yeasts surrounded by eosinophilic coronae radiata, may be found. Organisms are sparsely distributed within the lesions, necessitating a thorough examination of the culture for identification.

Clinical Features

Sporotrichosis has 3 main classifications: lymphocutaneous, fixed cutaneous, and disseminated. Lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is the most common form of the infection.² The disease presents with a small indurated papule occurring approximately 7 to 30 days after inoculation into the skin. The papule slowly enlarges, forms a nodule, and then frequently ulcerates. Over time, draining lymphatics become edematous and inflammatory, and a chain of secondary nodules begins to appear proximal to the initial lesion. The primary and secondary nodules may continue to ulcerate; alternately, they may heal or become chronic.

In fixed cutaneous sporotrichosis, the infection remains localized to one region and a granuloma may develop, which also may ulcerate. Satellite nodules may appear along the periphery of the lesion. Lymphatic spread is not observed in this form of 
the disease.

The disseminated form is a result of hematogenous spread from the primary inoculation site and typically occurs in an immunocompromised host. This form can present as pulmonary disease, sinusitis, and meningitis.¹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for sporotrichosis includes atypical mycobacteria, nocardiosis, blastomycosis, pyogenic bacteria, leishmaniasis, tularemia, 
and tuberculosis.

Treatment

Treatment of sporotrichosis is always required. A saturated solution of potassium iodide has classically been used; however, it is frequently associated with side effects and can be problematic to administer.¹² Given its low cost and traditional efficacy, it may still be used in some parts of the world.

Currently, the treatment of choice for fixed cutaneous and lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is itraconazole 100 to 200 mg once daily for 3 to 6 months.¹ The recommended treatment of osteoarticular sporotrichosis is itraconazole, but prolonged therapy is required.

Heat therapy is an alternative treatment option, as certain strains of S schenckii do not grow at temperatures higher than 35°C. Hot compresses must be used for at least 1 hour a day for several months, which may affect patient compliance.

Immunocompromised patients often have disseminated infection and require lifelong suppressive therapy with itraconazole and may require initial treatment with amphotericin B.¹³

Conclusion

Subcutaneous sporotrichosis can develop in patients with a traumatic injury involving vegetation, soil, or animals. Although some patients may develop more invasive disease, most infections in immunocompetent patients will resolve after 3 to 6 months of itraconazole 100 to 200 mg once daily.¹

The Diagnosis: Fixed Cutaneous Sporotrichosis

On further questioning at our dermatology clinic, the patient reported having landed face-first into rocks and gravel during the all-terrain vehicle accident. After his medical history was noted and a physical examination was completed, bacterial and fungal cultures of the wound were taken. The fungal culture was positive for Sporothrix schenckii. The patient was prescribed itraconazole 200 mg 3 times daily for 3 days, then 200 mg twice daily for an additional 4 weeks after the lesions completely resolved. An ophthalmologist was immediately consulted to rule out sinus and periorbital involvement. After computed tomography revealed possible preseptal cellulitis with frontal sinus involvement, the patient was admitted and intravenous amphotericin B was administered. Following consultations with infectious disease specialists and radiologists, amphotericin B was discontinued and the patient was discharged on itraconazole 200 mg twice daily with close monitoring. At 3-month follow-up, the sporotrichosis infection had completely cleared (Figure).

Deep fungal infections comprise 2 distinct groups: systemic and subcutaneous mycoses. Individuals with subcutaneous mycoses present with skin involvement as the primary feature. Sporotrichosis is the most common cause of this type of mycosis¹ and is caused by the dimorphic fungus S schenckii, an environmental saprophyte often residing in soil. Sporothrix schenckii exists as mold in a natural environment but exists as yeast in host tissue, thus causing ensuing infection.

Epidemiology

Sporotrichosis occurs worldwide but most frequently in temperate tropical and subtropical regions. The majority of cases are reported in Mexico and Central and South America¹; however, cases have been seen in the southern United States, Japan, and Australia.² In the United States, sporotrichosis is most commonly found in river valleys of the Midwest.

Sporothrix schenckii is most commonly isolated in hay, sphagnum moss, thorny plants, and soil, but it also has been described in other manifold host environments. Unusual origins of inoculation include an old and rust-stained camping tent in Mexico,³ crawl space joists of a house in Indiana,⁴ and hay bales used as props in a haunted house in Oklahoma.⁵

The incidence of infection is primarily sporadic; however, outbreaks among individuals who share a common environment favorable for the growth of S schenckii are at risk. Those identified to be at risk include rose gardeners, berry pickers, those who work in tree nurseries, horticulturists, landscapers, and miners.

Pathogenesis

As a dimorphic fungus, infection occurs when a conidium in the mold phase is introduced into the skin, usually by traumatic skin injury, and is 
converted to the yeast form in vivo. Distribution of infection by this organism is most commonly 
localized to the cutaneous, subcutaneous, and lymphocutaneous regions in healthy hosts but can involve visceral and osteoarticular structures in immunocompromised hosts.^1,6 Pulmonary and disseminated forms are rare but can occur when 
S schenckii conidia are inhaled. Zoonotic transmission of the fungus also can occur with exposure to infected animals. Sporothrix schenckii has been reported to occur in cats, dogs, horses, donkeys, squirrels, armadillos, and dolphins.^7-11

Pathology

Sporothrix schenckii is typically not visualized on microscopic examination due to the small number of microorganisms present; however, cultures grow rapidly 
(3–5 days) on Sabouraud agar. The fungus most commonly develops as white or off-white compact colonies that progressively darken with age, transitioning to gray and then black.¹ Microscopically, the hyphae produce oval or pyriform conidia, which are assembled 
in a typical bouquetlike manner. Conversion of the organism to yeast on enriched medium such as brain-heart infusion agar or blood-cysteine-glucose agar confirms the diagnosis.

Acute lesions typically show a nonspecific mixed infiltrate, but established lesions may reveal granulomatous formation and neutrophilic microabscesses.^1,2 Asteroid bodies, which are cigar-shaped yeasts surrounded by eosinophilic coronae radiata, may be found. Organisms are sparsely distributed within the lesions, necessitating a thorough examination of the culture for identification.

Clinical Features

Sporotrichosis has 3 main classifications: lymphocutaneous, fixed cutaneous, and disseminated. Lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is the most common form of the infection.² The disease presents with a small indurated papule occurring approximately 7 to 30 days after inoculation into the skin. The papule slowly enlarges, forms a nodule, and then frequently ulcerates. Over time, draining lymphatics become edematous and inflammatory, and a chain of secondary nodules begins to appear proximal to the initial lesion. The primary and secondary nodules may continue to ulcerate; alternately, they may heal or become chronic.

In fixed cutaneous sporotrichosis, the infection remains localized to one region and a granuloma may develop, which also may ulcerate. Satellite nodules may appear along the periphery of the lesion. Lymphatic spread is not observed in this form of 
the disease.

The disseminated form is a result of hematogenous spread from the primary inoculation site and typically occurs in an immunocompromised host. This form can present as pulmonary disease, sinusitis, and meningitis.¹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for sporotrichosis includes atypical mycobacteria, nocardiosis, blastomycosis, pyogenic bacteria, leishmaniasis, tularemia, 
and tuberculosis.

Treatment

Treatment of sporotrichosis is always required. A saturated solution of potassium iodide has classically been used; however, it is frequently associated with side effects and can be problematic to administer.¹² Given its low cost and traditional efficacy, it may still be used in some parts of the world.

Currently, the treatment of choice for fixed cutaneous and lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is itraconazole 100 to 200 mg once daily for 3 to 6 months.¹ The recommended treatment of osteoarticular sporotrichosis is itraconazole, but prolonged therapy is required.

Heat therapy is an alternative treatment option, as certain strains of S schenckii do not grow at temperatures higher than 35°C. Hot compresses must be used for at least 1 hour a day for several months, which may affect patient compliance.

Immunocompromised patients often have disseminated infection and require lifelong suppressive therapy with itraconazole and may require initial treatment with amphotericin B.¹³

Conclusion

Subcutaneous sporotrichosis can develop in patients with a traumatic injury involving vegetation, soil, or animals. Although some patients may develop more invasive disease, most infections in immunocompetent patients will resolve after 3 to 6 months of itraconazole 100 to 200 mg once daily.¹

The Diagnosis: Fixed Cutaneous Sporotrichosis

On further questioning at our dermatology clinic, the patient reported having landed face-first into rocks and gravel during the all-terrain vehicle accident. After his medical history was noted and a physical examination was completed, bacterial and fungal cultures of the wound were taken. The fungal culture was positive for Sporothrix schenckii. The patient was prescribed itraconazole 200 mg 3 times daily for 3 days, then 200 mg twice daily for an additional 4 weeks after the lesions completely resolved. An ophthalmologist was immediately consulted to rule out sinus and periorbital involvement. After computed tomography revealed possible preseptal cellulitis with frontal sinus involvement, the patient was admitted and intravenous amphotericin B was administered. Following consultations with infectious disease specialists and radiologists, amphotericin B was discontinued and the patient was discharged on itraconazole 200 mg twice daily with close monitoring. At 3-month follow-up, the sporotrichosis infection had completely cleared (Figure).

Deep fungal infections comprise 2 distinct groups: systemic and subcutaneous mycoses. Individuals with subcutaneous mycoses present with skin involvement as the primary feature. Sporotrichosis is the most common cause of this type of mycosis¹ and is caused by the dimorphic fungus S schenckii, an environmental saprophyte often residing in soil. Sporothrix schenckii exists as mold in a natural environment but exists as yeast in host tissue, thus causing ensuing infection.

Epidemiology

Sporotrichosis occurs worldwide but most frequently in temperate tropical and subtropical regions. The majority of cases are reported in Mexico and Central and South America¹; however, cases have been seen in the southern United States, Japan, and Australia.² In the United States, sporotrichosis is most commonly found in river valleys of the Midwest.

Sporothrix schenckii is most commonly isolated in hay, sphagnum moss, thorny plants, and soil, but it also has been described in other manifold host environments. Unusual origins of inoculation include an old and rust-stained camping tent in Mexico,³ crawl space joists of a house in Indiana,⁴ and hay bales used as props in a haunted house in Oklahoma.⁵

The incidence of infection is primarily sporadic; however, outbreaks among individuals who share a common environment favorable for the growth of S schenckii are at risk. Those identified to be at risk include rose gardeners, berry pickers, those who work in tree nurseries, horticulturists, landscapers, and miners.

Pathogenesis

As a dimorphic fungus, infection occurs when a conidium in the mold phase is introduced into the skin, usually by traumatic skin injury, and is 
converted to the yeast form in vivo. Distribution of infection by this organism is most commonly 
localized to the cutaneous, subcutaneous, and lymphocutaneous regions in healthy hosts but can involve visceral and osteoarticular structures in immunocompromised hosts.^1,6 Pulmonary and disseminated forms are rare but can occur when 
S schenckii conidia are inhaled. Zoonotic transmission of the fungus also can occur with exposure to infected animals. Sporothrix schenckii has been reported to occur in cats, dogs, horses, donkeys, squirrels, armadillos, and dolphins.^7-11

Pathology

Sporothrix schenckii is typically not visualized on microscopic examination due to the small number of microorganisms present; however, cultures grow rapidly 
(3–5 days) on Sabouraud agar. The fungus most commonly develops as white or off-white compact colonies that progressively darken with age, transitioning to gray and then black.¹ Microscopically, the hyphae produce oval or pyriform conidia, which are assembled 
in a typical bouquetlike manner. Conversion of the organism to yeast on enriched medium such as brain-heart infusion agar or blood-cysteine-glucose agar confirms the diagnosis.

Acute lesions typically show a nonspecific mixed infiltrate, but established lesions may reveal granulomatous formation and neutrophilic microabscesses.^1,2 Asteroid bodies, which are cigar-shaped yeasts surrounded by eosinophilic coronae radiata, may be found. Organisms are sparsely distributed within the lesions, necessitating a thorough examination of the culture for identification.

Clinical Features

Sporotrichosis has 3 main classifications: lymphocutaneous, fixed cutaneous, and disseminated. Lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is the most common form of the infection.² The disease presents with a small indurated papule occurring approximately 7 to 30 days after inoculation into the skin. The papule slowly enlarges, forms a nodule, and then frequently ulcerates. Over time, draining lymphatics become edematous and inflammatory, and a chain of secondary nodules begins to appear proximal to the initial lesion. The primary and secondary nodules may continue to ulcerate; alternately, they may heal or become chronic.

In fixed cutaneous sporotrichosis, the infection remains localized to one region and a granuloma may develop, which also may ulcerate. Satellite nodules may appear along the periphery of the lesion. Lymphatic spread is not observed in this form of 
the disease.

The disseminated form is a result of hematogenous spread from the primary inoculation site and typically occurs in an immunocompromised host. This form can present as pulmonary disease, sinusitis, and meningitis.¹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for sporotrichosis includes atypical mycobacteria, nocardiosis, blastomycosis, pyogenic bacteria, leishmaniasis, tularemia, 
and tuberculosis.

Treatment

Treatment of sporotrichosis is always required. A saturated solution of potassium iodide has classically been used; however, it is frequently associated with side effects and can be problematic to administer.¹² Given its low cost and traditional efficacy, it may still be used in some parts of the world.

Currently, the treatment of choice for fixed cutaneous and lymphocutaneous sporotrichosis is itraconazole 100 to 200 mg once daily for 3 to 6 months.¹ The recommended treatment of osteoarticular sporotrichosis is itraconazole, but prolonged therapy is required.

Heat therapy is an alternative treatment option, as certain strains of S schenckii do not grow at temperatures higher than 35°C. Hot compresses must be used for at least 1 hour a day for several months, which may affect patient compliance.

Immunocompromised patients often have disseminated infection and require lifelong suppressive therapy with itraconazole and may require initial treatment with amphotericin B.¹³

Conclusion

Subcutaneous sporotrichosis can develop in patients with a traumatic injury involving vegetation, soil, or animals. Although some patients may develop more invasive disease, most infections in immunocompetent patients will resolve after 3 to 6 months of itraconazole 100 to 200 mg once daily.¹

Case Report

An 18-year-old Iranian man presented to the dermatology clinic with hair loss of 1 night’s duration. He denied pruritus, pain, discharge, or flaking. The patient had no notable personal, family, or surgical history and was not currently taking any medications. He denied recent travel. The patient reported that he found hair on his pillow upon waking up in the morning prior to coming to the clinic. On physical examination, 2 ants 
(Figure 1) were found on the scalp and alopecia with a vertical linear distribution was noted (Figure 2). Hairs of various lengths were found on the scalp within the distribution of the alopecia. No excoriations, crusting, seborrhea, or other areas of hair loss were detected. Wood lamp examination was negative. Based on these findings, which were concordant with similar findings from prior reports,^1-4 a diagnosis of ant-induced alopecia was made. Hair regrowth was noted within 1 week with full appearance of normal-length hair within 2.5 weeks.

Comment

Ant-induced alopecia is a form of localized hair loss caused by the Pheidole genus, the second largest genus of ants in the world.⁵ These ants can be found worldwide, but most cases of ant-induced alopecia have been from Iran, with at least 1 reported case from Turkey.^1-4,6 An early case series of ant-induced alopecia was reported in 1999,⁶ but the causative species was not described at that time.

The majority of reported cases of ant-induced alopecia are attributed to the barber ant (Pheidole pallidula). This type of alopecia is caused by worker ants within the species hierarchy.^1,4,6 The P pallidula worker ants are dimorphic and are classified as major and minor workers.⁷ Major workers have body lengths ranging up to 6 mm, whereas minor workers have body lengths ranging up to 4 mm. Major workers have larger heads and mandibles than minor workers and also have up to 2 pairs of denticles on the cranium.⁵ The minor workers are foragers and mainly collect food, whereas the major workers defend the nest and store food.⁸ These ants have widespread habitats with the ability to live in indoor and outdoor environments.

The presentation of hair loss caused by these ants is acute. Hair loss usually is confined to one specific area. Some patients may report pruritus or may present with erythematous lesions from ant stings or manual scratching.⁵ None of these signs or symptoms were seen in our patient. Some investigators have suggested that the barber ant is attracted to the hair of individuals with seborrheic dermatitis,¹ but our patient had no medical history of seborrheic dermatitis. Most likely, ants are attracted to excess sebum on the scalp in select individuals in their search for food and cause localized hair destruction.

Localized hair loss, as depicted in our case, should warrant a thorough evaluation for alopecia areata, trichotillomania, and tinea capitis.⁹ Alopecia areata should be considered in individuals with multiple focal patches of hair loss that have a positive hair pull test from peripheral sites of active lesions. Tinea capitis usually has localized sites of hair loss with underlying scaling, crusting, pruritus, erythema, and discharge from lesions, with positive potassium hydroxide preparations or fungal cultures. Trichotillomania typically presents with a spared peripheral fringe of hair. Remaining hairs may be thick and hyperpigmented as a response to repeated pulling, and biopsy often demonstrates fracture or degeneration of the hair shaft. A psychiatric evaluation may be warranted in cases of trichotillomania. Other cases of arthropod-induced hair loss include tick bite alopecia^10,11 and hair loss induced by numerous honeybee stings,¹² and these diagnoses should be suspected in patients with a history of ants on their pillow or in those from endemic areas.

No specific treatment is indicated in cases of 
ant-induced alopecia because hair usually regrows to its normal length without intervention.

Case Report

An 18-year-old Iranian man presented to the dermatology clinic with hair loss of 1 night’s duration. He denied pruritus, pain, discharge, or flaking. The patient had no notable personal, family, or surgical history and was not currently taking any medications. He denied recent travel. The patient reported that he found hair on his pillow upon waking up in the morning prior to coming to the clinic. On physical examination, 2 ants 
(Figure 1) were found on the scalp and alopecia with a vertical linear distribution was noted (Figure 2). Hairs of various lengths were found on the scalp within the distribution of the alopecia. No excoriations, crusting, seborrhea, or other areas of hair loss were detected. Wood lamp examination was negative. Based on these findings, which were concordant with similar findings from prior reports,^1-4 a diagnosis of ant-induced alopecia was made. Hair regrowth was noted within 1 week with full appearance of normal-length hair within 2.5 weeks.

Comment

Ant-induced alopecia is a form of localized hair loss caused by the Pheidole genus, the second largest genus of ants in the world.⁵ These ants can be found worldwide, but most cases of ant-induced alopecia have been from Iran, with at least 1 reported case from Turkey.^1-4,6 An early case series of ant-induced alopecia was reported in 1999,⁶ but the causative species was not described at that time.

The majority of reported cases of ant-induced alopecia are attributed to the barber ant (Pheidole pallidula). This type of alopecia is caused by worker ants within the species hierarchy.^1,4,6 The P pallidula worker ants are dimorphic and are classified as major and minor workers.⁷ Major workers have body lengths ranging up to 6 mm, whereas minor workers have body lengths ranging up to 4 mm. Major workers have larger heads and mandibles than minor workers and also have up to 2 pairs of denticles on the cranium.⁵ The minor workers are foragers and mainly collect food, whereas the major workers defend the nest and store food.⁸ These ants have widespread habitats with the ability to live in indoor and outdoor environments.

The presentation of hair loss caused by these ants is acute. Hair loss usually is confined to one specific area. Some patients may report pruritus or may present with erythematous lesions from ant stings or manual scratching.⁵ None of these signs or symptoms were seen in our patient. Some investigators have suggested that the barber ant is attracted to the hair of individuals with seborrheic dermatitis,¹ but our patient had no medical history of seborrheic dermatitis. Most likely, ants are attracted to excess sebum on the scalp in select individuals in their search for food and cause localized hair destruction.

Localized hair loss, as depicted in our case, should warrant a thorough evaluation for alopecia areata, trichotillomania, and tinea capitis.⁹ Alopecia areata should be considered in individuals with multiple focal patches of hair loss that have a positive hair pull test from peripheral sites of active lesions. Tinea capitis usually has localized sites of hair loss with underlying scaling, crusting, pruritus, erythema, and discharge from lesions, with positive potassium hydroxide preparations or fungal cultures. Trichotillomania typically presents with a spared peripheral fringe of hair. Remaining hairs may be thick and hyperpigmented as a response to repeated pulling, and biopsy often demonstrates fracture or degeneration of the hair shaft. A psychiatric evaluation may be warranted in cases of trichotillomania. Other cases of arthropod-induced hair loss include tick bite alopecia^10,11 and hair loss induced by numerous honeybee stings,¹² and these diagnoses should be suspected in patients with a history of ants on their pillow or in those from endemic areas.

No specific treatment is indicated in cases of 
ant-induced alopecia because hair usually regrows to its normal length without intervention.

Case Report

An 18-year-old Iranian man presented to the dermatology clinic with hair loss of 1 night’s duration. He denied pruritus, pain, discharge, or flaking. The patient had no notable personal, family, or surgical history and was not currently taking any medications. He denied recent travel. The patient reported that he found hair on his pillow upon waking up in the morning prior to coming to the clinic. On physical examination, 2 ants 
(Figure 1) were found on the scalp and alopecia with a vertical linear distribution was noted (Figure 2). Hairs of various lengths were found on the scalp within the distribution of the alopecia. No excoriations, crusting, seborrhea, or other areas of hair loss were detected. Wood lamp examination was negative. Based on these findings, which were concordant with similar findings from prior reports,^1-4 a diagnosis of ant-induced alopecia was made. Hair regrowth was noted within 1 week with full appearance of normal-length hair within 2.5 weeks.

Comment

Ant-induced alopecia is a form of localized hair loss caused by the Pheidole genus, the second largest genus of ants in the world.⁵ These ants can be found worldwide, but most cases of ant-induced alopecia have been from Iran, with at least 1 reported case from Turkey.^1-4,6 An early case series of ant-induced alopecia was reported in 1999,⁶ but the causative species was not described at that time.

The majority of reported cases of ant-induced alopecia are attributed to the barber ant (Pheidole pallidula). This type of alopecia is caused by worker ants within the species hierarchy.^1,4,6 The P pallidula worker ants are dimorphic and are classified as major and minor workers.⁷ Major workers have body lengths ranging up to 6 mm, whereas minor workers have body lengths ranging up to 4 mm. Major workers have larger heads and mandibles than minor workers and also have up to 2 pairs of denticles on the cranium.⁵ The minor workers are foragers and mainly collect food, whereas the major workers defend the nest and store food.⁸ These ants have widespread habitats with the ability to live in indoor and outdoor environments.

The presentation of hair loss caused by these ants is acute. Hair loss usually is confined to one specific area. Some patients may report pruritus or may present with erythematous lesions from ant stings or manual scratching.⁵ None of these signs or symptoms were seen in our patient. Some investigators have suggested that the barber ant is attracted to the hair of individuals with seborrheic dermatitis,¹ but our patient had no medical history of seborrheic dermatitis. Most likely, ants are attracted to excess sebum on the scalp in select individuals in their search for food and cause localized hair destruction.

Localized hair loss, as depicted in our case, should warrant a thorough evaluation for alopecia areata, trichotillomania, and tinea capitis.⁹ Alopecia areata should be considered in individuals with multiple focal patches of hair loss that have a positive hair pull test from peripheral sites of active lesions. Tinea capitis usually has localized sites of hair loss with underlying scaling, crusting, pruritus, erythema, and discharge from lesions, with positive potassium hydroxide preparations or fungal cultures. Trichotillomania typically presents with a spared peripheral fringe of hair. Remaining hairs may be thick and hyperpigmented as a response to repeated pulling, and biopsy often demonstrates fracture or degeneration of the hair shaft. A psychiatric evaluation may be warranted in cases of trichotillomania. Other cases of arthropod-induced hair loss include tick bite alopecia^10,11 and hair loss induced by numerous honeybee stings,¹² and these diagnoses should be suspected in patients with a history of ants on their pillow or in those from endemic areas.

No specific treatment is indicated in cases of 
ant-induced alopecia because hair usually regrows to its normal length without intervention.

To the Editor:

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS) is a superficial blistering disorder mediated by Staphylococcus aureus exfoliative toxins (ETs).¹ It is rare in adults, but when diagnosed, it is often associated with renal failure, immunodeficiency, or overwhelming staphylococcal infection.² We present a unique case of a pregnant woman with chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) who developed SSSS.

A 21-year-old gravida 3, para 2, aborta 0pregnant woman (29 weeks’ gestation) with a history of chronic AD who was hospitalized with facial edema, purulent ocular discharge, and substantial worsening of AD presented for a dermatology consultation. Her AD was previously managed with topical steroids but had been complicated by multiple methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. On physical examination, she had substantial periorbital edema with purulent discharge from both eyes (Figure 1A), perioral crust with radial fissures (Figure 2A), and mild generalized facial swelling and desquamation (Figure 3). However, the oral cavity was not involved. She had diffuse desquamation in addition to chronic lichenified plaques of the arms, legs, and trunk and SSSS was clinically diagnosed. Cultures of conjunctival discharge were positive for MRSA. The patient was treated with intravenous vancomycin and had a full recovery (Figures 1B and 2B). She delivered a healthy newborn with Apgar scores of 9 and 9 at 1 and 5 minutes, respectively, at 36 weeks and 6 days’ gestation by cesarean delivery; however, her postoperative care was complicated by preeclampsia, which was treated with magnesium sulfate. The newborn showed no evidence of infection or blistering at birth or during the hospital stay.

Figure 1. Periorbital edema with purulent ocular discharge before (A) and after (B) treatment.			Figure 2. Perioral desquamation and radial fissuring before (A) and after (B) treatment.

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a superficial blistering disorder that ranges in severity from localized blisters to generalized exfoliation.¹ Exfoliative toxin is the major virulence factor responsible for SSSS. Exfoliative toxin is a serine protease that targets desmoglein 1, resulting in intraepidermal separation of keratinocytes.³ Two serologically distinct exfoliative toxins—ETA and ETB—have been associated with human disease.⁴ Although ETA is encoded on a phage genome, ETB is encoded on a large plasmid.³ Initially it was thought that only strains of S aureus carrying lytic group II phages were responsible for ET production; however, it is now accepted that all phage groups are capable of producing ET and causing SSSS.¹

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is most common in infants and children and rare in adults. Although it has been occasionally described in otherwise healthy adults,⁵ it is most often diagnosed in patients with renal failure (decreased toxin excretion), immunodeficiency (lack of antibodies against toxins), and overwhelming staphylococcal infection (excessive toxin).² Mortality in treated children is low, but it can reach almost 60% in adults¹; therefore, defining risk factors that may aid in early diagnosis are exceedingly important.

We believe that both our patient’s history of 
AD and her pregnancy contributed to the development of SSSS. The patient had a history of multiple MRSA infections prior to this hospitalization, suggesting MRSA colonization, which is a common complication of AD with more than 75% of 
AD patients colonized with S aureus.⁶ Additionally, 
S aureus superantigen stimulation can result in the loss of regulatory T cells’ natural immunosuppression. Regulatory T cells are remarkably increased in patients with AD; therefore, the inflammatory response to S aureus is likely amplified in an atopic patient, as there is more native immunosuppressive capacity to be affected.⁴ Furthermore, we believe that pregnancy and its associated immunomodulation is a risk for SSSS. Immune changes in pregnancy are still not well understood; however, it is known that there are alterations to allow symbiosis between the mother and fetus. Anti-ET IgG antibodies are thought to play an important role in protecting against SSSS. Historically, studies on serum immunoglobulin levels during pregnancy have had conflicting findings. They have shown that IgG is either unchanged or decreased, while IgA, IgE, and IgM can be increased, decreased, or unchanged.⁷ In a study of immunoglobulins in pregnancy, Bahna et al⁷ showed that IgE is unchanged over the course of pregnancy, but their analysis did not address IgG levels. If IgG levels in fact decrease during pregnancy, the mother could be at risk for SSSS due to her inability to neutralize toxins. Even if total IgG levels remain unchanged, it is possible that specific antitoxin antibodies are decreased. Additionally, there is a documented suppression and alteration in T-cell response to prevent fetal rejection during pregnancy.⁸ Adult SSSS has been documented several times in human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients, suggesting there may be some association between T-cell suppression and SSSS susceptibility.⁹ Interestingly, pregnancy, similar to AD, results in an increase in immunosuppressive T cells,¹⁰ which, if deactivated by superantigens, could potentially contribute to an increased inflammatory response. All of these immune system alterations likely leave the mother vulnerable to toxin-mediated events such as SSSS.

We believe this case highlights the importance of considering SSSS in both atopic and pregnant patients with desquamating eruptions. In the case of pregnant patients, it is important to consider the risks and benefits of any medical treatments for both the mother and infant. Vancomycin is a pregnancy category B drug and was chosen for its known effectiveness and safety in pregnancy. One study compared 10 babies with mothers who were treated with vancomycin during the second and third trimesters for MRSA to 20 babies with mothers who did not receive vancomycin and did not find an increased risk for sensorineural hearing loss or nephrotoxicity.¹¹ There is no known increased risk for preeclampsia with vancomycin, but some studies have suggested that maternal infection independently increases the risk for preeclampsia.¹² Other treatment options were not as safe as vancomycin in this case: doxycycline is contraindicated (pregnancy category D) due to the potential for staining of deciduous teeth and skeletal growth impairment, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is a pregnancy category D drug during the third trimester due to the risk of kernicterus, and linezolid is a pregnancy category C drug.¹³

To the Editor:

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS) is a superficial blistering disorder mediated by Staphylococcus aureus exfoliative toxins (ETs).¹ It is rare in adults, but when diagnosed, it is often associated with renal failure, immunodeficiency, or overwhelming staphylococcal infection.² We present a unique case of a pregnant woman with chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) who developed SSSS.

A 21-year-old gravida 3, para 2, aborta 0pregnant woman (29 weeks’ gestation) with a history of chronic AD who was hospitalized with facial edema, purulent ocular discharge, and substantial worsening of AD presented for a dermatology consultation. Her AD was previously managed with topical steroids but had been complicated by multiple methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. On physical examination, she had substantial periorbital edema with purulent discharge from both eyes (Figure 1A), perioral crust with radial fissures (Figure 2A), and mild generalized facial swelling and desquamation (Figure 3). However, the oral cavity was not involved. She had diffuse desquamation in addition to chronic lichenified plaques of the arms, legs, and trunk and SSSS was clinically diagnosed. Cultures of conjunctival discharge were positive for MRSA. The patient was treated with intravenous vancomycin and had a full recovery (Figures 1B and 2B). She delivered a healthy newborn with Apgar scores of 9 and 9 at 1 and 5 minutes, respectively, at 36 weeks and 6 days’ gestation by cesarean delivery; however, her postoperative care was complicated by preeclampsia, which was treated with magnesium sulfate. The newborn showed no evidence of infection or blistering at birth or during the hospital stay.

Figure 1. Periorbital edema with purulent ocular discharge before (A) and after (B) treatment.			Figure 2. Perioral desquamation and radial fissuring before (A) and after (B) treatment.

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a superficial blistering disorder that ranges in severity from localized blisters to generalized exfoliation.¹ Exfoliative toxin is the major virulence factor responsible for SSSS. Exfoliative toxin is a serine protease that targets desmoglein 1, resulting in intraepidermal separation of keratinocytes.³ Two serologically distinct exfoliative toxins—ETA and ETB—have been associated with human disease.⁴ Although ETA is encoded on a phage genome, ETB is encoded on a large plasmid.³ Initially it was thought that only strains of S aureus carrying lytic group II phages were responsible for ET production; however, it is now accepted that all phage groups are capable of producing ET and causing SSSS.¹

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is most common in infants and children and rare in adults. Although it has been occasionally described in otherwise healthy adults,⁵ it is most often diagnosed in patients with renal failure (decreased toxin excretion), immunodeficiency (lack of antibodies against toxins), and overwhelming staphylococcal infection (excessive toxin).² Mortality in treated children is low, but it can reach almost 60% in adults¹; therefore, defining risk factors that may aid in early diagnosis are exceedingly important.

We believe that both our patient’s history of 
AD and her pregnancy contributed to the development of SSSS. The patient had a history of multiple MRSA infections prior to this hospitalization, suggesting MRSA colonization, which is a common complication of AD with more than 75% of 
AD patients colonized with S aureus.⁶ Additionally, 
S aureus superantigen stimulation can result in the loss of regulatory T cells’ natural immunosuppression. Regulatory T cells are remarkably increased in patients with AD; therefore, the inflammatory response to S aureus is likely amplified in an atopic patient, as there is more native immunosuppressive capacity to be affected.⁴ Furthermore, we believe that pregnancy and its associated immunomodulation is a risk for SSSS. Immune changes in pregnancy are still not well understood; however, it is known that there are alterations to allow symbiosis between the mother and fetus. Anti-ET IgG antibodies are thought to play an important role in protecting against SSSS. Historically, studies on serum immunoglobulin levels during pregnancy have had conflicting findings. They have shown that IgG is either unchanged or decreased, while IgA, IgE, and IgM can be increased, decreased, or unchanged.⁷ In a study of immunoglobulins in pregnancy, Bahna et al⁷ showed that IgE is unchanged over the course of pregnancy, but their analysis did not address IgG levels. If IgG levels in fact decrease during pregnancy, the mother could be at risk for SSSS due to her inability to neutralize toxins. Even if total IgG levels remain unchanged, it is possible that specific antitoxin antibodies are decreased. Additionally, there is a documented suppression and alteration in T-cell response to prevent fetal rejection during pregnancy.⁸ Adult SSSS has been documented several times in human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients, suggesting there may be some association between T-cell suppression and SSSS susceptibility.⁹ Interestingly, pregnancy, similar to AD, results in an increase in immunosuppressive T cells,¹⁰ which, if deactivated by superantigens, could potentially contribute to an increased inflammatory response. All of these immune system alterations likely leave the mother vulnerable to toxin-mediated events such as SSSS.

We believe this case highlights the importance of considering SSSS in both atopic and pregnant patients with desquamating eruptions. In the case of pregnant patients, it is important to consider the risks and benefits of any medical treatments for both the mother and infant. Vancomycin is a pregnancy category B drug and was chosen for its known effectiveness and safety in pregnancy. One study compared 10 babies with mothers who were treated with vancomycin during the second and third trimesters for MRSA to 20 babies with mothers who did not receive vancomycin and did not find an increased risk for sensorineural hearing loss or nephrotoxicity.¹¹ There is no known increased risk for preeclampsia with vancomycin, but some studies have suggested that maternal infection independently increases the risk for preeclampsia.¹² Other treatment options were not as safe as vancomycin in this case: doxycycline is contraindicated (pregnancy category D) due to the potential for staining of deciduous teeth and skeletal growth impairment, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is a pregnancy category D drug during the third trimester due to the risk of kernicterus, and linezolid is a pregnancy category C drug.¹³

To the Editor:

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS) is a superficial blistering disorder mediated by Staphylococcus aureus exfoliative toxins (ETs).¹ It is rare in adults, but when diagnosed, it is often associated with renal failure, immunodeficiency, or overwhelming staphylococcal infection.² We present a unique case of a pregnant woman with chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) who developed SSSS.

A 21-year-old gravida 3, para 2, aborta 0pregnant woman (29 weeks’ gestation) with a history of chronic AD who was hospitalized with facial edema, purulent ocular discharge, and substantial worsening of AD presented for a dermatology consultation. Her AD was previously managed with topical steroids but had been complicated by multiple methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. On physical examination, she had substantial periorbital edema with purulent discharge from both eyes (Figure 1A), perioral crust with radial fissures (Figure 2A), and mild generalized facial swelling and desquamation (Figure 3). However, the oral cavity was not involved. She had diffuse desquamation in addition to chronic lichenified plaques of the arms, legs, and trunk and SSSS was clinically diagnosed. Cultures of conjunctival discharge were positive for MRSA. The patient was treated with intravenous vancomycin and had a full recovery (Figures 1B and 2B). She delivered a healthy newborn with Apgar scores of 9 and 9 at 1 and 5 minutes, respectively, at 36 weeks and 6 days’ gestation by cesarean delivery; however, her postoperative care was complicated by preeclampsia, which was treated with magnesium sulfate. The newborn showed no evidence of infection or blistering at birth or during the hospital stay.

Figure 1. Periorbital edema with purulent ocular discharge before (A) and after (B) treatment.			Figure 2. Perioral desquamation and radial fissuring before (A) and after (B) treatment.

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a superficial blistering disorder that ranges in severity from localized blisters to generalized exfoliation.¹ Exfoliative toxin is the major virulence factor responsible for SSSS. Exfoliative toxin is a serine protease that targets desmoglein 1, resulting in intraepidermal separation of keratinocytes.³ Two serologically distinct exfoliative toxins—ETA and ETB—have been associated with human disease.⁴ Although ETA is encoded on a phage genome, ETB is encoded on a large plasmid.³ Initially it was thought that only strains of S aureus carrying lytic group II phages were responsible for ET production; however, it is now accepted that all phage groups are capable of producing ET and causing SSSS.¹

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is most common in infants and children and rare in adults. Although it has been occasionally described in otherwise healthy adults,⁵ it is most often diagnosed in patients with renal failure (decreased toxin excretion), immunodeficiency (lack of antibodies against toxins), and overwhelming staphylococcal infection (excessive toxin).² Mortality in treated children is low, but it can reach almost 60% in adults¹; therefore, defining risk factors that may aid in early diagnosis are exceedingly important.

We believe that both our patient’s history of 
AD and her pregnancy contributed to the development of SSSS. The patient had a history of multiple MRSA infections prior to this hospitalization, suggesting MRSA colonization, which is a common complication of AD with more than 75% of 
AD patients colonized with S aureus.⁶ Additionally, 
S aureus superantigen stimulation can result in the loss of regulatory T cells’ natural immunosuppression. Regulatory T cells are remarkably increased in patients with AD; therefore, the inflammatory response to S aureus is likely amplified in an atopic patient, as there is more native immunosuppressive capacity to be affected.⁴ Furthermore, we believe that pregnancy and its associated immunomodulation is a risk for SSSS. Immune changes in pregnancy are still not well understood; however, it is known that there are alterations to allow symbiosis between the mother and fetus. Anti-ET IgG antibodies are thought to play an important role in protecting against SSSS. Historically, studies on serum immunoglobulin levels during pregnancy have had conflicting findings. They have shown that IgG is either unchanged or decreased, while IgA, IgE, and IgM can be increased, decreased, or unchanged.⁷ In a study of immunoglobulins in pregnancy, Bahna et al⁷ showed that IgE is unchanged over the course of pregnancy, but their analysis did not address IgG levels. If IgG levels in fact decrease during pregnancy, the mother could be at risk for SSSS due to her inability to neutralize toxins. Even if total IgG levels remain unchanged, it is possible that specific antitoxin antibodies are decreased. Additionally, there is a documented suppression and alteration in T-cell response to prevent fetal rejection during pregnancy.⁸ Adult SSSS has been documented several times in human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients, suggesting there may be some association between T-cell suppression and SSSS susceptibility.⁹ Interestingly, pregnancy, similar to AD, results in an increase in immunosuppressive T cells,¹⁰ which, if deactivated by superantigens, could potentially contribute to an increased inflammatory response. All of these immune system alterations likely leave the mother vulnerable to toxin-mediated events such as SSSS.

We believe this case highlights the importance of considering SSSS in both atopic and pregnant patients with desquamating eruptions. In the case of pregnant patients, it is important to consider the risks and benefits of any medical treatments for both the mother and infant. Vancomycin is a pregnancy category B drug and was chosen for its known effectiveness and safety in pregnancy. One study compared 10 babies with mothers who were treated with vancomycin during the second and third trimesters for MRSA to 20 babies with mothers who did not receive vancomycin and did not find an increased risk for sensorineural hearing loss or nephrotoxicity.¹¹ There is no known increased risk for preeclampsia with vancomycin, but some studies have suggested that maternal infection independently increases the risk for preeclampsia.¹² Other treatment options were not as safe as vancomycin in this case: doxycycline is contraindicated (pregnancy category D) due to the potential for staining of deciduous teeth and skeletal growth impairment, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is a pregnancy category D drug during the third trimester due to the risk of kernicterus, and linezolid is a pregnancy category C drug.¹³

To the Editor:

Nevus of Ota, also known as oculodermal melanocytosis or nevus fuscoceruleus ophthalmomaxillaris, is a hamartoma of dermal melanocytes that is characterized by a unilateral or bilateral blue-brown, speckled patch usually involving the malar, periorbital, temple, and/or forehead regions of the face.¹ It also may affect the sclera, conjunctiva, retinas, corneas, ocular muscles, periosteum, and retrobulbar fat corresponding to the distribution of the ophthalmic (V1) and maxillary (V2) divisions of the trigeminal nerve.

Examination of the oral cavity in the setting of nevus of Ota is imperative, as it can present as a developmental lesion of the oral mucosa.² Involvement of the hard palate is rare but has been observed.^3-5 We present a case of blue-pigmented macules in the upper right periorbital region with involvement of the hard palate that were diagnosed as nevus of Ota.

A 34-year-old Indian man presented with progressive, asymptomatic, ashy blue macules in the upper right periorbital region that had been present since birth. The pigmented macules had gradually increased to cover the infraorbital, maxillary, and temporal regions of the right side of the face with involvement of the conjunctiva and sclera (Figure 1).

Examination of the mucous membrane of the hard palate revealed several blue-pigmented macules with ill-defined borders merging into the surrounding mucosa (Figure 2). Ocular tension was normal and slit-lamp examination of the right eye did not reveal any abnormalities. Hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections prepared from a biopsy of the oral mucosa on the hard palate showed numerous elongated, fusiform, dendritic melanocytes in small aggregates scattered widely between the bundles of collagen in the papillary to midreticular dermis (Figure 3). On histology, the melanocytes stained positive for S100 protein (Figure 4) and human melanoma black 45. No evidence indicative of malignancy was found. The stratified squamous epithelium was unremarkable except for the presence of mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate in the subepithelial tissue. A diagnosis of nevus of Ota with involvement of the hard palate was made.

Cutaneous macules may enlarge slowly, become deeper in color, and persist throughout the patient’s life. Its pathogenesis is not known, but it is speculated that nevus of Ota is caused by faulty migration of melanoblasts from the neural crest to the skin. Nevus of Ito also is a dermal melanocytic aberration that exclusively affects the shoulders and often occurs in association with nevus of Ota.¹

Ashy or slate-blue pigmentation in individuals with skin of color (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type V) is uncommon, as this discoloration usually is seen in fair-skinned individuals (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type II).⁶ Occasionally, blue-pigmented lesions of the oral mucosa may be seen in nevus of Ota (as in our patient) and are considered developmental; therefore, examination of the oral cavity is suggested when patients present with blue-pigmented lesions in the facial region. Although this finding is rare, several other cases of blue-pigmented macules on the palatal mucosa have been reported.^3-5

The diagnosis of nevus of Ota should be confirmed by histopathology and can be classified into 5 types according to the distribution of melanocytes, including (1) superficial, (2) superficial dominant, (3) diffuse, (4) deep dominant, and (5) deep.⁷ The diagnosis of nevus of Ota can be made based on its characteristic morphology; however, nevus of 
Ito, Mongolian spots, melanoma, fixed drug eruptions,⁸ and lichen planus pigmantosus should also 
be ruled out.⁹

Nevus of Ota is a well-established entity that should be considered when ashy or slate-blue pigmentation is noted along the branches of the ophthalmic and maxillary divisions of the trigeminal nerve. Diagnosis is largely clinical, but should be confirmed on histopathology and immunohistochemistry. Possible concomitant involvement of the buccal mucosa and/or the hard palate warrants a thorough examination of the oral cavity in the setting of nevus of Ota to identify oral mucosal lesions. Histopathology is essential to confirm its status as well as to exclude melanoma.

To the Editor:

Nevus of Ota, also known as oculodermal melanocytosis or nevus fuscoceruleus ophthalmomaxillaris, is a hamartoma of dermal melanocytes that is characterized by a unilateral or bilateral blue-brown, speckled patch usually involving the malar, periorbital, temple, and/or forehead regions of the face.¹ It also may affect the sclera, conjunctiva, retinas, corneas, ocular muscles, periosteum, and retrobulbar fat corresponding to the distribution of the ophthalmic (V1) and maxillary (V2) divisions of the trigeminal nerve.

Examination of the oral cavity in the setting of nevus of Ota is imperative, as it can present as a developmental lesion of the oral mucosa.² Involvement of the hard palate is rare but has been observed.^3-5 We present a case of blue-pigmented macules in the upper right periorbital region with involvement of the hard palate that were diagnosed as nevus of Ota.

A 34-year-old Indian man presented with progressive, asymptomatic, ashy blue macules in the upper right periorbital region that had been present since birth. The pigmented macules had gradually increased to cover the infraorbital, maxillary, and temporal regions of the right side of the face with involvement of the conjunctiva and sclera (Figure 1).

Examination of the mucous membrane of the hard palate revealed several blue-pigmented macules with ill-defined borders merging into the surrounding mucosa (Figure 2). Ocular tension was normal and slit-lamp examination of the right eye did not reveal any abnormalities. Hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections prepared from a biopsy of the oral mucosa on the hard palate showed numerous elongated, fusiform, dendritic melanocytes in small aggregates scattered widely between the bundles of collagen in the papillary to midreticular dermis (Figure 3). On histology, the melanocytes stained positive for S100 protein (Figure 4) and human melanoma black 45. No evidence indicative of malignancy was found. The stratified squamous epithelium was unremarkable except for the presence of mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate in the subepithelial tissue. A diagnosis of nevus of Ota with involvement of the hard palate was made.

Cutaneous macules may enlarge slowly, become deeper in color, and persist throughout the patient’s life. Its pathogenesis is not known, but it is speculated that nevus of Ota is caused by faulty migration of melanoblasts from the neural crest to the skin. Nevus of Ito also is a dermal melanocytic aberration that exclusively affects the shoulders and often occurs in association with nevus of Ota.¹

Ashy or slate-blue pigmentation in individuals with skin of color (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type V) is uncommon, as this discoloration usually is seen in fair-skinned individuals (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type II).⁶ Occasionally, blue-pigmented lesions of the oral mucosa may be seen in nevus of Ota (as in our patient) and are considered developmental; therefore, examination of the oral cavity is suggested when patients present with blue-pigmented lesions in the facial region. Although this finding is rare, several other cases of blue-pigmented macules on the palatal mucosa have been reported.^3-5

The diagnosis of nevus of Ota should be confirmed by histopathology and can be classified into 5 types according to the distribution of melanocytes, including (1) superficial, (2) superficial dominant, (3) diffuse, (4) deep dominant, and (5) deep.⁷ The diagnosis of nevus of Ota can be made based on its characteristic morphology; however, nevus of 
Ito, Mongolian spots, melanoma, fixed drug eruptions,⁸ and lichen planus pigmantosus should also 
be ruled out.⁹

Nevus of Ota is a well-established entity that should be considered when ashy or slate-blue pigmentation is noted along the branches of the ophthalmic and maxillary divisions of the trigeminal nerve. Diagnosis is largely clinical, but should be confirmed on histopathology and immunohistochemistry. Possible concomitant involvement of the buccal mucosa and/or the hard palate warrants a thorough examination of the oral cavity in the setting of nevus of Ota to identify oral mucosal lesions. Histopathology is essential to confirm its status as well as to exclude melanoma.

To the Editor:

Nevus of Ota, also known as oculodermal melanocytosis or nevus fuscoceruleus ophthalmomaxillaris, is a hamartoma of dermal melanocytes that is characterized by a unilateral or bilateral blue-brown, speckled patch usually involving the malar, periorbital, temple, and/or forehead regions of the face.¹ It also may affect the sclera, conjunctiva, retinas, corneas, ocular muscles, periosteum, and retrobulbar fat corresponding to the distribution of the ophthalmic (V1) and maxillary (V2) divisions of the trigeminal nerve.

Examination of the oral cavity in the setting of nevus of Ota is imperative, as it can present as a developmental lesion of the oral mucosa.² Involvement of the hard palate is rare but has been observed.^3-5 We present a case of blue-pigmented macules in the upper right periorbital region with involvement of the hard palate that were diagnosed as nevus of Ota.

A 34-year-old Indian man presented with progressive, asymptomatic, ashy blue macules in the upper right periorbital region that had been present since birth. The pigmented macules had gradually increased to cover the infraorbital, maxillary, and temporal regions of the right side of the face with involvement of the conjunctiva and sclera (Figure 1).

Examination of the mucous membrane of the hard palate revealed several blue-pigmented macules with ill-defined borders merging into the surrounding mucosa (Figure 2). Ocular tension was normal and slit-lamp examination of the right eye did not reveal any abnormalities. Hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections prepared from a biopsy of the oral mucosa on the hard palate showed numerous elongated, fusiform, dendritic melanocytes in small aggregates scattered widely between the bundles of collagen in the papillary to midreticular dermis (Figure 3). On histology, the melanocytes stained positive for S100 protein (Figure 4) and human melanoma black 45. No evidence indicative of malignancy was found. The stratified squamous epithelium was unremarkable except for the presence of mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate in the subepithelial tissue. A diagnosis of nevus of Ota with involvement of the hard palate was made.

Cutaneous macules may enlarge slowly, become deeper in color, and persist throughout the patient’s life. Its pathogenesis is not known, but it is speculated that nevus of Ota is caused by faulty migration of melanoblasts from the neural crest to the skin. Nevus of Ito also is a dermal melanocytic aberration that exclusively affects the shoulders and often occurs in association with nevus of Ota.¹

Ashy or slate-blue pigmentation in individuals with skin of color (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type V) is uncommon, as this discoloration usually is seen in fair-skinned individuals (eg, Fitzpatrick skin type II).⁶ Occasionally, blue-pigmented lesions of the oral mucosa may be seen in nevus of Ota (as in our patient) and are considered developmental; therefore, examination of the oral cavity is suggested when patients present with blue-pigmented lesions in the facial region. Although this finding is rare, several other cases of blue-pigmented macules on the palatal mucosa have been reported.^3-5

The diagnosis of nevus of Ota should be confirmed by histopathology and can be classified into 5 types according to the distribution of melanocytes, including (1) superficial, (2) superficial dominant, (3) diffuse, (4) deep dominant, and (5) deep.⁷ The diagnosis of nevus of Ota can be made based on its characteristic morphology; however, nevus of 
Ito, Mongolian spots, melanoma, fixed drug eruptions,⁸ and lichen planus pigmantosus should also 
be ruled out.⁹

Nevus of Ota is a well-established entity that should be considered when ashy or slate-blue pigmentation is noted along the branches of the ophthalmic and maxillary divisions of the trigeminal nerve. Diagnosis is largely clinical, but should be confirmed on histopathology and immunohistochemistry. Possible concomitant involvement of the buccal mucosa and/or the hard palate warrants a thorough examination of the oral cavity in the setting of nevus of Ota to identify oral mucosal lesions. Histopathology is essential to confirm its status as well as to exclude melanoma.

To the Editor:

Contact sensitivity to drugs that are systemically administered can occur among health care workers.¹ We report the case of a 28-year-old nurse who developed eczema on the dorsal aspect of the hand (Figure 1A) and the face (Figure 1B) in the workplace. The nurse was working in the hematology department where she usually handled and administered antibiotics such as imipenem, ertapenem, piperacillin, vancomycin, anidulafungin, teicoplanin, and ciprofloxacin. She was moved to a different department where she did not have contact with the suspicious drugs and the dermatitis completely resolved.

One month after the resolution of the eczema she was referred to our allergy department for an allergological evaluation. A dermatologic evaluation was made and a skin biopsy was performed from a lesional area of the left hand. The patient underwent delayed skin test and patch tests with many β-lactam compounds including penicilloyl polylysine, minor determinant mixture, penicillin G, penicillin V, ampicillin, amoxicillin, bacampicillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin and ticarcillin, imipenem-cilastatin, aztreonam, meropenem, ertapenem, and cephalosporins (eg, cephalexin, cefaclor, cefalotin, cefadroxil, cephradine, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, cefixime, cefoperazone, cefamandole, ceftazidime, cefotaxime). Undiluted solutions of commercial drugs (parenteral drugs when available were used) were used for skin prick test, and if negative, they were tested intradermally as described by Schiavino et al.² The concentrations used for the skin test and for the patch test are reported in the Table. Histamine (10 mg/mL) and saline were employed as positive and negative controls, respectively. Immediate reactions of at least 3 mm greater in diameter compared to the control for the skin prick test and 5 mm greater for intradermal tests were considered positive. Immediate-type skin tests were read after 20 minutes and also after 48 hours should any delayed reaction occur. An infiltrated erythema with a diameter greater than 5 mm was considered a delayed positive reaction.

Patch tests were applied to the interscapular region using acrylate adhesive strips with small plates. They were evaluated at 48 and 72 hours. Positivity was assessed according to the indications of the European Network for Drug Allergy.³ Patch tests were carried out using the same drugs as the skin test. All drugs were mixed in petrolatum at 
25% wt/wt for ampicillin and amoxicillin, 5% for penicillin G, and 20% for the other drugs as recommended by Schiavino et al.² We also performed patch tests with ertapenem in 20 healthy controls.

A skin biopsy from lesional skin showed a perivascular infiltrate of the upper dermis with spongiosis of the lesional area similar to eczema. Patch tests and intradermal tests were positive for ertapenem after 48 hours (Figure 2). Imipenem-cilastatin, ampicillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin, and meropenem showed a positive reaction for patch tests. We concluded that the patient had delayed hypersensitivity to carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem-cilastatin, and meropenem) and semisynthetic penicillins (piperacillin, mezlocillin, and ampicillin).

Drug sensitization in nurses and in health care workers can occur. Natural and semisynthetic penicillin can cause allergic contact dermatitis in health care workers. We report a case of occupational allergy to ertapenem, which is a 1-β-methyl-carbapenem that is administered as a single agent. It is highly active in vitro against bacteria that are generally associated with community-acquired and mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections.⁴ Occupational contact allergy to other carbapenems such as meropenem also was reported.⁵ The contact sensitization potential of imipenem has been confirmed in the guinea pig.⁶ Carbapenems have a bicyclic nucleus composed by a β-lactam ring with an associated 5-membered ring. In our patient, patch tests for ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem were positive. Although the cross-reactivity between imipenem and penicillin has been demonstrated,² data on the cross-reactivity between the carbapenems are not strong. Bauer et al⁷ reported a case of an allergy to imipenem-cilastatin that tolerated treatment with meropenem, but our case showed a complete cross-reactivity between carbapenems. Patch tests for ampicillin, mezlocillin, and piperacillin also were positive; therefore, it can be hypothesized that in our patient, the β-lactam ring was the main epitope recognized by T lymphocytes. Gielen and Goossens¹ reported in a study on work-related dermatitis that the most common sensitizers were antibiotics such as penicillins, cephalosporins, and aminoglycosides.

Health care workers should protect their hands with gloves during the preparation of drugs because they have the risk for developing an occupational contact allergy. Detailed allergological and dermatological evaluation is mandatory to confirm or exclude occupational contact allergy.

To the Editor:

Contact sensitivity to drugs that are systemically administered can occur among health care workers.¹ We report the case of a 28-year-old nurse who developed eczema on the dorsal aspect of the hand (Figure 1A) and the face (Figure 1B) in the workplace. The nurse was working in the hematology department where she usually handled and administered antibiotics such as imipenem, ertapenem, piperacillin, vancomycin, anidulafungin, teicoplanin, and ciprofloxacin. She was moved to a different department where she did not have contact with the suspicious drugs and the dermatitis completely resolved.

One month after the resolution of the eczema she was referred to our allergy department for an allergological evaluation. A dermatologic evaluation was made and a skin biopsy was performed from a lesional area of the left hand. The patient underwent delayed skin test and patch tests with many β-lactam compounds including penicilloyl polylysine, minor determinant mixture, penicillin G, penicillin V, ampicillin, amoxicillin, bacampicillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin and ticarcillin, imipenem-cilastatin, aztreonam, meropenem, ertapenem, and cephalosporins (eg, cephalexin, cefaclor, cefalotin, cefadroxil, cephradine, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, cefixime, cefoperazone, cefamandole, ceftazidime, cefotaxime). Undiluted solutions of commercial drugs (parenteral drugs when available were used) were used for skin prick test, and if negative, they were tested intradermally as described by Schiavino et al.² The concentrations used for the skin test and for the patch test are reported in the Table. Histamine (10 mg/mL) and saline were employed as positive and negative controls, respectively. Immediate reactions of at least 3 mm greater in diameter compared to the control for the skin prick test and 5 mm greater for intradermal tests were considered positive. Immediate-type skin tests were read after 20 minutes and also after 48 hours should any delayed reaction occur. An infiltrated erythema with a diameter greater than 5 mm was considered a delayed positive reaction.

Patch tests were applied to the interscapular region using acrylate adhesive strips with small plates. They were evaluated at 48 and 72 hours. Positivity was assessed according to the indications of the European Network for Drug Allergy.³ Patch tests were carried out using the same drugs as the skin test. All drugs were mixed in petrolatum at 
25% wt/wt for ampicillin and amoxicillin, 5% for penicillin G, and 20% for the other drugs as recommended by Schiavino et al.² We also performed patch tests with ertapenem in 20 healthy controls.

A skin biopsy from lesional skin showed a perivascular infiltrate of the upper dermis with spongiosis of the lesional area similar to eczema. Patch tests and intradermal tests were positive for ertapenem after 48 hours (Figure 2). Imipenem-cilastatin, ampicillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin, and meropenem showed a positive reaction for patch tests. We concluded that the patient had delayed hypersensitivity to carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem-cilastatin, and meropenem) and semisynthetic penicillins (piperacillin, mezlocillin, and ampicillin).

Drug sensitization in nurses and in health care workers can occur. Natural and semisynthetic penicillin can cause allergic contact dermatitis in health care workers. We report a case of occupational allergy to ertapenem, which is a 1-β-methyl-carbapenem that is administered as a single agent. It is highly active in vitro against bacteria that are generally associated with community-acquired and mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections.⁴ Occupational contact allergy to other carbapenems such as meropenem also was reported.⁵ The contact sensitization potential of imipenem has been confirmed in the guinea pig.⁶ Carbapenems have a bicyclic nucleus composed by a β-lactam ring with an associated 5-membered ring. In our patient, patch tests for ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem were positive. Although the cross-reactivity between imipenem and penicillin has been demonstrated,² data on the cross-reactivity between the carbapenems are not strong. Bauer et al⁷ reported a case of an allergy to imipenem-cilastatin that tolerated treatment with meropenem, but our case showed a complete cross-reactivity between carbapenems. Patch tests for ampicillin, mezlocillin, and piperacillin also were positive; therefore, it can be hypothesized that in our patient, the β-lactam ring was the main epitope recognized by T lymphocytes. Gielen and Goossens¹ reported in a study on work-related dermatitis that the most common sensitizers were antibiotics such as penicillins, cephalosporins, and aminoglycosides.

Health care workers should protect their hands with gloves during the preparation of drugs because they have the risk for developing an occupational contact allergy. Detailed allergological and dermatological evaluation is mandatory to confirm or exclude occupational contact allergy.

To the Editor:

Contact sensitivity to drugs that are systemically administered can occur among health care workers.¹ We report the case of a 28-year-old nurse who developed eczema on the dorsal aspect of the hand (Figure 1A) and the face (Figure 1B) in the workplace. The nurse was working in the hematology department where she usually handled and administered antibiotics such as imipenem, ertapenem, piperacillin, vancomycin, anidulafungin, teicoplanin, and ciprofloxacin. She was moved to a different department where she did not have contact with the suspicious drugs and the dermatitis completely resolved.

One month after the resolution of the eczema she was referred to our allergy department for an allergological evaluation. A dermatologic evaluation was made and a skin biopsy was performed from a lesional area of the left hand. The patient underwent delayed skin test and patch tests with many β-lactam compounds including penicilloyl polylysine, minor determinant mixture, penicillin G, penicillin V, ampicillin, amoxicillin, bacampicillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin and ticarcillin, imipenem-cilastatin, aztreonam, meropenem, ertapenem, and cephalosporins (eg, cephalexin, cefaclor, cefalotin, cefadroxil, cephradine, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, cefixime, cefoperazone, cefamandole, ceftazidime, cefotaxime). Undiluted solutions of commercial drugs (parenteral drugs when available were used) were used for skin prick test, and if negative, they were tested intradermally as described by Schiavino et al.² The concentrations used for the skin test and for the patch test are reported in the Table. Histamine (10 mg/mL) and saline were employed as positive and negative controls, respectively. Immediate reactions of at least 3 mm greater in diameter compared to the control for the skin prick test and 5 mm greater for intradermal tests were considered positive. Immediate-type skin tests were read after 20 minutes and also after 48 hours should any delayed reaction occur. An infiltrated erythema with a diameter greater than 5 mm was considered a delayed positive reaction.

Patch tests were applied to the interscapular region using acrylate adhesive strips with small plates. They were evaluated at 48 and 72 hours. Positivity was assessed according to the indications of the European Network for Drug Allergy.³ Patch tests were carried out using the same drugs as the skin test. All drugs were mixed in petrolatum at 
25% wt/wt for ampicillin and amoxicillin, 5% for penicillin G, and 20% for the other drugs as recommended by Schiavino et al.² We also performed patch tests with ertapenem in 20 healthy controls.

A skin biopsy from lesional skin showed a perivascular infiltrate of the upper dermis with spongiosis of the lesional area similar to eczema. Patch tests and intradermal tests were positive for ertapenem after 48 hours (Figure 2). Imipenem-cilastatin, ampicillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin, and meropenem showed a positive reaction for patch tests. We concluded that the patient had delayed hypersensitivity to carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem-cilastatin, and meropenem) and semisynthetic penicillins (piperacillin, mezlocillin, and ampicillin).

Drug sensitization in nurses and in health care workers can occur. Natural and semisynthetic penicillin can cause allergic contact dermatitis in health care workers. We report a case of occupational allergy to ertapenem, which is a 1-β-methyl-carbapenem that is administered as a single agent. It is highly active in vitro against bacteria that are generally associated with community-acquired and mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections.⁴ Occupational contact allergy to other carbapenems such as meropenem also was reported.⁵ The contact sensitization potential of imipenem has been confirmed in the guinea pig.⁶ Carbapenems have a bicyclic nucleus composed by a β-lactam ring with an associated 5-membered ring. In our patient, patch tests for ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem were positive. Although the cross-reactivity between imipenem and penicillin has been demonstrated,² data on the cross-reactivity between the carbapenems are not strong. Bauer et al⁷ reported a case of an allergy to imipenem-cilastatin that tolerated treatment with meropenem, but our case showed a complete cross-reactivity between carbapenems. Patch tests for ampicillin, mezlocillin, and piperacillin also were positive; therefore, it can be hypothesized that in our patient, the β-lactam ring was the main epitope recognized by T lymphocytes. Gielen and Goossens¹ reported in a study on work-related dermatitis that the most common sensitizers were antibiotics such as penicillins, cephalosporins, and aminoglycosides.

Health care workers should protect their hands with gloves during the preparation of drugs because they have the risk for developing an occupational contact allergy. Detailed allergological and dermatological evaluation is mandatory to confirm or exclude occupational contact allergy.