Infectious Diseases

THE DIAGNOSIS: Mpox

Histologic examination demonstrated dense aggregates of necrotic cellular debris composed of karyorrhectic nuclear fragments intermixed with neutrophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes. Eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusions also were observed (Figure 1). The bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial histologic special stains and cultures were negative. Three weeks after the initial visit with dermatology, the patient was admitted to the hospital for worsening symptoms of fever, chills, and painful erythema surrounding the skin lesions. Serology and viral workup revealed a positive mpox polymerase chain reaction test, suggesting a diagnosis of mpox. Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol, the patient was started on oral tecovirimat 200 mg twice daily for 3 weeks and intravenous infusions of cidofovir 345 mg once weekly for 2 weeks. After treatment was initiated, the skin lesions showed rapid improvement (Figure 2), and he was discharged from the hospital after finishing the second dose of cidofovir. Four months after the initial dermatology consultation, the lesions had resolved completely with residual scarring. At that time, the patient had full movement of the right eye.

Mpox virus is a member of the Poxviridae family of zoonotic viruses, which are transmitted from animals to humans. The mpox virus is brick-shaped (rectangular) and has a genome of linear double-stranded DNA encoding 180 proteins.¹ Primates and rodents are the typical host reservoirs for viral circulation of mpox.² Animal-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with mucous membranes, bodily fluids, or tissues of an infected animal. Human-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with infected mucous membranes, bodily fluids, respiratory droplets, and contaminated fomites.²

Symptoms typically occur within 1 week of exposure to the mpox virus. Prodromal symptoms of fever, sore throat, body aches, and headaches last for 3 days.¹ Many patients experience a facial rash that spreads to the arms and legs over a period of 2 to 4 weeks. The rash initially manifests as small papules that progress to painful pustules and vesicles measuring 0.5 to 1.0 cm in diameter.³ The mpox virus is transmitted through these skin lesions until they crust over and re-epithelialize.¹ The case fatality rate for mpox infection remains low (0.18%).⁴

Mpox outbreaks mainly were limited to central and western Africa prior to 2022. From May 17, 2022, through October 6, 2022, 26,384 cases of mpox were reported in the United States.⁵ During this outbreak, immunocompromised patients diagnosed with HIV and men who have sex with men were disproportionately affected.⁵

Due to the similarities between the smallpox virus and other orthopoxviruses, certain smallpox vaccines have been indicated for pre-exposure prophylaxis.⁶ The efficacy of prophylactic vaccination is believed to stem from the production of neutralizing antibodies that are cross-protective against other orthopoxviruses, including mpox.⁷ The 2 vaccines approved in the United States for mpox prophylaxis are JYNNEOS and ACAM2000, which are both live attenuated vaccines. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is indicated for patients at risk for severe disease, including men who have sex with men, individuals diagnosed with HIV or other immunosuppressive disorders, and individuals with recent diagnoses of one or more sexually transmitted diseases.⁸

Most mpox cases resolve within 2 to 4 weeks and only require supportive care (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical steroids, topical anesthetics) to treat pain.⁸ For patients at risk for severe disease, antiviral medications are warranted. Tecovirimat, brincidofovir, and cidofovir are antiviral medications used to treat smallpox that are thought to be effective against mpox.^8,9 Tecovirimat and cidofovir have been shown to be effective against mpox in animal trials, but randomized or nonrandomized trials have not been performed in humans.^9-11 Tecovirimat currently is available for the treatment of severe mpox in patients who meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Investigational New Drug protocol; for these patients, a 200-mg course is administered orally or intravenously every 12 hours for 2 weeks.⁸

THE DIAGNOSIS: Mpox

Histologic examination demonstrated dense aggregates of necrotic cellular debris composed of karyorrhectic nuclear fragments intermixed with neutrophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes. Eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusions also were observed (Figure 1). The bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial histologic special stains and cultures were negative. Three weeks after the initial visit with dermatology, the patient was admitted to the hospital for worsening symptoms of fever, chills, and painful erythema surrounding the skin lesions. Serology and viral workup revealed a positive mpox polymerase chain reaction test, suggesting a diagnosis of mpox. Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol, the patient was started on oral tecovirimat 200 mg twice daily for 3 weeks and intravenous infusions of cidofovir 345 mg once weekly for 2 weeks. After treatment was initiated, the skin lesions showed rapid improvement (Figure 2), and he was discharged from the hospital after finishing the second dose of cidofovir. Four months after the initial dermatology consultation, the lesions had resolved completely with residual scarring. At that time, the patient had full movement of the right eye.

Mpox virus is a member of the Poxviridae family of zoonotic viruses, which are transmitted from animals to humans. The mpox virus is brick-shaped (rectangular) and has a genome of linear double-stranded DNA encoding 180 proteins.¹ Primates and rodents are the typical host reservoirs for viral circulation of mpox.² Animal-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with mucous membranes, bodily fluids, or tissues of an infected animal. Human-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with infected mucous membranes, bodily fluids, respiratory droplets, and contaminated fomites.²

Symptoms typically occur within 1 week of exposure to the mpox virus. Prodromal symptoms of fever, sore throat, body aches, and headaches last for 3 days.¹ Many patients experience a facial rash that spreads to the arms and legs over a period of 2 to 4 weeks. The rash initially manifests as small papules that progress to painful pustules and vesicles measuring 0.5 to 1.0 cm in diameter.³ The mpox virus is transmitted through these skin lesions until they crust over and re-epithelialize.¹ The case fatality rate for mpox infection remains low (0.18%).⁴

Mpox outbreaks mainly were limited to central and western Africa prior to 2022. From May 17, 2022, through October 6, 2022, 26,384 cases of mpox were reported in the United States.⁵ During this outbreak, immunocompromised patients diagnosed with HIV and men who have sex with men were disproportionately affected.⁵

Due to the similarities between the smallpox virus and other orthopoxviruses, certain smallpox vaccines have been indicated for pre-exposure prophylaxis.⁶ The efficacy of prophylactic vaccination is believed to stem from the production of neutralizing antibodies that are cross-protective against other orthopoxviruses, including mpox.⁷ The 2 vaccines approved in the United States for mpox prophylaxis are JYNNEOS and ACAM2000, which are both live attenuated vaccines. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is indicated for patients at risk for severe disease, including men who have sex with men, individuals diagnosed with HIV or other immunosuppressive disorders, and individuals with recent diagnoses of one or more sexually transmitted diseases.⁸

Most mpox cases resolve within 2 to 4 weeks and only require supportive care (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical steroids, topical anesthetics) to treat pain.⁸ For patients at risk for severe disease, antiviral medications are warranted. Tecovirimat, brincidofovir, and cidofovir are antiviral medications used to treat smallpox that are thought to be effective against mpox.^8,9 Tecovirimat and cidofovir have been shown to be effective against mpox in animal trials, but randomized or nonrandomized trials have not been performed in humans.^9-11 Tecovirimat currently is available for the treatment of severe mpox in patients who meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Investigational New Drug protocol; for these patients, a 200-mg course is administered orally or intravenously every 12 hours for 2 weeks.⁸

THE DIAGNOSIS: Mpox

Histologic examination demonstrated dense aggregates of necrotic cellular debris composed of karyorrhectic nuclear fragments intermixed with neutrophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes. Eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusions also were observed (Figure 1). The bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial histologic special stains and cultures were negative. Three weeks after the initial visit with dermatology, the patient was admitted to the hospital for worsening symptoms of fever, chills, and painful erythema surrounding the skin lesions. Serology and viral workup revealed a positive mpox polymerase chain reaction test, suggesting a diagnosis of mpox. Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol, the patient was started on oral tecovirimat 200 mg twice daily for 3 weeks and intravenous infusions of cidofovir 345 mg once weekly for 2 weeks. After treatment was initiated, the skin lesions showed rapid improvement (Figure 2), and he was discharged from the hospital after finishing the second dose of cidofovir. Four months after the initial dermatology consultation, the lesions had resolved completely with residual scarring. At that time, the patient had full movement of the right eye.

Mpox virus is a member of the Poxviridae family of zoonotic viruses, which are transmitted from animals to humans. The mpox virus is brick-shaped (rectangular) and has a genome of linear double-stranded DNA encoding 180 proteins.¹ Primates and rodents are the typical host reservoirs for viral circulation of mpox.² Animal-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with mucous membranes, bodily fluids, or tissues of an infected animal. Human-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with infected mucous membranes, bodily fluids, respiratory droplets, and contaminated fomites.²

Symptoms typically occur within 1 week of exposure to the mpox virus. Prodromal symptoms of fever, sore throat, body aches, and headaches last for 3 days.¹ Many patients experience a facial rash that spreads to the arms and legs over a period of 2 to 4 weeks. The rash initially manifests as small papules that progress to painful pustules and vesicles measuring 0.5 to 1.0 cm in diameter.³ The mpox virus is transmitted through these skin lesions until they crust over and re-epithelialize.¹ The case fatality rate for mpox infection remains low (0.18%).⁴

Mpox outbreaks mainly were limited to central and western Africa prior to 2022. From May 17, 2022, through October 6, 2022, 26,384 cases of mpox were reported in the United States.⁵ During this outbreak, immunocompromised patients diagnosed with HIV and men who have sex with men were disproportionately affected.⁵

Due to the similarities between the smallpox virus and other orthopoxviruses, certain smallpox vaccines have been indicated for pre-exposure prophylaxis.⁶ The efficacy of prophylactic vaccination is believed to stem from the production of neutralizing antibodies that are cross-protective against other orthopoxviruses, including mpox.⁷ The 2 vaccines approved in the United States for mpox prophylaxis are JYNNEOS and ACAM2000, which are both live attenuated vaccines. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is indicated for patients at risk for severe disease, including men who have sex with men, individuals diagnosed with HIV or other immunosuppressive disorders, and individuals with recent diagnoses of one or more sexually transmitted diseases.⁸

Most mpox cases resolve within 2 to 4 weeks and only require supportive care (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical steroids, topical anesthetics) to treat pain.⁸ For patients at risk for severe disease, antiviral medications are warranted. Tecovirimat, brincidofovir, and cidofovir are antiviral medications used to treat smallpox that are thought to be effective against mpox.^8,9 Tecovirimat and cidofovir have been shown to be effective against mpox in animal trials, but randomized or nonrandomized trials have not been performed in humans.^9-11 Tecovirimat currently is available for the treatment of severe mpox in patients who meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Investigational New Drug protocol; for these patients, a 200-mg course is administered orally or intravenously every 12 hours for 2 weeks.⁸

Measles, also known as rubeola, is a highly contagious paramyxovirus that has neared elimination in the United States since 2000 due to widespread adoption of the measles vaccine; however, measles recently has made a comeback, with outbreaks reported in more than 60 countries. In the United States, vaccine hesitancy coupled with decreasing vaccination rates, international travel to endemic areas, and decreased funding and resources for monitoring and immunization programs likely led to a re-emergence of measles cases.^1,2 The resurgence of measles is troubling given its infectiousness and potential severity in at-risk populations. Since measles has a basic reproduction number of 12 to 18 (ie, 1 infected individual will on average infect 12 to 18 others³), it has the capacity to spread quickly. This is why, prior to the development of the measles vaccine in the 1960s, it was responsible for millions of deaths across the globe.

Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, both physicians and the public generally were aware of the signs and symptoms of measles due to its prevalence; however, since there have been so few cases in recent decades, images and descriptions of patients presenting with measles can be found only in textbooks, and many physicians are ill-prepared to diagnose the disease.⁴ In response to the recent surge in measles cases, dermatologists—who often are among the first medical professionals to encounter febrile patients with rashes—must be prepared to bridge this divide. Herein, we review the clinical signs, diagnostic approach, operational precautions, and public health responsibilities that dermatologists must relearn amid the current measles outbreak.

Background

Measles is primarily transmitted via respiratory droplets and may remain airborne for up to 2 hours.⁵ It also can be transmitted through direct contact with secretions such as mucus. Indirect transmission via fomites, while certainly plausible, is thought to be the least effective mechanism of transmission.⁶ Following exposure, the incubation period ranges from 7 to 21 days, during which the virus replicates asymptomatically before causing clinical disease.⁷ Herd immunity for measles requires 93% immunity in the population; public health agencies typically target greater than 95% immunity.⁸ Humans are the only reservoir for the measles virus, making eradication possible.

The road to eradication began with the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 and subsequent development of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1971. As MMR is a live vaccine, 2 doses confer approximately 97% protection.⁹ The first dose is given at 12 to 15 months of age, and the second dose is given at 4 to 6 years of age. Immunity is considered lifelong, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization do not recommend routine measles boosters for individuals who have completed the primary 2-dose series.^10,11

Widespread vaccination led to a dramatic reduction in incidence, with many countries eliminating measles infections.⁷ The United States declared measles eliminated in 2000, with confirmed cases between 2000 and 2020 ranging from 37 to 1282.¹² Vaccination progress stalled in the late 1990s due to vaccine hesitancy resulting from (subsequently debunked) reports of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.¹³ Despite efforts to correct this misinformation, many patients continue to espouse these concerns.

Recognizing Measles: Clinical Presentation

Measles, which most often manifests in childhood but also can occur in adults, follows a distinctive clinical course. The prodromal phase is characterized by high fever, cough, coryza (nasal congestion), and conjunctivitis— conjunctivitis—the 3 “Cs” that serve as early warning signs of the disease. Patients may develop small white macules on the buccal mucosa known as Koplik spots (phonetically the fourth “C”), which appear just before the rash. Three to 5 days after the onset of systemic symptoms, patients will develop a classic morbilliform exanthem. In some cases, the exanthem manifests on the head and neck (Figure 1)—first behind the ears and along the hairline, then spreading caudally to the trunk and extremities. The lesions may become confluent, with patients presenting with diffuse erythema. The exanthem fades over several days to weeks, often accompanied by superficial desquamation.¹⁴

Given the nonspecificity of the early symptoms of measles, a high index of suspicion is needed for patients presenting with a febrile illness and a morbilliform eruption (Figure 2). Consideration of MMR vaccination status, exposure history, and local outbreak patterns can help guide risk stratification and the need for testing. Immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapies for dermatologic conditions, may present atypically, lacking the prototypical exanthem or displaying milder signs and further complicating the diagnosis.¹⁵ The differential diagnosis for measles includes a drug reaction or other viral exanthem, and a detailed history may help elucidate the culprit.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Definitive diagnosis of measles relies on both molecular and serologic testing. Nasopharyngeal swabs for measles polymerase chain reaction testing are obtained using synthetic (noncotton) swabs placed in a viral transport medium. Serum samples also should be collected for measles IgM and IgG antibody testing. Importantly, measles is a reportable illness, and testing may be coordinated with local departments of health.

Determining a patient’s immune status may be important for certain populations. Patients with documented 2-dose MMR vaccination, positive measles IgG serology, or a prior confirmed measles infection are considered immune. While a positive measles IgG indicates immunity, a negative result in an exposed patient should prompt consideration of postexposure prophylaxis with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Many patients, specifically those presenting to dermatology, are taking immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications—a contraindication for vaccination with the live MMR vaccine. At the time of publication, there was a single reported case of a patient taking a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor for rheumatoid arthritis who had acquired measles.¹⁶ While the benefits of titer assessment in patients who are starting or continuing immunomodulatory therapy are not known and currently it is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, dermatologists might consider checking MMR titers and vaccinating (or referring for vaccination) nonimmune patients.¹⁷

Infection Control

Early identification of a suspected measles case is paramount. Patients in whom measles is a possibility should be isolated as quickly as possible, and the patient and accompanying caregivers should be masked. Clinical staff should don appropriate personal protective equipment, including an N95 mask. Coordination with the local department of health must occur as soon as measles is suspected.

If testing is an option in the outpatient setting, a nasopharyngeal viral swab and serologic titers can be obtained. If testing is not available on site, patients should be sent to appropriate care facilities; prenotification is critical to prevent nosocomial outbreaks. Patients should be encouraged to isolate and avoid public spaces and/or public transport for 4 days following development of an exanthem.¹⁸ Offices should develop clinical protocols for suspected measles cases with training for clinical and office staff.

Final Thoughts

As measles outbreaks become more prevalent, it is incumbent upon physicians to remind ourselves of the signs and symptoms of this largely eliminated disease so that we may pursue early detection and intervention strategies. The primary cutaneous manifestations of measles make dermatologists critical to early recognition and containment efforts. Dermatologists should prepare for the arrival of patients with measles by maintaining vigilance for the classic signs of the disease, implementing stringent isolation protocols, verifying patient immunity when appropriate, and partnering closely with public health authorities.

More broadly, efforts to contain and re-establish a paradigm for eliminating measles outbreaks must be pursued. Encouraging vaccination and developing programs to help combat misinformation surrounding vaccines are critical to this effort. In an era of vaccine hesitancy, measles is a multidisciplinary public health emergency. Dermatologists must remain ready.

Measles, also known as rubeola, is a highly contagious paramyxovirus that has neared elimination in the United States since 2000 due to widespread adoption of the measles vaccine; however, measles recently has made a comeback, with outbreaks reported in more than 60 countries. In the United States, vaccine hesitancy coupled with decreasing vaccination rates, international travel to endemic areas, and decreased funding and resources for monitoring and immunization programs likely led to a re-emergence of measles cases.^1,2 The resurgence of measles is troubling given its infectiousness and potential severity in at-risk populations. Since measles has a basic reproduction number of 12 to 18 (ie, 1 infected individual will on average infect 12 to 18 others³), it has the capacity to spread quickly. This is why, prior to the development of the measles vaccine in the 1960s, it was responsible for millions of deaths across the globe.

Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, both physicians and the public generally were aware of the signs and symptoms of measles due to its prevalence; however, since there have been so few cases in recent decades, images and descriptions of patients presenting with measles can be found only in textbooks, and many physicians are ill-prepared to diagnose the disease.⁴ In response to the recent surge in measles cases, dermatologists—who often are among the first medical professionals to encounter febrile patients with rashes—must be prepared to bridge this divide. Herein, we review the clinical signs, diagnostic approach, operational precautions, and public health responsibilities that dermatologists must relearn amid the current measles outbreak.

Background

Measles is primarily transmitted via respiratory droplets and may remain airborne for up to 2 hours.⁵ It also can be transmitted through direct contact with secretions such as mucus. Indirect transmission via fomites, while certainly plausible, is thought to be the least effective mechanism of transmission.⁶ Following exposure, the incubation period ranges from 7 to 21 days, during which the virus replicates asymptomatically before causing clinical disease.⁷ Herd immunity for measles requires 93% immunity in the population; public health agencies typically target greater than 95% immunity.⁸ Humans are the only reservoir for the measles virus, making eradication possible.

The road to eradication began with the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 and subsequent development of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1971. As MMR is a live vaccine, 2 doses confer approximately 97% protection.⁹ The first dose is given at 12 to 15 months of age, and the second dose is given at 4 to 6 years of age. Immunity is considered lifelong, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization do not recommend routine measles boosters for individuals who have completed the primary 2-dose series.^10,11

Widespread vaccination led to a dramatic reduction in incidence, with many countries eliminating measles infections.⁷ The United States declared measles eliminated in 2000, with confirmed cases between 2000 and 2020 ranging from 37 to 1282.¹² Vaccination progress stalled in the late 1990s due to vaccine hesitancy resulting from (subsequently debunked) reports of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.¹³ Despite efforts to correct this misinformation, many patients continue to espouse these concerns.

Recognizing Measles: Clinical Presentation

Measles, which most often manifests in childhood but also can occur in adults, follows a distinctive clinical course. The prodromal phase is characterized by high fever, cough, coryza (nasal congestion), and conjunctivitis— conjunctivitis—the 3 “Cs” that serve as early warning signs of the disease. Patients may develop small white macules on the buccal mucosa known as Koplik spots (phonetically the fourth “C”), which appear just before the rash. Three to 5 days after the onset of systemic symptoms, patients will develop a classic morbilliform exanthem. In some cases, the exanthem manifests on the head and neck (Figure 1)—first behind the ears and along the hairline, then spreading caudally to the trunk and extremities. The lesions may become confluent, with patients presenting with diffuse erythema. The exanthem fades over several days to weeks, often accompanied by superficial desquamation.¹⁴

Given the nonspecificity of the early symptoms of measles, a high index of suspicion is needed for patients presenting with a febrile illness and a morbilliform eruption (Figure 2). Consideration of MMR vaccination status, exposure history, and local outbreak patterns can help guide risk stratification and the need for testing. Immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapies for dermatologic conditions, may present atypically, lacking the prototypical exanthem or displaying milder signs and further complicating the diagnosis.¹⁵ The differential diagnosis for measles includes a drug reaction or other viral exanthem, and a detailed history may help elucidate the culprit.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Definitive diagnosis of measles relies on both molecular and serologic testing. Nasopharyngeal swabs for measles polymerase chain reaction testing are obtained using synthetic (noncotton) swabs placed in a viral transport medium. Serum samples also should be collected for measles IgM and IgG antibody testing. Importantly, measles is a reportable illness, and testing may be coordinated with local departments of health.

Determining a patient’s immune status may be important for certain populations. Patients with documented 2-dose MMR vaccination, positive measles IgG serology, or a prior confirmed measles infection are considered immune. While a positive measles IgG indicates immunity, a negative result in an exposed patient should prompt consideration of postexposure prophylaxis with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Many patients, specifically those presenting to dermatology, are taking immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications—a contraindication for vaccination with the live MMR vaccine. At the time of publication, there was a single reported case of a patient taking a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor for rheumatoid arthritis who had acquired measles.¹⁶ While the benefits of titer assessment in patients who are starting or continuing immunomodulatory therapy are not known and currently it is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, dermatologists might consider checking MMR titers and vaccinating (or referring for vaccination) nonimmune patients.¹⁷

Infection Control

Early identification of a suspected measles case is paramount. Patients in whom measles is a possibility should be isolated as quickly as possible, and the patient and accompanying caregivers should be masked. Clinical staff should don appropriate personal protective equipment, including an N95 mask. Coordination with the local department of health must occur as soon as measles is suspected.

If testing is an option in the outpatient setting, a nasopharyngeal viral swab and serologic titers can be obtained. If testing is not available on site, patients should be sent to appropriate care facilities; prenotification is critical to prevent nosocomial outbreaks. Patients should be encouraged to isolate and avoid public spaces and/or public transport for 4 days following development of an exanthem.¹⁸ Offices should develop clinical protocols for suspected measles cases with training for clinical and office staff.

Final Thoughts

As measles outbreaks become more prevalent, it is incumbent upon physicians to remind ourselves of the signs and symptoms of this largely eliminated disease so that we may pursue early detection and intervention strategies. The primary cutaneous manifestations of measles make dermatologists critical to early recognition and containment efforts. Dermatologists should prepare for the arrival of patients with measles by maintaining vigilance for the classic signs of the disease, implementing stringent isolation protocols, verifying patient immunity when appropriate, and partnering closely with public health authorities.

More broadly, efforts to contain and re-establish a paradigm for eliminating measles outbreaks must be pursued. Encouraging vaccination and developing programs to help combat misinformation surrounding vaccines are critical to this effort. In an era of vaccine hesitancy, measles is a multidisciplinary public health emergency. Dermatologists must remain ready.

Measles, also known as rubeola, is a highly contagious paramyxovirus that has neared elimination in the United States since 2000 due to widespread adoption of the measles vaccine; however, measles recently has made a comeback, with outbreaks reported in more than 60 countries. In the United States, vaccine hesitancy coupled with decreasing vaccination rates, international travel to endemic areas, and decreased funding and resources for monitoring and immunization programs likely led to a re-emergence of measles cases.^1,2 The resurgence of measles is troubling given its infectiousness and potential severity in at-risk populations. Since measles has a basic reproduction number of 12 to 18 (ie, 1 infected individual will on average infect 12 to 18 others³), it has the capacity to spread quickly. This is why, prior to the development of the measles vaccine in the 1960s, it was responsible for millions of deaths across the globe.

Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, both physicians and the public generally were aware of the signs and symptoms of measles due to its prevalence; however, since there have been so few cases in recent decades, images and descriptions of patients presenting with measles can be found only in textbooks, and many physicians are ill-prepared to diagnose the disease.⁴ In response to the recent surge in measles cases, dermatologists—who often are among the first medical professionals to encounter febrile patients with rashes—must be prepared to bridge this divide. Herein, we review the clinical signs, diagnostic approach, operational precautions, and public health responsibilities that dermatologists must relearn amid the current measles outbreak.

Background

Measles is primarily transmitted via respiratory droplets and may remain airborne for up to 2 hours.⁵ It also can be transmitted through direct contact with secretions such as mucus. Indirect transmission via fomites, while certainly plausible, is thought to be the least effective mechanism of transmission.⁶ Following exposure, the incubation period ranges from 7 to 21 days, during which the virus replicates asymptomatically before causing clinical disease.⁷ Herd immunity for measles requires 93% immunity in the population; public health agencies typically target greater than 95% immunity.⁸ Humans are the only reservoir for the measles virus, making eradication possible.

The road to eradication began with the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 and subsequent development of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1971. As MMR is a live vaccine, 2 doses confer approximately 97% protection.⁹ The first dose is given at 12 to 15 months of age, and the second dose is given at 4 to 6 years of age. Immunity is considered lifelong, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization do not recommend routine measles boosters for individuals who have completed the primary 2-dose series.^10,11

Widespread vaccination led to a dramatic reduction in incidence, with many countries eliminating measles infections.⁷ The United States declared measles eliminated in 2000, with confirmed cases between 2000 and 2020 ranging from 37 to 1282.¹² Vaccination progress stalled in the late 1990s due to vaccine hesitancy resulting from (subsequently debunked) reports of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.¹³ Despite efforts to correct this misinformation, many patients continue to espouse these concerns.

Recognizing Measles: Clinical Presentation

Measles, which most often manifests in childhood but also can occur in adults, follows a distinctive clinical course. The prodromal phase is characterized by high fever, cough, coryza (nasal congestion), and conjunctivitis— conjunctivitis—the 3 “Cs” that serve as early warning signs of the disease. Patients may develop small white macules on the buccal mucosa known as Koplik spots (phonetically the fourth “C”), which appear just before the rash. Three to 5 days after the onset of systemic symptoms, patients will develop a classic morbilliform exanthem. In some cases, the exanthem manifests on the head and neck (Figure 1)—first behind the ears and along the hairline, then spreading caudally to the trunk and extremities. The lesions may become confluent, with patients presenting with diffuse erythema. The exanthem fades over several days to weeks, often accompanied by superficial desquamation.¹⁴

Given the nonspecificity of the early symptoms of measles, a high index of suspicion is needed for patients presenting with a febrile illness and a morbilliform eruption (Figure 2). Consideration of MMR vaccination status, exposure history, and local outbreak patterns can help guide risk stratification and the need for testing. Immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapies for dermatologic conditions, may present atypically, lacking the prototypical exanthem or displaying milder signs and further complicating the diagnosis.¹⁵ The differential diagnosis for measles includes a drug reaction or other viral exanthem, and a detailed history may help elucidate the culprit.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Definitive diagnosis of measles relies on both molecular and serologic testing. Nasopharyngeal swabs for measles polymerase chain reaction testing are obtained using synthetic (noncotton) swabs placed in a viral transport medium. Serum samples also should be collected for measles IgM and IgG antibody testing. Importantly, measles is a reportable illness, and testing may be coordinated with local departments of health.

Determining a patient’s immune status may be important for certain populations. Patients with documented 2-dose MMR vaccination, positive measles IgG serology, or a prior confirmed measles infection are considered immune. While a positive measles IgG indicates immunity, a negative result in an exposed patient should prompt consideration of postexposure prophylaxis with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Many patients, specifically those presenting to dermatology, are taking immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications—a contraindication for vaccination with the live MMR vaccine. At the time of publication, there was a single reported case of a patient taking a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor for rheumatoid arthritis who had acquired measles.¹⁶ While the benefits of titer assessment in patients who are starting or continuing immunomodulatory therapy are not known and currently it is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, dermatologists might consider checking MMR titers and vaccinating (or referring for vaccination) nonimmune patients.¹⁷

Infection Control

Early identification of a suspected measles case is paramount. Patients in whom measles is a possibility should be isolated as quickly as possible, and the patient and accompanying caregivers should be masked. Clinical staff should don appropriate personal protective equipment, including an N95 mask. Coordination with the local department of health must occur as soon as measles is suspected.

If testing is an option in the outpatient setting, a nasopharyngeal viral swab and serologic titers can be obtained. If testing is not available on site, patients should be sent to appropriate care facilities; prenotification is critical to prevent nosocomial outbreaks. Patients should be encouraged to isolate and avoid public spaces and/or public transport for 4 days following development of an exanthem.¹⁸ Offices should develop clinical protocols for suspected measles cases with training for clinical and office staff.

Final Thoughts

As measles outbreaks become more prevalent, it is incumbent upon physicians to remind ourselves of the signs and symptoms of this largely eliminated disease so that we may pursue early detection and intervention strategies. The primary cutaneous manifestations of measles make dermatologists critical to early recognition and containment efforts. Dermatologists should prepare for the arrival of patients with measles by maintaining vigilance for the classic signs of the disease, implementing stringent isolation protocols, verifying patient immunity when appropriate, and partnering closely with public health authorities.

More broadly, efforts to contain and re-establish a paradigm for eliminating measles outbreaks must be pursued. Encouraging vaccination and developing programs to help combat misinformation surrounding vaccines are critical to this effort. In an era of vaccine hesitancy, measles is a multidisciplinary public health emergency. Dermatologists must remain ready.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Syphilis

The differential diagnosis of oral lesions can be complex; in our patient, we considered conditions such as pyogenic granuloma, herpes simplex virus, and syphilis, despite the presence of pain. Immunohistochemical staining for spirochete antigens was positive, and serologic confirmation through a positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test confirmed the diagnosis of primary syphilis. The patient was promptly referred back to the primary care physician for treatment with intramuscular penicillin, leading to resolution of the lesion. At 3 months’ follow-up in our clinic, the lesion was fully resolved.

A primary syphilitic chancre is the initial lesion caused by Treponema pallidum, typically manifesting as a painless ulcer at the infection site, usually in the genital area; however, chancres also may manifest in other locations (eg, the anus or oral cavity) due to direct contact with infectious lesions on another individual. Our case represents an atypical presentation of an oral syphilitic chancre.

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection with various clinical manifestations. It is crucial to consider syphilis in the differential diagnosis of ulcerative lesions even when pain is present, especially in high-risk individuals such as those who engage in unprotected sex.^1,2 Oral syphilitic chancres have been documented in the medical literature for more than a century, underscoring the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for diagnosis and a low threshold for obtaining an RPR test to facilitate early detection and treatment.^2,3 Notably, the prevalence of syphilis is higher in men who have sex with men, particularly among those who engage in unprotected oral and anal sex. Increased screening and early treatment are essential to control the spread of disease within all populations. Doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) is used as a preventive measure for syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.⁴ This regimen consists of 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 24 hours but no later than 72 hours after unprotected anal, vaginal, or oral sex.

Our case highlights the importance of considering the differential diagnosis of oral ulcers, particularly in high-risk populations such as men who have sex with men. Prompt diagnosis, effective treatment, and preventive strategies such as doxyPEP are essential for controlling syphilis. Comprehensive patient education and regular follow-up appointments are critical components of successful management.

The United States has experienced a considerable rise in primary and congenital syphilis cases, with an 80% increase between 2018 and 2022.⁶ Serologic testing is the primary method for diagnosing, staging, and managing syphilis. Sexually active patients with suspected syphilis or unexplained symptoms should undergo testing. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can prevent systemic complications, including ocular involvement and permanent blindness.

Syphilis is transmitted through direct contact with a syphilitic ulcer or saliva or blood from an infected individual. Oral syphilitic ulcers can develop on the lips, tongue, oral mucosa, and tonsils. Chancres can range from a few millimeters to several centimeters, with an incubation period of 10 to 90 days (average, 21 days). The chancre lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals spontaneously. Without treatment, primary syphilis can progress to secondary syphilis, characterized by a papulosquamous eruption and mucosal involvement, and potentially tertiary syphilis, which can affect the central nervous system, heart, bones, and skin.⁷

Immunocompromised patients, especially those diagnosed with HIV, face increased risks including altered clinical presentations (eg, multiple or deep chancres), delayed healing, overlapping stages of disease, and increased severity of organ involvement. All sexually active individuals should be screened for syphilis every 3 to 6 months, particularly those with unexplained oral ulcers.

Serologic testing is fundamental for syphilis diagnosis and management. Nontreponemal tests such as RPR and treponemal tests such as the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test provide comprehensive diagnostic information. Early diagnosis and empiric treatment are crucial in suspected cases. Ocular screening is recommended for suspected or confirmed syphilis cases.⁷

Management of syphilis includes treating all sexual partners and providing thorough patient education on the disease. Monitoring for the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction—an acute febrile reaction following penicillin therapy—is important, especially in pregnant patients.5 Serologic evaluation at 6 and 12 months posttreatment is recommended, with more frequent evaluations if follow-up is uncertain, particularly for those with inconsistent access to health care or in whom reinfection is suspected. Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advocate for intramuscular penicillin G benzathine as the preferred treatment, with specific dosing for adults and children.⁷ Due to the ongoing bicillin shortage, alternatives such as extencilline have temporarily been allowed for use in the United States.⁸

The rising incidence of syphilis in the United States underscores the critical need for enhanced public health initiatives focusing on education, screening, and early intervention. Comprehensive sexual education that includes information about syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections, proper use of prophylactic measures such as condoms, and the benefits of doxyPEP can considerably reduce transmission rates. Health care providers should routinely discuss these preventive measures with their patients, especially those in high-risk groups.

Our case highlights the importance of considering syphilis in the differential diagnosis of oral ulcers, particularly in high-risk populations. Timely diagnosis, effective treatment, and preventive measures such as doxyPEP are essential for managing and controlling syphilis. The rising incidence of syphilis in the United States warrants increased screening, patient education, and public health interventions to address this notable health challenge. The syphilis crisis calls for coordinated efforts from health care providers, public health officials, and community leaders to curb the spread of this infection and protect public health.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Syphilis

The differential diagnosis of oral lesions can be complex; in our patient, we considered conditions such as pyogenic granuloma, herpes simplex virus, and syphilis, despite the presence of pain. Immunohistochemical staining for spirochete antigens was positive, and serologic confirmation through a positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test confirmed the diagnosis of primary syphilis. The patient was promptly referred back to the primary care physician for treatment with intramuscular penicillin, leading to resolution of the lesion. At 3 months’ follow-up in our clinic, the lesion was fully resolved.

A primary syphilitic chancre is the initial lesion caused by Treponema pallidum, typically manifesting as a painless ulcer at the infection site, usually in the genital area; however, chancres also may manifest in other locations (eg, the anus or oral cavity) due to direct contact with infectious lesions on another individual. Our case represents an atypical presentation of an oral syphilitic chancre.

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection with various clinical manifestations. It is crucial to consider syphilis in the differential diagnosis of ulcerative lesions even when pain is present, especially in high-risk individuals such as those who engage in unprotected sex.^1,2 Oral syphilitic chancres have been documented in the medical literature for more than a century, underscoring the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for diagnosis and a low threshold for obtaining an RPR test to facilitate early detection and treatment.^2,3 Notably, the prevalence of syphilis is higher in men who have sex with men, particularly among those who engage in unprotected oral and anal sex. Increased screening and early treatment are essential to control the spread of disease within all populations. Doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) is used as a preventive measure for syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.⁴ This regimen consists of 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 24 hours but no later than 72 hours after unprotected anal, vaginal, or oral sex.

Our case highlights the importance of considering the differential diagnosis of oral ulcers, particularly in high-risk populations such as men who have sex with men. Prompt diagnosis, effective treatment, and preventive strategies such as doxyPEP are essential for controlling syphilis. Comprehensive patient education and regular follow-up appointments are critical components of successful management.

The United States has experienced a considerable rise in primary and congenital syphilis cases, with an 80% increase between 2018 and 2022.⁶ Serologic testing is the primary method for diagnosing, staging, and managing syphilis. Sexually active patients with suspected syphilis or unexplained symptoms should undergo testing. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can prevent systemic complications, including ocular involvement and permanent blindness.

Syphilis is transmitted through direct contact with a syphilitic ulcer or saliva or blood from an infected individual. Oral syphilitic ulcers can develop on the lips, tongue, oral mucosa, and tonsils. Chancres can range from a few millimeters to several centimeters, with an incubation period of 10 to 90 days (average, 21 days). The chancre lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals spontaneously. Without treatment, primary syphilis can progress to secondary syphilis, characterized by a papulosquamous eruption and mucosal involvement, and potentially tertiary syphilis, which can affect the central nervous system, heart, bones, and skin.⁷

Immunocompromised patients, especially those diagnosed with HIV, face increased risks including altered clinical presentations (eg, multiple or deep chancres), delayed healing, overlapping stages of disease, and increased severity of organ involvement. All sexually active individuals should be screened for syphilis every 3 to 6 months, particularly those with unexplained oral ulcers.

Serologic testing is fundamental for syphilis diagnosis and management. Nontreponemal tests such as RPR and treponemal tests such as the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test provide comprehensive diagnostic information. Early diagnosis and empiric treatment are crucial in suspected cases. Ocular screening is recommended for suspected or confirmed syphilis cases.⁷

Management of syphilis includes treating all sexual partners and providing thorough patient education on the disease. Monitoring for the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction—an acute febrile reaction following penicillin therapy—is important, especially in pregnant patients.5 Serologic evaluation at 6 and 12 months posttreatment is recommended, with more frequent evaluations if follow-up is uncertain, particularly for those with inconsistent access to health care or in whom reinfection is suspected. Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advocate for intramuscular penicillin G benzathine as the preferred treatment, with specific dosing for adults and children.⁷ Due to the ongoing bicillin shortage, alternatives such as extencilline have temporarily been allowed for use in the United States.⁸

The rising incidence of syphilis in the United States underscores the critical need for enhanced public health initiatives focusing on education, screening, and early intervention. Comprehensive sexual education that includes information about syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections, proper use of prophylactic measures such as condoms, and the benefits of doxyPEP can considerably reduce transmission rates. Health care providers should routinely discuss these preventive measures with their patients, especially those in high-risk groups.

Our case highlights the importance of considering syphilis in the differential diagnosis of oral ulcers, particularly in high-risk populations. Timely diagnosis, effective treatment, and preventive measures such as doxyPEP are essential for managing and controlling syphilis. The rising incidence of syphilis in the United States warrants increased screening, patient education, and public health interventions to address this notable health challenge. The syphilis crisis calls for coordinated efforts from health care providers, public health officials, and community leaders to curb the spread of this infection and protect public health.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Syphilis

The differential diagnosis of oral lesions can be complex; in our patient, we considered conditions such as pyogenic granuloma, herpes simplex virus, and syphilis, despite the presence of pain. Immunohistochemical staining for spirochete antigens was positive, and serologic confirmation through a positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test confirmed the diagnosis of primary syphilis. The patient was promptly referred back to the primary care physician for treatment with intramuscular penicillin, leading to resolution of the lesion. At 3 months’ follow-up in our clinic, the lesion was fully resolved.

A primary syphilitic chancre is the initial lesion caused by Treponema pallidum, typically manifesting as a painless ulcer at the infection site, usually in the genital area; however, chancres also may manifest in other locations (eg, the anus or oral cavity) due to direct contact with infectious lesions on another individual. Our case represents an atypical presentation of an oral syphilitic chancre.

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection with various clinical manifestations. It is crucial to consider syphilis in the differential diagnosis of ulcerative lesions even when pain is present, especially in high-risk individuals such as those who engage in unprotected sex.^1,2 Oral syphilitic chancres have been documented in the medical literature for more than a century, underscoring the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for diagnosis and a low threshold for obtaining an RPR test to facilitate early detection and treatment.^2,3 Notably, the prevalence of syphilis is higher in men who have sex with men, particularly among those who engage in unprotected oral and anal sex. Increased screening and early treatment are essential to control the spread of disease within all populations. Doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) is used as a preventive measure for syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.⁴ This regimen consists of 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 24 hours but no later than 72 hours after unprotected anal, vaginal, or oral sex.

Our case highlights the importance of considering the differential diagnosis of oral ulcers, particularly in high-risk populations such as men who have sex with men. Prompt diagnosis, effective treatment, and preventive strategies such as doxyPEP are essential for controlling syphilis. Comprehensive patient education and regular follow-up appointments are critical components of successful management.

The United States has experienced a considerable rise in primary and congenital syphilis cases, with an 80% increase between 2018 and 2022.⁶ Serologic testing is the primary method for diagnosing, staging, and managing syphilis. Sexually active patients with suspected syphilis or unexplained symptoms should undergo testing. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can prevent systemic complications, including ocular involvement and permanent blindness.

Syphilis is transmitted through direct contact with a syphilitic ulcer or saliva or blood from an infected individual. Oral syphilitic ulcers can develop on the lips, tongue, oral mucosa, and tonsils. Chancres can range from a few millimeters to several centimeters, with an incubation period of 10 to 90 days (average, 21 days). The chancre lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals spontaneously. Without treatment, primary syphilis can progress to secondary syphilis, characterized by a papulosquamous eruption and mucosal involvement, and potentially tertiary syphilis, which can affect the central nervous system, heart, bones, and skin.⁷

Immunocompromised patients, especially those diagnosed with HIV, face increased risks including altered clinical presentations (eg, multiple or deep chancres), delayed healing, overlapping stages of disease, and increased severity of organ involvement. All sexually active individuals should be screened for syphilis every 3 to 6 months, particularly those with unexplained oral ulcers.

Serologic testing is fundamental for syphilis diagnosis and management. Nontreponemal tests such as RPR and treponemal tests such as the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test provide comprehensive diagnostic information. Early diagnosis and empiric treatment are crucial in suspected cases. Ocular screening is recommended for suspected or confirmed syphilis cases.⁷

Management of syphilis includes treating all sexual partners and providing thorough patient education on the disease. Monitoring for the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction—an acute febrile reaction following penicillin therapy—is important, especially in pregnant patients.5 Serologic evaluation at 6 and 12 months posttreatment is recommended, with more frequent evaluations if follow-up is uncertain, particularly for those with inconsistent access to health care or in whom reinfection is suspected. Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advocate for intramuscular penicillin G benzathine as the preferred treatment, with specific dosing for adults and children.⁷ Due to the ongoing bicillin shortage, alternatives such as extencilline have temporarily been allowed for use in the United States.⁸

The rising incidence of syphilis in the United States underscores the critical need for enhanced public health initiatives focusing on education, screening, and early intervention. Comprehensive sexual education that includes information about syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections, proper use of prophylactic measures such as condoms, and the benefits of doxyPEP can considerably reduce transmission rates. Health care providers should routinely discuss these preventive measures with their patients, especially those in high-risk groups.

Our case highlights the importance of considering syphilis in the differential diagnosis of oral ulcers, particularly in high-risk populations. Timely diagnosis, effective treatment, and preventive measures such as doxyPEP are essential for managing and controlling syphilis. The rising incidence of syphilis in the United States warrants increased screening, patient education, and public health interventions to address this notable health challenge. The syphilis crisis calls for coordinated efforts from health care providers, public health officials, and community leaders to curb the spread of this infection and protect public health.

Worldwide, it is estimated that up to 1 in 5 individuals will experience a dermatophyte infection (commonly called ringworm or tinea infection) in their lifetime.¹ Historically, dermatophyte infections have been considered relatively minor conditions usually treated with short courses of topical antifungals.² Oral antifungals historically were needed only for patients with nail or hair shaft infections or extensive cutaneous fungal infections, which typically occurred in immunosuppressed patients.² However, the landscape is changing rapidly due to the global emergence of severe dermatophyte infections that frequently are resistant to first-line antifungal medications.^3-5 In this article, we aimed to review the epidemiology of emerging dermatophyte infections and provide dermatologists with information needed for effective diagnosis and management.

Emergence of Trichophyton indotineae

In recent decades, public health officials and dermatologists have noted with concern the spread of the recently emerged dermatophyte species Trichophyton indotineae in South Asia.^3,6 This species (previously known as Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VIII) usually is transmitted from person to person, either through direct skin-to-skin contact or by fomites.^4,6 Potential sexual transmission of T indotineae infections also has been reported,⁷ and it is possible that animals may serve as reservoirs for this pathogen, although there are no known reports of direct spread from animals to humans.^8,9 Major outbreaks of T indotineae are ongoing in South Asia, and cases have been documented in 6 continents.^10-12 In the United States, most but not all cases have occurred in immigrants from or recently returned travelers to South Asia.^6,13 The emergence and spread of T indotineae is hypothesized to be promoted by the misuse and overuse of topical antifungal products, particularly those containing combinations of potent corticosteroids with other antimicrobial drugs.^14,15

Cutaneous manifestations of T indotineae infections tend to cover large body surface areas, recur frequently, and pose substantial treatment challenges.^6,13,16 Several clinical presentations have been documented, including erythematous, scaly concentric plaques; papulosquamous lesions; pustular forms; and corticosteroid-modified disease (Figure 1).^6,16 Affected patients seldom are immunocompromised and often have a history of multiple failed courses of topical or oral antifungals, including oral terbinafine.¹³ Many also have been prescribed topical corticosteroids or have used over-the-counter topical corticosteroids, which worsen the rash.¹⁷

Direct microscopy with potassium hydroxide could be used to confirm the diagnosis of dermatophyte infection, but it does not distinguish T indotineae from other dermatophyte species.^2,6 Importantly, culture-based testing usually will misidentify T indotineae as other Trichophyton species such as the more common T mentagrophytes or Trichophyton interdigitale. Definitive identification of T indotineae requires advanced molecular techniques that are available only at select laboratories.⁶ Unfortunately, availability of such testing is limited (Table), and results may take several weeks; therefore, it is suggested that dermatologists who suspect T indotineae infections based on the patient’s history and clinical presentation begin antifungal treatment after confirmation of dermatophyte infection but not wait for definitive confirmation of the causative organism.¹⁶

Itraconazole is considered the first-line therapy for T indotineae infection, as terbinafine usually is ineffective due to mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene.¹⁶ Dermatologists should be aware that itraconazole is available in different formulations that can affect absorption. The oral solution has greater bioavailability and should be taken on an empty stomach, whereas the capsules are required to be taken with food for effective absorption; the capsules also should be taken with an acidic beverage such as orange juice. Dermatologists should carefully assess for drug-drug interactions when prescribing itraconazole, given its extensive interaction profile with numerous other medications. Patients may require treatment with itraconazole (100 mg/d or 200 mg/d) for a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks until complete clearance has been achieved and ideally a negative potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scrapings has been obtained. A longer treatment period (eg, ≥3 months) frequently is needed, and relapses are common.^6,16,18 Regular follow-up is needed to monitor for infection clearance and recurrences. It is important to note that cases of itraconazole resistance have been reported, although this currently appears to be uncommon.^19,20

Other Emerging Dermatophytes to Watch

Trichophyton rubrum is the most common cause of dermatophyte infections among humans,²¹ and cases of terbinafine-resistant T rubrum infections have been reported increasingly in the United States and Canada.^5,22-24 Onychomycosis caused by terbinafine-resistant T rubrum has been documented, and patients may have infections that do not respond to terbinafine given at the standard dose and duration.^22,23 Case reports have indicated successful treatment using itraconazole 200 mg/d and posaconazole 300 mg/d.^5,23

Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII (TMVII) is an emerging dermatophyte that recently has been reported as a cause of sexually transmitted dermatophyte infections in Europe and the United States primarily affecting men who have sex with men.^25-27 Patients may present with pruritic, annular, scaly patches and plaques involving the trunk, groin, genital region, or face (Figure 2). Although closely related to T indotineae, TMVII differs in that it more often affects the genital region, generally is susceptible to terbinafine, and in the United States and Europe usually is not related to travel or immigration involving South Asia.²⁶ Although TMVII has not been associated with antifungal resistance, awareness among dermatologists is important because patients may experience inflamed, painful, and persistent rashes that can lead to secondary bacterial infection or scarring, and physicians might mistake it for mimics including eczema or psoriasis.^25,26

Importance of Judicious Antifungal Use

Optimizing the use of antifungals is critical to improving patient outcomes and preserving available treatment options.^28,29 A retrospective analysis of commercial health insurance data estimated that topical antifungal prescriptions were potentially unnecessary for more than half of the more than 560,000 patients who were prescribed these medications in 2023. In this study, it also was observed that only 16% of patients prescribed a topical antifungal had received diagnostic testing, with low rates across specialties.³⁰ This is concerning because even among board-certified dermatologists, incorrect diagnosis of suspected fungal skin infections can occur; in one survey-based study of board-certified dermatologists who were presented with dermatomycosis images, respondents categorized cases with greater than 75% accuracy in only 31% (4/13) of instances.³¹ Clotrimazole-betamethasone is among the most commonly prescribed topical antifungals in the United States,^14,32 and 2 recent retrospective analyses highlighted that the majority of patients prescribed this medication did not receive any fungal diagnostic testing.^33,34

Final Thoughts

In an era of emerging antifungal-resistant dermatophyte infections, it is important for dermatologists to educate nondermatologists about the importance of using diagnostic testing for suspected dermatophyte infections.^14,28 Dermatologists also can educate nondermatologist colleagues on the importance of avoiding the use of topical combination antifungal/corticosteroid medications and referring for dermatologic evaluation when diagnoses are uncertain.^33,34 Strategies for education by dermatologists could include giving workshops, creating educational materials, and fostering open communication about optimal treatment practices and referral parameters for suspected dermatophyte infections.

Worldwide, it is estimated that up to 1 in 5 individuals will experience a dermatophyte infection (commonly called ringworm or tinea infection) in their lifetime.¹ Historically, dermatophyte infections have been considered relatively minor conditions usually treated with short courses of topical antifungals.² Oral antifungals historically were needed only for patients with nail or hair shaft infections or extensive cutaneous fungal infections, which typically occurred in immunosuppressed patients.² However, the landscape is changing rapidly due to the global emergence of severe dermatophyte infections that frequently are resistant to first-line antifungal medications.^3-5 In this article, we aimed to review the epidemiology of emerging dermatophyte infections and provide dermatologists with information needed for effective diagnosis and management.

Emergence of Trichophyton indotineae

In recent decades, public health officials and dermatologists have noted with concern the spread of the recently emerged dermatophyte species Trichophyton indotineae in South Asia.^3,6 This species (previously known as Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VIII) usually is transmitted from person to person, either through direct skin-to-skin contact or by fomites.^4,6 Potential sexual transmission of T indotineae infections also has been reported,⁷ and it is possible that animals may serve as reservoirs for this pathogen, although there are no known reports of direct spread from animals to humans.^8,9 Major outbreaks of T indotineae are ongoing in South Asia, and cases have been documented in 6 continents.^10-12 In the United States, most but not all cases have occurred in immigrants from or recently returned travelers to South Asia.^6,13 The emergence and spread of T indotineae is hypothesized to be promoted by the misuse and overuse of topical antifungal products, particularly those containing combinations of potent corticosteroids with other antimicrobial drugs.^14,15

Cutaneous manifestations of T indotineae infections tend to cover large body surface areas, recur frequently, and pose substantial treatment challenges.^6,13,16 Several clinical presentations have been documented, including erythematous, scaly concentric plaques; papulosquamous lesions; pustular forms; and corticosteroid-modified disease (Figure 1).^6,16 Affected patients seldom are immunocompromised and often have a history of multiple failed courses of topical or oral antifungals, including oral terbinafine.¹³ Many also have been prescribed topical corticosteroids or have used over-the-counter topical corticosteroids, which worsen the rash.¹⁷

Direct microscopy with potassium hydroxide could be used to confirm the diagnosis of dermatophyte infection, but it does not distinguish T indotineae from other dermatophyte species.^2,6 Importantly, culture-based testing usually will misidentify T indotineae as other Trichophyton species such as the more common T mentagrophytes or Trichophyton interdigitale. Definitive identification of T indotineae requires advanced molecular techniques that are available only at select laboratories.⁶ Unfortunately, availability of such testing is limited (Table), and results may take several weeks; therefore, it is suggested that dermatologists who suspect T indotineae infections based on the patient’s history and clinical presentation begin antifungal treatment after confirmation of dermatophyte infection but not wait for definitive confirmation of the causative organism.¹⁶

Itraconazole is considered the first-line therapy for T indotineae infection, as terbinafine usually is ineffective due to mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene.¹⁶ Dermatologists should be aware that itraconazole is available in different formulations that can affect absorption. The oral solution has greater bioavailability and should be taken on an empty stomach, whereas the capsules are required to be taken with food for effective absorption; the capsules also should be taken with an acidic beverage such as orange juice. Dermatologists should carefully assess for drug-drug interactions when prescribing itraconazole, given its extensive interaction profile with numerous other medications. Patients may require treatment with itraconazole (100 mg/d or 200 mg/d) for a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks until complete clearance has been achieved and ideally a negative potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scrapings has been obtained. A longer treatment period (eg, ≥3 months) frequently is needed, and relapses are common.^6,16,18 Regular follow-up is needed to monitor for infection clearance and recurrences. It is important to note that cases of itraconazole resistance have been reported, although this currently appears to be uncommon.^19,20

Other Emerging Dermatophytes to Watch

Trichophyton rubrum is the most common cause of dermatophyte infections among humans,²¹ and cases of terbinafine-resistant T rubrum infections have been reported increasingly in the United States and Canada.^5,22-24 Onychomycosis caused by terbinafine-resistant T rubrum has been documented, and patients may have infections that do not respond to terbinafine given at the standard dose and duration.^22,23 Case reports have indicated successful treatment using itraconazole 200 mg/d and posaconazole 300 mg/d.^5,23

Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII (TMVII) is an emerging dermatophyte that recently has been reported as a cause of sexually transmitted dermatophyte infections in Europe and the United States primarily affecting men who have sex with men.^25-27 Patients may present with pruritic, annular, scaly patches and plaques involving the trunk, groin, genital region, or face (Figure 2). Although closely related to T indotineae, TMVII differs in that it more often affects the genital region, generally is susceptible to terbinafine, and in the United States and Europe usually is not related to travel or immigration involving South Asia.²⁶ Although TMVII has not been associated with antifungal resistance, awareness among dermatologists is important because patients may experience inflamed, painful, and persistent rashes that can lead to secondary bacterial infection or scarring, and physicians might mistake it for mimics including eczema or psoriasis.^25,26

Importance of Judicious Antifungal Use

Optimizing the use of antifungals is critical to improving patient outcomes and preserving available treatment options.^28,29 A retrospective analysis of commercial health insurance data estimated that topical antifungal prescriptions were potentially unnecessary for more than half of the more than 560,000 patients who were prescribed these medications in 2023. In this study, it also was observed that only 16% of patients prescribed a topical antifungal had received diagnostic testing, with low rates across specialties.³⁰ This is concerning because even among board-certified dermatologists, incorrect diagnosis of suspected fungal skin infections can occur; in one survey-based study of board-certified dermatologists who were presented with dermatomycosis images, respondents categorized cases with greater than 75% accuracy in only 31% (4/13) of instances.³¹ Clotrimazole-betamethasone is among the most commonly prescribed topical antifungals in the United States,^14,32 and 2 recent retrospective analyses highlighted that the majority of patients prescribed this medication did not receive any fungal diagnostic testing.^33,34

Final Thoughts

In an era of emerging antifungal-resistant dermatophyte infections, it is important for dermatologists to educate nondermatologists about the importance of using diagnostic testing for suspected dermatophyte infections.^14,28 Dermatologists also can educate nondermatologist colleagues on the importance of avoiding the use of topical combination antifungal/corticosteroid medications and referring for dermatologic evaluation when diagnoses are uncertain.^33,34 Strategies for education by dermatologists could include giving workshops, creating educational materials, and fostering open communication about optimal treatment practices and referral parameters for suspected dermatophyte infections.

Worldwide, it is estimated that up to 1 in 5 individuals will experience a dermatophyte infection (commonly called ringworm or tinea infection) in their lifetime.¹ Historically, dermatophyte infections have been considered relatively minor conditions usually treated with short courses of topical antifungals.² Oral antifungals historically were needed only for patients with nail or hair shaft infections or extensive cutaneous fungal infections, which typically occurred in immunosuppressed patients.² However, the landscape is changing rapidly due to the global emergence of severe dermatophyte infections that frequently are resistant to first-line antifungal medications.^3-5 In this article, we aimed to review the epidemiology of emerging dermatophyte infections and provide dermatologists with information needed for effective diagnosis and management.

Emergence of Trichophyton indotineae

In recent decades, public health officials and dermatologists have noted with concern the spread of the recently emerged dermatophyte species Trichophyton indotineae in South Asia.^3,6 This species (previously known as Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VIII) usually is transmitted from person to person, either through direct skin-to-skin contact or by fomites.^4,6 Potential sexual transmission of T indotineae infections also has been reported,⁷ and it is possible that animals may serve as reservoirs for this pathogen, although there are no known reports of direct spread from animals to humans.^8,9 Major outbreaks of T indotineae are ongoing in South Asia, and cases have been documented in 6 continents.^10-12 In the United States, most but not all cases have occurred in immigrants from or recently returned travelers to South Asia.^6,13 The emergence and spread of T indotineae is hypothesized to be promoted by the misuse and overuse of topical antifungal products, particularly those containing combinations of potent corticosteroids with other antimicrobial drugs.^14,15

Cutaneous manifestations of T indotineae infections tend to cover large body surface areas, recur frequently, and pose substantial treatment challenges.^6,13,16 Several clinical presentations have been documented, including erythematous, scaly concentric plaques; papulosquamous lesions; pustular forms; and corticosteroid-modified disease (Figure 1).^6,16 Affected patients seldom are immunocompromised and often have a history of multiple failed courses of topical or oral antifungals, including oral terbinafine.¹³ Many also have been prescribed topical corticosteroids or have used over-the-counter topical corticosteroids, which worsen the rash.¹⁷

Direct microscopy with potassium hydroxide could be used to confirm the diagnosis of dermatophyte infection, but it does not distinguish T indotineae from other dermatophyte species.^2,6 Importantly, culture-based testing usually will misidentify T indotineae as other Trichophyton species such as the more common T mentagrophytes or Trichophyton interdigitale. Definitive identification of T indotineae requires advanced molecular techniques that are available only at select laboratories.⁶ Unfortunately, availability of such testing is limited (Table), and results may take several weeks; therefore, it is suggested that dermatologists who suspect T indotineae infections based on the patient’s history and clinical presentation begin antifungal treatment after confirmation of dermatophyte infection but not wait for definitive confirmation of the causative organism.¹⁶

Itraconazole is considered the first-line therapy for T indotineae infection, as terbinafine usually is ineffective due to mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene.¹⁶ Dermatologists should be aware that itraconazole is available in different formulations that can affect absorption. The oral solution has greater bioavailability and should be taken on an empty stomach, whereas the capsules are required to be taken with food for effective absorption; the capsules also should be taken with an acidic beverage such as orange juice. Dermatologists should carefully assess for drug-drug interactions when prescribing itraconazole, given its extensive interaction profile with numerous other medications. Patients may require treatment with itraconazole (100 mg/d or 200 mg/d) for a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks until complete clearance has been achieved and ideally a negative potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scrapings has been obtained. A longer treatment period (eg, ≥3 months) frequently is needed, and relapses are common.^6,16,18 Regular follow-up is needed to monitor for infection clearance and recurrences. It is important to note that cases of itraconazole resistance have been reported, although this currently appears to be uncommon.^19,20

Other Emerging Dermatophytes to Watch

Trichophyton rubrum is the most common cause of dermatophyte infections among humans,²¹ and cases of terbinafine-resistant T rubrum infections have been reported increasingly in the United States and Canada.^5,22-24 Onychomycosis caused by terbinafine-resistant T rubrum has been documented, and patients may have infections that do not respond to terbinafine given at the standard dose and duration.^22,23 Case reports have indicated successful treatment using itraconazole 200 mg/d and posaconazole 300 mg/d.^5,23

Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII (TMVII) is an emerging dermatophyte that recently has been reported as a cause of sexually transmitted dermatophyte infections in Europe and the United States primarily affecting men who have sex with men.^25-27 Patients may present with pruritic, annular, scaly patches and plaques involving the trunk, groin, genital region, or face (Figure 2). Although closely related to T indotineae, TMVII differs in that it more often affects the genital region, generally is susceptible to terbinafine, and in the United States and Europe usually is not related to travel or immigration involving South Asia.²⁶ Although TMVII has not been associated with antifungal resistance, awareness among dermatologists is important because patients may experience inflamed, painful, and persistent rashes that can lead to secondary bacterial infection or scarring, and physicians might mistake it for mimics including eczema or psoriasis.^25,26

Importance of Judicious Antifungal Use

Optimizing the use of antifungals is critical to improving patient outcomes and preserving available treatment options.^28,29 A retrospective analysis of commercial health insurance data estimated that topical antifungal prescriptions were potentially unnecessary for more than half of the more than 560,000 patients who were prescribed these medications in 2023. In this study, it also was observed that only 16% of patients prescribed a topical antifungal had received diagnostic testing, with low rates across specialties.³⁰ This is concerning because even among board-certified dermatologists, incorrect diagnosis of suspected fungal skin infections can occur; in one survey-based study of board-certified dermatologists who were presented with dermatomycosis images, respondents categorized cases with greater than 75% accuracy in only 31% (4/13) of instances.³¹ Clotrimazole-betamethasone is among the most commonly prescribed topical antifungals in the United States,^14,32 and 2 recent retrospective analyses highlighted that the majority of patients prescribed this medication did not receive any fungal diagnostic testing.^33,34

Final Thoughts

In an era of emerging antifungal-resistant dermatophyte infections, it is important for dermatologists to educate nondermatologists about the importance of using diagnostic testing for suspected dermatophyte infections.^14,28 Dermatologists also can educate nondermatologist colleagues on the importance of avoiding the use of topical combination antifungal/corticosteroid medications and referring for dermatologic evaluation when diagnoses are uncertain.^33,34 Strategies for education by dermatologists could include giving workshops, creating educational materials, and fostering open communication about optimal treatment practices and referral parameters for suspected dermatophyte infections.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Cutaneous Cryptococcosis

Biopsy of the ulcerated nodule showed numerous yeastlike organisms within clear mucinous capsules and with some surrounding inflammation. On Grocott methenamine silver staining, the organisms stained black. Workup for disseminated cryptococcus was negative, leading to a diagnosis of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis in the setting of immunosuppression. Notably, cryptococcosis infection has been reported in patients taking fingolimod (a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor) for multiple sclerosis, which was the case for our patient.¹

The genus Cryptococcus comprises more than 30 species of encapsulated basidiomycetous fungi distributed ubiquitously in nature. Currently, only 2 species are known to cause infectious disease in humans: Cryptococcus neoformans, which affects both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients and frequently is isolated from pigeon droppings, as well as Cryptococcus gatti, which primarily affects immunocompetent patients and is more commonly isolated from soil and decaying wood.²

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis (PCC), characterized by direct inoculation of C neoformans or C gatti via skin injury, is rare and typically is seen in patients with decreased cell-mediated immunity, such as those on chronic corticosteroid therapy, solid-organ transplant recipients, and those with HIV.³ Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis typically manifests as a solitary or confined lesion on exposed areas of the skin and often is accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy.^4,5 The most common cutaneous findings associated with PCC include ulceration, cellulitis, and whitlow.⁵ In immunocompetent hosts, frequently affected sites include the arms, fingers, and face, while the trunk and lower extremities are more commonly affected in immunocompromised hosts.³ Secondary cutaneous cryptococcosis occurs through hematologic spread in patients with disseminated cryptococcosis after inhalation of Cryptococcosis spores and differs from PCC in that it typically manifests as multiple lesions scattered on both exposed and covered areas of the skin. Patients also may have signs and symptoms of disseminated cryptococcosis such as pneumonia and/or meningitis at presentation.⁵

Despite the difference between PCC and secondary cutaneous cryptococcosis, almost every type of skin lesion has been observed in cryptococcosis, including pustules, nodules, vesicles, acneform lesions, purpura, ulcers, abscesses, molluscumlike lesions, granulomas, draining sinuses, and cellulitis.^6,7

Cutaneous cryptococcosis generally is associated with 2 types of histologic reactions: gelatinous and granulomatous. The gelatinous reaction shows numerous yeastlike organisms ranging from 4 μm to 12 μm in diameter with large mucinous polysaccharide capsules and scant inflammation. Organisms may be seen in mucoid sheets.⁸ The granulomatous type shows a more pronounced reaction with fewer organisms ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm in diameter found within giant cells, histiocytes, and lymphocytes.^6,9 Areas of necrosis occasionally can be observed.⁸

It is important to consider infection with Blastomyces dermatitidis and Histoplasma capsulatum in the differential Both entities can manifest as necrotizing granulomas on histology (Figures 1 and 2).¹⁰ Microscopic morphology can help differentiate these pathogenic fungi from Cryptococcus diagnosis of cryptococcosis. species which show pleomorphic, narrow-based budding yeast with wide capsules. In contrast, H capsulatum is characterized by small, intracellular, yeastlike cells with microconidia and macroconidia, while B dermatitidis is distinguished by spherical, thick-walled cells with broad-based budding.¹¹ Capsular material also can help distinguish Cryptococcus from other pathogenic fungi. Special stains highlighting the polysaccharide capsule of Cryptococcus can best identify the yeast. The capsule stains red with periodic acid–Schiff, blue with Alcian blue, and black with Grocott methenamine silver. Mucicarmine is especially useful as it can stain the mucinous capsule pinkish red and typically does not stain other pathogenic fungi.¹² Capsule-deficient organisms can lead to considerable difficulties in diagnosis given the organisms can vary in size and may mimic H capsulatum or B dermatitidis. The Fontana-Masson stain is a valuable tool in identifying capsule-deficient organisms, as melanin is found in Cryptococcus cell walls; thus, positive staining excludes H capsulatum and B dermatitidis.¹³

Cutaneous foreign body granuloma, which refers to a granulomatous inflammatory reaction to a foreign body in the skin, is another differential diagnosis that is important to distinguish from cutaneous cryptococcosis. On histology, a collection of histiocytes surround the inert material, forming giant cells without an immune response (Figure 3).¹⁰ In contrast, granulomas caused by infectious etiologies (eg, Cryptococcus species) have an associated adaptive immune response and can be further classified as necrotizing or non-necrotizing. Necrotizing granulomas have a distinct central necrosis with a surrounding lymphohistiocytic reaction with peripheral chronic inflammation.¹⁰

Sweet syndrome is another mimicker of cutaneous cryptococcosis. A histologic variant of Sweet syndrome has been reported that has characteristic cutaneous lesions clinically but shows basophilic bodies with a surrounding halo on pathology that can be mistaken for Cryptococcus yeast. Classic histopathology of Sweet syndrome features papillary dermal edema with neutrophil or histiocytelike inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 4). Identification of Sweet syndrome can be aided by positive myeloperoxidase staining and negative periodic acid–Schiff staining.^14,15

THE DIAGNOSIS: Cutaneous Cryptococcosis

Biopsy of the ulcerated nodule showed numerous yeastlike organisms within clear mucinous capsules and with some surrounding inflammation. On Grocott methenamine silver staining, the organisms stained black. Workup for disseminated cryptococcus was negative, leading to a diagnosis of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis in the setting of immunosuppression. Notably, cryptococcosis infection has been reported in patients taking fingolimod (a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor) for multiple sclerosis, which was the case for our patient.¹

The genus Cryptococcus comprises more than 30 species of encapsulated basidiomycetous fungi distributed ubiquitously in nature. Currently, only 2 species are known to cause infectious disease in humans: Cryptococcus neoformans, which affects both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients and frequently is isolated from pigeon droppings, as well as Cryptococcus gatti, which primarily affects immunocompetent patients and is more commonly isolated from soil and decaying wood.²

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis (PCC), characterized by direct inoculation of C neoformans or C gatti via skin injury, is rare and typically is seen in patients with decreased cell-mediated immunity, such as those on chronic corticosteroid therapy, solid-organ transplant recipients, and those with HIV.³ Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis typically manifests as a solitary or confined lesion on exposed areas of the skin and often is accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy.^4,5 The most common cutaneous findings associated with PCC include ulceration, cellulitis, and whitlow.⁵ In immunocompetent hosts, frequently affected sites include the arms, fingers, and face, while the trunk and lower extremities are more commonly affected in immunocompromised hosts.³ Secondary cutaneous cryptococcosis occurs through hematologic spread in patients with disseminated cryptococcosis after inhalation of Cryptococcosis spores and differs from PCC in that it typically manifests as multiple lesions scattered on both exposed and covered areas of the skin. Patients also may have signs and symptoms of disseminated cryptococcosis such as pneumonia and/or meningitis at presentation.⁵

Despite the difference between PCC and secondary cutaneous cryptococcosis, almost every type of skin lesion has been observed in cryptococcosis, including pustules, nodules, vesicles, acneform lesions, purpura, ulcers, abscesses, molluscumlike lesions, granulomas, draining sinuses, and cellulitis.^6,7

Cutaneous cryptococcosis generally is associated with 2 types of histologic reactions: gelatinous and granulomatous. The gelatinous reaction shows numerous yeastlike organisms ranging from 4 μm to 12 μm in diameter with large mucinous polysaccharide capsules and scant inflammation. Organisms may be seen in mucoid sheets.⁸ The granulomatous type shows a more pronounced reaction with fewer organisms ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm in diameter found within giant cells, histiocytes, and lymphocytes.^6,9 Areas of necrosis occasionally can be observed.⁸

It is important to consider infection with Blastomyces dermatitidis and Histoplasma capsulatum in the differential Both entities can manifest as necrotizing granulomas on histology (Figures 1 and 2).¹⁰ Microscopic morphology can help differentiate these pathogenic fungi from Cryptococcus diagnosis of cryptococcosis. species which show pleomorphic, narrow-based budding yeast with wide capsules. In contrast, H capsulatum is characterized by small, intracellular, yeastlike cells with microconidia and macroconidia, while B dermatitidis is distinguished by spherical, thick-walled cells with broad-based budding.¹¹ Capsular material also can help distinguish Cryptococcus from other pathogenic fungi. Special stains highlighting the polysaccharide capsule of Cryptococcus can best identify the yeast. The capsule stains red with periodic acid–Schiff, blue with Alcian blue, and black with Grocott methenamine silver. Mucicarmine is especially useful as it can stain the mucinous capsule pinkish red and typically does not stain other pathogenic fungi.¹² Capsule-deficient organisms can lead to considerable difficulties in diagnosis given the organisms can vary in size and may mimic H capsulatum or B dermatitidis. The Fontana-Masson stain is a valuable tool in identifying capsule-deficient organisms, as melanin is found in Cryptococcus cell walls; thus, positive staining excludes H capsulatum and B dermatitidis.¹³

Cutaneous foreign body granuloma, which refers to a granulomatous inflammatory reaction to a foreign body in the skin, is another differential diagnosis that is important to distinguish from cutaneous cryptococcosis. On histology, a collection of histiocytes surround the inert material, forming giant cells without an immune response (Figure 3).¹⁰ In contrast, granulomas caused by infectious etiologies (eg, Cryptococcus species) have an associated adaptive immune response and can be further classified as necrotizing or non-necrotizing. Necrotizing granulomas have a distinct central necrosis with a surrounding lymphohistiocytic reaction with peripheral chronic inflammation.¹⁰

Sweet syndrome is another mimicker of cutaneous cryptococcosis. A histologic variant of Sweet syndrome has been reported that has characteristic cutaneous lesions clinically but shows basophilic bodies with a surrounding halo on pathology that can be mistaken for Cryptococcus yeast. Classic histopathology of Sweet syndrome features papillary dermal edema with neutrophil or histiocytelike inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 4). Identification of Sweet syndrome can be aided by positive myeloperoxidase staining and negative periodic acid–Schiff staining.^14,15

THE DIAGNOSIS: Cutaneous Cryptococcosis

Biopsy of the ulcerated nodule showed numerous yeastlike organisms within clear mucinous capsules and with some surrounding inflammation. On Grocott methenamine silver staining, the organisms stained black. Workup for disseminated cryptococcus was negative, leading to a diagnosis of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis in the setting of immunosuppression. Notably, cryptococcosis infection has been reported in patients taking fingolimod (a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor) for multiple sclerosis, which was the case for our patient.¹

The genus Cryptococcus comprises more than 30 species of encapsulated basidiomycetous fungi distributed ubiquitously in nature. Currently, only 2 species are known to cause infectious disease in humans: Cryptococcus neoformans, which affects both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients and frequently is isolated from pigeon droppings, as well as Cryptococcus gatti, which primarily affects immunocompetent patients and is more commonly isolated from soil and decaying wood.²

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis (PCC), characterized by direct inoculation of C neoformans or C gatti via skin injury, is rare and typically is seen in patients with decreased cell-mediated immunity, such as those on chronic corticosteroid therapy, solid-organ transplant recipients, and those with HIV.³ Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis typically manifests as a solitary or confined lesion on exposed areas of the skin and often is accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy.^4,5 The most common cutaneous findings associated with PCC include ulceration, cellulitis, and whitlow.⁵ In immunocompetent hosts, frequently affected sites include the arms, fingers, and face, while the trunk and lower extremities are more commonly affected in immunocompromised hosts.³ Secondary cutaneous cryptococcosis occurs through hematologic spread in patients with disseminated cryptococcosis after inhalation of Cryptococcosis spores and differs from PCC in that it typically manifests as multiple lesions scattered on both exposed and covered areas of the skin. Patients also may have signs and symptoms of disseminated cryptococcosis such as pneumonia and/or meningitis at presentation.⁵

Despite the difference between PCC and secondary cutaneous cryptococcosis, almost every type of skin lesion has been observed in cryptococcosis, including pustules, nodules, vesicles, acneform lesions, purpura, ulcers, abscesses, molluscumlike lesions, granulomas, draining sinuses, and cellulitis.^6,7

Cutaneous cryptococcosis generally is associated with 2 types of histologic reactions: gelatinous and granulomatous. The gelatinous reaction shows numerous yeastlike organisms ranging from 4 μm to 12 μm in diameter with large mucinous polysaccharide capsules and scant inflammation. Organisms may be seen in mucoid sheets.⁸ The granulomatous type shows a more pronounced reaction with fewer organisms ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm in diameter found within giant cells, histiocytes, and lymphocytes.^6,9 Areas of necrosis occasionally can be observed.⁸

It is important to consider infection with Blastomyces dermatitidis and Histoplasma capsulatum in the differential Both entities can manifest as necrotizing granulomas on histology (Figures 1 and 2).¹⁰ Microscopic morphology can help differentiate these pathogenic fungi from Cryptococcus diagnosis of cryptococcosis. species which show pleomorphic, narrow-based budding yeast with wide capsules. In contrast, H capsulatum is characterized by small, intracellular, yeastlike cells with microconidia and macroconidia, while B dermatitidis is distinguished by spherical, thick-walled cells with broad-based budding.¹¹ Capsular material also can help distinguish Cryptococcus from other pathogenic fungi. Special stains highlighting the polysaccharide capsule of Cryptococcus can best identify the yeast. The capsule stains red with periodic acid–Schiff, blue with Alcian blue, and black with Grocott methenamine silver. Mucicarmine is especially useful as it can stain the mucinous capsule pinkish red and typically does not stain other pathogenic fungi.¹² Capsule-deficient organisms can lead to considerable difficulties in diagnosis given the organisms can vary in size and may mimic H capsulatum or B dermatitidis. The Fontana-Masson stain is a valuable tool in identifying capsule-deficient organisms, as melanin is found in Cryptococcus cell walls; thus, positive staining excludes H capsulatum and B dermatitidis.¹³

Cutaneous foreign body granuloma, which refers to a granulomatous inflammatory reaction to a foreign body in the skin, is another differential diagnosis that is important to distinguish from cutaneous cryptococcosis. On histology, a collection of histiocytes surround the inert material, forming giant cells without an immune response (Figure 3).¹⁰ In contrast, granulomas caused by infectious etiologies (eg, Cryptococcus species) have an associated adaptive immune response and can be further classified as necrotizing or non-necrotizing. Necrotizing granulomas have a distinct central necrosis with a surrounding lymphohistiocytic reaction with peripheral chronic inflammation.¹⁰

Sweet syndrome is another mimicker of cutaneous cryptococcosis. A histologic variant of Sweet syndrome has been reported that has characteristic cutaneous lesions clinically but shows basophilic bodies with a surrounding halo on pathology that can be mistaken for Cryptococcus yeast. Classic histopathology of Sweet syndrome features papillary dermal edema with neutrophil or histiocytelike inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 4). Identification of Sweet syndrome can be aided by positive myeloperoxidase staining and negative periodic acid–Schiff staining.^14,15

TOPLINE:

A single dose of the recombinant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine demonstrates effectiveness against infections and associated hospitalizations in veterans aged 60 years or older during the 2023-2024 respiratory illness season. This protection extends across age groups and immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a target trial emulation study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a single dose of recombinant RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3 or RSVpreF) among veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration in the United States between September 1 and December 31, 2023.

• They analyzed 146,852 vaccinated veterans (69.2%, RSVPreF; 29.9%, RSVPreF3) propensity matched with 582,936 unvaccinated ones (median age, ~76 years; ~94% men; immunocompromised individuals, 11.2%) who were followed up for a median of 124 days.

• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test result obtained from day 14 after vaccination.

• The secondary outcomes were RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccine effectiveness against documented RSV infections was 78.1% (95% CI, 72.6-83.5), with incidence rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.7 vs 7.3 per 1000 person-years).

• Likewise, vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits was 78.7% (95% CI, 72.2-84.8), with rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.3 vs 5.7 per 1000 person-years).

• Immunocompromised veterans demonstrated a lower vaccine effectiveness of 71.6% (95% CI, 55.4-85.2); however, infection rates remained lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (5.8 vs 19.9 per 1000 person-years).

• Hospitalizations, ICU admission rates, and mortality rates were also lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results give confidence that an RSV vaccine for older adults is likely to provide protection against RSV infection and RSV disease, at least in the first season following vaccination,” wrote the author of an accompanying comment.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. It was published online on January 20, 2025, in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2025 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00796-5)

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not account for veterans who sought care outside of the Veterans Health Administration. While the study employed rigorous matching to ensure the similarity of demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics, there could still have been residual confounding. Also, the study was not designed to estimate the protective effect of the vaccine against mild RSV illness.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and funded in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and US Food and Drug Administration. One of the authors reported receiving consulting support from Van-Breemen & Hynes and having a subcontract at Oregon State University for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute grant. Others reported no conflicts of interest.■

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A single dose of the recombinant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine demonstrates effectiveness against infections and associated hospitalizations in veterans aged 60 years or older during the 2023-2024 respiratory illness season. This protection extends across age groups and immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a target trial emulation study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a single dose of recombinant RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3 or RSVpreF) among veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration in the United States between September 1 and December 31, 2023.

• They analyzed 146,852 vaccinated veterans (69.2%, RSVPreF; 29.9%, RSVPreF3) propensity matched with 582,936 unvaccinated ones (median age, ~76 years; ~94% men; immunocompromised individuals, 11.2%) who were followed up for a median of 124 days.

• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test result obtained from day 14 after vaccination.

• The secondary outcomes were RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccine effectiveness against documented RSV infections was 78.1% (95% CI, 72.6-83.5), with incidence rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.7 vs 7.3 per 1000 person-years).

• Likewise, vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits was 78.7% (95% CI, 72.2-84.8), with rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.3 vs 5.7 per 1000 person-years).

• Immunocompromised veterans demonstrated a lower vaccine effectiveness of 71.6% (95% CI, 55.4-85.2); however, infection rates remained lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (5.8 vs 19.9 per 1000 person-years).

• Hospitalizations, ICU admission rates, and mortality rates were also lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results give confidence that an RSV vaccine for older adults is likely to provide protection against RSV infection and RSV disease, at least in the first season following vaccination,” wrote the author of an accompanying comment.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. It was published online on January 20, 2025, in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2025 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00796-5)

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not account for veterans who sought care outside of the Veterans Health Administration. While the study employed rigorous matching to ensure the similarity of demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics, there could still have been residual confounding. Also, the study was not designed to estimate the protective effect of the vaccine against mild RSV illness.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and funded in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and US Food and Drug Administration. One of the authors reported receiving consulting support from Van-Breemen & Hynes and having a subcontract at Oregon State University for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute grant. Others reported no conflicts of interest.■

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A single dose of the recombinant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine demonstrates effectiveness against infections and associated hospitalizations in veterans aged 60 years or older during the 2023-2024 respiratory illness season. This protection extends across age groups and immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a target trial emulation study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a single dose of recombinant RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3 or RSVpreF) among veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration in the United States between September 1 and December 31, 2023.

• They analyzed 146,852 vaccinated veterans (69.2%, RSVPreF; 29.9%, RSVPreF3) propensity matched with 582,936 unvaccinated ones (median age, ~76 years; ~94% men; immunocompromised individuals, 11.2%) who were followed up for a median of 124 days.

• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test result obtained from day 14 after vaccination.

• The secondary outcomes were RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccine effectiveness against documented RSV infections was 78.1% (95% CI, 72.6-83.5), with incidence rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.7 vs 7.3 per 1000 person-years).

• Likewise, vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits was 78.7% (95% CI, 72.2-84.8), with rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.3 vs 5.7 per 1000 person-years).

• Immunocompromised veterans demonstrated a lower vaccine effectiveness of 71.6% (95% CI, 55.4-85.2); however, infection rates remained lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (5.8 vs 19.9 per 1000 person-years).

• Hospitalizations, ICU admission rates, and mortality rates were also lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results give confidence that an RSV vaccine for older adults is likely to provide protection against RSV infection and RSV disease, at least in the first season following vaccination,” wrote the author of an accompanying comment.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. It was published online on January 20, 2025, in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2025 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00796-5)

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not account for veterans who sought care outside of the Veterans Health Administration. While the study employed rigorous matching to ensure the similarity of demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics, there could still have been residual confounding. Also, the study was not designed to estimate the protective effect of the vaccine against mild RSV illness.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and funded in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and US Food and Drug Administration. One of the authors reported receiving consulting support from Van-Breemen & Hynes and having a subcontract at Oregon State University for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute grant. Others reported no conflicts of interest.■

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

To the Editor:

Scabies infestation, which has been recognized as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization since 2017, is caused by the human itch mite (Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis).¹ Infected individuals experience a pruritic papular rash when the mite burrows into the epidermis, where it lives and lays eggs.^2,3 Infected individuals also may develop bacterial superinfections if the skin barrier becomes compromised, leading to systemic complications and considerable morbidity.³

In countries with high human development indices, scabies outbreaks are linked to densely populated living conditions, such as those found in nursing homes or prisons.^3,4 Scabies also is transmitted via sexual contact in adults. Beyond immunosuppression, little is known about other comorbid conditions or lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation.² Because scabies can mimic a range of other dermatologic conditions such as folliculitis, atopic dermatitis, and arthropod bites, misdiagnosis is common and can lead to delayed treatment and increased transmission risk.⁴ In this study, we sought to examine comorbid conditions and/or lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation.

A matched case-control study was performed using the Registered Tier dataset of the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program Curated Data Repository version 7, which includes more than 400,000 unique participants aged 18 years or older from across the United States. The All of Us Research Program excludes adults who are unable to consent independently as well as incarcerated populations and children younger than 18 years. Participants diagnosed with scabies were identified using SNOMED code 62752005 and compared to a control group matched 1:4 based on age, sex, and selfidentified race. SNOMED codes also were used to identify various comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors, including depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, schizophrenia, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), HIV, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), unsheltered status, tobacco use, difficulty with activities of daily living, insurance status, and any recent travel history. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and estimate effect sizes, with statistical significance set at P<.05.

We identified 691 cases of scabies infestation and 2073 controls. The average age of the patients diagnosed with scabies was 55.1 years. Seventy percent (481/691) identified as female and 32.4% (224/491) identified as Black or African American. Matched controls were similar for all analyzed demographic characteristics (P=1.0)(eTable 1). Patients diagnosed with scabies were more likely to be unsheltered (OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.91-2.85]), use tobacco (OR 1.77 [95% CI, 1.48-2.11]) and have a comorbid diagnosis of HIV (OR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.03-4.66]), T2DM (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.57- 2.66]) or PVD (OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.43-2.97]) compared with controls (P<.001). Psychiatric comorbidities were more common in the patients diagnosed with scabies, including depression (OR, 3.07 [95% CI, 2.54-3.72]), anxiety (OR, 2.48 [95% CI, 2.06-2.98]), bipolar disorder (OR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.34-4.05]), and schizophrenia (OR, 4.68 [95% CI, 2.93-7.49])(P<.001). Difficulties with activities of daily living, including running errands alone (OR, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.43-3.76]) and concentrating (OR, 5.78; 95% CI, 3.86-8.64), were more prevalent in the scabies group compared to controls (both P<.05). In a multivariate logistic regression model including unsheltered status as a covariate, all associations remained statistically significant (P<.05)(eTable 2).

This large diverse study demonstrated an association between scabies infestation and unsheltered status. Previous studies have shown that unsheltered populations are at increased risk for many dermatologic conditions, perhaps due to decreased access to health care and social support, lack of access to hygiene facilities (eg, public showers), and increased prevalence of substance use and psychiatric disorders among this population.⁵ In a cross-sectional analysis of hospitalized patients, 8.6% of unsheltered patients (n=197) had an ectoparasitic disease (including scabies) compared with 1.0% of patients with stable housing (n=1018), with a 9.43-fold increased risk for ectoparasitic infestation among unsheltered patients (95% CI, 3.79-23.47; P<.001).⁶ Increased attention to public health initiatives among unsheltered populations— including access to hygiene facilities and increased dermatologic services—are needed, as ectoparasitic infections are both preventable and treatable, and these initiatives could reduce morbidity associated with superimposed bacterial infections for which unsheltered patients are at increased risk.⁶

Our results also showed that individuals diagnosed with scabies were more likely than the controls to have been diagnosed with HIV, T2DM, and PVD. Our findings are similar to those of a systematic review of immunosuppressive factors associated with crusted scabies (a severe form of scabies infestation) in which 10.2% and 15.7% of patients (n=683) had comorbid HIV and T2DM, respectively.⁷ A functioning cell-mediated response to scabies mite antigens limits proliferation of the human itch mite; thus, infection with HIV/AIDS, which induces the destruction of CD4+ T cells, limits the immune system’s ability to mount an effective response against these antigens. The association of scabies with T2DM likely is multifactorial; for example, chronic hyperglycemia may lead to immune system impairment, and peripheral neuropathy may reduce the itch sensation, allowing scabies mites to proliferate without removal by scratching.⁷ In a descriptive epidemiologic study in Japan, 11.7% of patients with scabies (N=857) had comorbid PVD.⁸ Peripheral vascular disease can lead to the development of ulcers, gangrene, and stasis dermatitis, all of which compromise the skin barrier and increase susceptibility to infection.⁹ Notably, these associations remained even when unsheltered status was considered as a confounding variable. Because individuals with HIV, T2DM, and PVD may be at higher risk for serious complications of scabies infestation (eg, secondary bacterial infections, invasive group A streptococcal infections), prompt detection and treatment of scabies are crucial in curbing morbidity in these at-risk populations.

Our study also demonstrated that psychiatric comorbidities including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia were associated with scabies infestation, even when controlling for unsheltered status, which may have a bidirectional relationship with mental health disorders.¹⁰ In a cross-sectional study of 83 adult patients diagnosed with scabies, 72.2% (60/83) reported moderate to extremely large effect of scabies infestation on quality of life using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and these scores positively correlated with increased Beck Depression Scale and Beck Anxiety Scale scores (r_s=0.448 and r_s=0.456 0.456, respectively; both P=.000). The results of this study suggest that scabies negatively impacts quality of life, which might increase symptoms of depression and anxiety.¹¹

Studies are needed to assess whether patients with pre-existing depression and anxiety face increased risk for scabies infestation. In a retrospective case-control study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, 0.8% (58/7096) of patients with scabies (n=7096) and 0.4% of controls (n=28,375) were newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder over a 7-year period, indicating a 1.55-fold increased risk for bipolar disorder in patients with scabies compared to those without (95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P<.05).¹² Future studies are needed to determine whether the relationship between bipolar disorder and scabies is bidirectional, with pre-existing bipolar disorder evaluated as a risk factor for subsequent scabies infestation. Increased difficulties with activities of daily living, including running errands independently and concentrating, were associated with scabies. These difficulties may reflect sequelae of psychiatric illness or pruritus associated with scabies affecting daily living.

Physician awareness of comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation may improve diagnosis and prevent treatment delays. In a retrospective study at a single dermatology outpatient clinic, 45.3% of patients with scabies (n=428) had previously been misdiagnosed with another dermatologic condition, and the most common erroneous diagnosis was atopic dermatitis.¹³ Our study provides a framework of comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation that dermatologists can use to stratify patients who may be at greater risk for this condition, allowing dermatologists to select appropriate treatment when clinical signs are ambiguous.

Limitations of our study included the potential for miscoding in the database, lack of information about treatment regimens employed (if any), and lack of information about the temporal relationship between associations.

In summary, it is recommended that patients with pruritus and other characteristic clinical findings of scabies receive appropriate workup for scabies regardless of risk factors; however, the medical and psychiatric comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors identified in this study may help to identify at-risk patients. Our study showed that unsheltered patients are at increased risk for scabies, potentially due to unique dermatologic challenges and lack of access to health care and hygiene facilities. Positive correlations between scabies and HIV, T2DM, and PVD suggest that patients with chronic immunocompromising illnesses who live in group homes or other crowded quarters and present with symptoms could be evaluated for scabies infestation to prevent widespread and difficult- to-control outbreaks in these communities. Based on our findings, scabies also should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients with psychiatric illness and suggestive symptoms. Early identification and treatment of scabies infestation could prevent misdiagnosis and treatment delays.

To the Editor:

Scabies infestation, which has been recognized as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization since 2017, is caused by the human itch mite (Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis).¹ Infected individuals experience a pruritic papular rash when the mite burrows into the epidermis, where it lives and lays eggs.^2,3 Infected individuals also may develop bacterial superinfections if the skin barrier becomes compromised, leading to systemic complications and considerable morbidity.³

In countries with high human development indices, scabies outbreaks are linked to densely populated living conditions, such as those found in nursing homes or prisons.^3,4 Scabies also is transmitted via sexual contact in adults. Beyond immunosuppression, little is known about other comorbid conditions or lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation.² Because scabies can mimic a range of other dermatologic conditions such as folliculitis, atopic dermatitis, and arthropod bites, misdiagnosis is common and can lead to delayed treatment and increased transmission risk.⁴ In this study, we sought to examine comorbid conditions and/or lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation.

A matched case-control study was performed using the Registered Tier dataset of the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program Curated Data Repository version 7, which includes more than 400,000 unique participants aged 18 years or older from across the United States. The All of Us Research Program excludes adults who are unable to consent independently as well as incarcerated populations and children younger than 18 years. Participants diagnosed with scabies were identified using SNOMED code 62752005 and compared to a control group matched 1:4 based on age, sex, and selfidentified race. SNOMED codes also were used to identify various comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors, including depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, schizophrenia, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), HIV, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), unsheltered status, tobacco use, difficulty with activities of daily living, insurance status, and any recent travel history. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and estimate effect sizes, with statistical significance set at P<.05.

We identified 691 cases of scabies infestation and 2073 controls. The average age of the patients diagnosed with scabies was 55.1 years. Seventy percent (481/691) identified as female and 32.4% (224/491) identified as Black or African American. Matched controls were similar for all analyzed demographic characteristics (P=1.0)(eTable 1). Patients diagnosed with scabies were more likely to be unsheltered (OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.91-2.85]), use tobacco (OR 1.77 [95% CI, 1.48-2.11]) and have a comorbid diagnosis of HIV (OR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.03-4.66]), T2DM (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.57- 2.66]) or PVD (OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.43-2.97]) compared with controls (P<.001). Psychiatric comorbidities were more common in the patients diagnosed with scabies, including depression (OR, 3.07 [95% CI, 2.54-3.72]), anxiety (OR, 2.48 [95% CI, 2.06-2.98]), bipolar disorder (OR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.34-4.05]), and schizophrenia (OR, 4.68 [95% CI, 2.93-7.49])(P<.001). Difficulties with activities of daily living, including running errands alone (OR, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.43-3.76]) and concentrating (OR, 5.78; 95% CI, 3.86-8.64), were more prevalent in the scabies group compared to controls (both P<.05). In a multivariate logistic regression model including unsheltered status as a covariate, all associations remained statistically significant (P<.05)(eTable 2).

This large diverse study demonstrated an association between scabies infestation and unsheltered status. Previous studies have shown that unsheltered populations are at increased risk for many dermatologic conditions, perhaps due to decreased access to health care and social support, lack of access to hygiene facilities (eg, public showers), and increased prevalence of substance use and psychiatric disorders among this population.⁵ In a cross-sectional analysis of hospitalized patients, 8.6% of unsheltered patients (n=197) had an ectoparasitic disease (including scabies) compared with 1.0% of patients with stable housing (n=1018), with a 9.43-fold increased risk for ectoparasitic infestation among unsheltered patients (95% CI, 3.79-23.47; P<.001).⁶ Increased attention to public health initiatives among unsheltered populations— including access to hygiene facilities and increased dermatologic services—are needed, as ectoparasitic infections are both preventable and treatable, and these initiatives could reduce morbidity associated with superimposed bacterial infections for which unsheltered patients are at increased risk.⁶

Our results also showed that individuals diagnosed with scabies were more likely than the controls to have been diagnosed with HIV, T2DM, and PVD. Our findings are similar to those of a systematic review of immunosuppressive factors associated with crusted scabies (a severe form of scabies infestation) in which 10.2% and 15.7% of patients (n=683) had comorbid HIV and T2DM, respectively.⁷ A functioning cell-mediated response to scabies mite antigens limits proliferation of the human itch mite; thus, infection with HIV/AIDS, which induces the destruction of CD4+ T cells, limits the immune system’s ability to mount an effective response against these antigens. The association of scabies with T2DM likely is multifactorial; for example, chronic hyperglycemia may lead to immune system impairment, and peripheral neuropathy may reduce the itch sensation, allowing scabies mites to proliferate without removal by scratching.⁷ In a descriptive epidemiologic study in Japan, 11.7% of patients with scabies (N=857) had comorbid PVD.⁸ Peripheral vascular disease can lead to the development of ulcers, gangrene, and stasis dermatitis, all of which compromise the skin barrier and increase susceptibility to infection.⁹ Notably, these associations remained even when unsheltered status was considered as a confounding variable. Because individuals with HIV, T2DM, and PVD may be at higher risk for serious complications of scabies infestation (eg, secondary bacterial infections, invasive group A streptococcal infections), prompt detection and treatment of scabies are crucial in curbing morbidity in these at-risk populations.

Our study also demonstrated that psychiatric comorbidities including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia were associated with scabies infestation, even when controlling for unsheltered status, which may have a bidirectional relationship with mental health disorders.¹⁰ In a cross-sectional study of 83 adult patients diagnosed with scabies, 72.2% (60/83) reported moderate to extremely large effect of scabies infestation on quality of life using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and these scores positively correlated with increased Beck Depression Scale and Beck Anxiety Scale scores (r_s=0.448 and r_s=0.456 0.456, respectively; both P=.000). The results of this study suggest that scabies negatively impacts quality of life, which might increase symptoms of depression and anxiety.¹¹

Studies are needed to assess whether patients with pre-existing depression and anxiety face increased risk for scabies infestation. In a retrospective case-control study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, 0.8% (58/7096) of patients with scabies (n=7096) and 0.4% of controls (n=28,375) were newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder over a 7-year period, indicating a 1.55-fold increased risk for bipolar disorder in patients with scabies compared to those without (95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P<.05).¹² Future studies are needed to determine whether the relationship between bipolar disorder and scabies is bidirectional, with pre-existing bipolar disorder evaluated as a risk factor for subsequent scabies infestation. Increased difficulties with activities of daily living, including running errands independently and concentrating, were associated with scabies. These difficulties may reflect sequelae of psychiatric illness or pruritus associated with scabies affecting daily living.

Physician awareness of comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation may improve diagnosis and prevent treatment delays. In a retrospective study at a single dermatology outpatient clinic, 45.3% of patients with scabies (n=428) had previously been misdiagnosed with another dermatologic condition, and the most common erroneous diagnosis was atopic dermatitis.¹³ Our study provides a framework of comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation that dermatologists can use to stratify patients who may be at greater risk for this condition, allowing dermatologists to select appropriate treatment when clinical signs are ambiguous.

Limitations of our study included the potential for miscoding in the database, lack of information about treatment regimens employed (if any), and lack of information about the temporal relationship between associations.

In summary, it is recommended that patients with pruritus and other characteristic clinical findings of scabies receive appropriate workup for scabies regardless of risk factors; however, the medical and psychiatric comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors identified in this study may help to identify at-risk patients. Our study showed that unsheltered patients are at increased risk for scabies, potentially due to unique dermatologic challenges and lack of access to health care and hygiene facilities. Positive correlations between scabies and HIV, T2DM, and PVD suggest that patients with chronic immunocompromising illnesses who live in group homes or other crowded quarters and present with symptoms could be evaluated for scabies infestation to prevent widespread and difficult- to-control outbreaks in these communities. Based on our findings, scabies also should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients with psychiatric illness and suggestive symptoms. Early identification and treatment of scabies infestation could prevent misdiagnosis and treatment delays.

To the Editor:

Scabies infestation, which has been recognized as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization since 2017, is caused by the human itch mite (Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis).¹ Infected individuals experience a pruritic papular rash when the mite burrows into the epidermis, where it lives and lays eggs.^2,3 Infected individuals also may develop bacterial superinfections if the skin barrier becomes compromised, leading to systemic complications and considerable morbidity.³

In countries with high human development indices, scabies outbreaks are linked to densely populated living conditions, such as those found in nursing homes or prisons.^3,4 Scabies also is transmitted via sexual contact in adults. Beyond immunosuppression, little is known about other comorbid conditions or lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation.² Because scabies can mimic a range of other dermatologic conditions such as folliculitis, atopic dermatitis, and arthropod bites, misdiagnosis is common and can lead to delayed treatment and increased transmission risk.⁴ In this study, we sought to examine comorbid conditions and/or lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation.

A matched case-control study was performed using the Registered Tier dataset of the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program Curated Data Repository version 7, which includes more than 400,000 unique participants aged 18 years or older from across the United States. The All of Us Research Program excludes adults who are unable to consent independently as well as incarcerated populations and children younger than 18 years. Participants diagnosed with scabies were identified using SNOMED code 62752005 and compared to a control group matched 1:4 based on age, sex, and selfidentified race. SNOMED codes also were used to identify various comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors, including depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, schizophrenia, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), HIV, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), unsheltered status, tobacco use, difficulty with activities of daily living, insurance status, and any recent travel history. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and estimate effect sizes, with statistical significance set at P<.05.

We identified 691 cases of scabies infestation and 2073 controls. The average age of the patients diagnosed with scabies was 55.1 years. Seventy percent (481/691) identified as female and 32.4% (224/491) identified as Black or African American. Matched controls were similar for all analyzed demographic characteristics (P=1.0)(eTable 1). Patients diagnosed with scabies were more likely to be unsheltered (OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.91-2.85]), use tobacco (OR 1.77 [95% CI, 1.48-2.11]) and have a comorbid diagnosis of HIV (OR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.03-4.66]), T2DM (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.57- 2.66]) or PVD (OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.43-2.97]) compared with controls (P<.001). Psychiatric comorbidities were more common in the patients diagnosed with scabies, including depression (OR, 3.07 [95% CI, 2.54-3.72]), anxiety (OR, 2.48 [95% CI, 2.06-2.98]), bipolar disorder (OR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.34-4.05]), and schizophrenia (OR, 4.68 [95% CI, 2.93-7.49])(P<.001). Difficulties with activities of daily living, including running errands alone (OR, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.43-3.76]) and concentrating (OR, 5.78; 95% CI, 3.86-8.64), were more prevalent in the scabies group compared to controls (both P<.05). In a multivariate logistic regression model including unsheltered status as a covariate, all associations remained statistically significant (P<.05)(eTable 2).

This large diverse study demonstrated an association between scabies infestation and unsheltered status. Previous studies have shown that unsheltered populations are at increased risk for many dermatologic conditions, perhaps due to decreased access to health care and social support, lack of access to hygiene facilities (eg, public showers), and increased prevalence of substance use and psychiatric disorders among this population.⁵ In a cross-sectional analysis of hospitalized patients, 8.6% of unsheltered patients (n=197) had an ectoparasitic disease (including scabies) compared with 1.0% of patients with stable housing (n=1018), with a 9.43-fold increased risk for ectoparasitic infestation among unsheltered patients (95% CI, 3.79-23.47; P<.001).⁶ Increased attention to public health initiatives among unsheltered populations— including access to hygiene facilities and increased dermatologic services—are needed, as ectoparasitic infections are both preventable and treatable, and these initiatives could reduce morbidity associated with superimposed bacterial infections for which unsheltered patients are at increased risk.⁶

Our results also showed that individuals diagnosed with scabies were more likely than the controls to have been diagnosed with HIV, T2DM, and PVD. Our findings are similar to those of a systematic review of immunosuppressive factors associated with crusted scabies (a severe form of scabies infestation) in which 10.2% and 15.7% of patients (n=683) had comorbid HIV and T2DM, respectively.⁷ A functioning cell-mediated response to scabies mite antigens limits proliferation of the human itch mite; thus, infection with HIV/AIDS, which induces the destruction of CD4+ T cells, limits the immune system’s ability to mount an effective response against these antigens. The association of scabies with T2DM likely is multifactorial; for example, chronic hyperglycemia may lead to immune system impairment, and peripheral neuropathy may reduce the itch sensation, allowing scabies mites to proliferate without removal by scratching.⁷ In a descriptive epidemiologic study in Japan, 11.7% of patients with scabies (N=857) had comorbid PVD.⁸ Peripheral vascular disease can lead to the development of ulcers, gangrene, and stasis dermatitis, all of which compromise the skin barrier and increase susceptibility to infection.⁹ Notably, these associations remained even when unsheltered status was considered as a confounding variable. Because individuals with HIV, T2DM, and PVD may be at higher risk for serious complications of scabies infestation (eg, secondary bacterial infections, invasive group A streptococcal infections), prompt detection and treatment of scabies are crucial in curbing morbidity in these at-risk populations.

Our study also demonstrated that psychiatric comorbidities including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia were associated with scabies infestation, even when controlling for unsheltered status, which may have a bidirectional relationship with mental health disorders.¹⁰ In a cross-sectional study of 83 adult patients diagnosed with scabies, 72.2% (60/83) reported moderate to extremely large effect of scabies infestation on quality of life using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and these scores positively correlated with increased Beck Depression Scale and Beck Anxiety Scale scores (r_s=0.448 and r_s=0.456 0.456, respectively; both P=.000). The results of this study suggest that scabies negatively impacts quality of life, which might increase symptoms of depression and anxiety.¹¹

Studies are needed to assess whether patients with pre-existing depression and anxiety face increased risk for scabies infestation. In a retrospective case-control study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, 0.8% (58/7096) of patients with scabies (n=7096) and 0.4% of controls (n=28,375) were newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder over a 7-year period, indicating a 1.55-fold increased risk for bipolar disorder in patients with scabies compared to those without (95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P<.05).¹² Future studies are needed to determine whether the relationship between bipolar disorder and scabies is bidirectional, with pre-existing bipolar disorder evaluated as a risk factor for subsequent scabies infestation. Increased difficulties with activities of daily living, including running errands independently and concentrating, were associated with scabies. These difficulties may reflect sequelae of psychiatric illness or pruritus associated with scabies affecting daily living.

Physician awareness of comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation may improve diagnosis and prevent treatment delays. In a retrospective study at a single dermatology outpatient clinic, 45.3% of patients with scabies (n=428) had previously been misdiagnosed with another dermatologic condition, and the most common erroneous diagnosis was atopic dermatitis.¹³ Our study provides a framework of comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors associated with scabies infestation that dermatologists can use to stratify patients who may be at greater risk for this condition, allowing dermatologists to select appropriate treatment when clinical signs are ambiguous.

Limitations of our study included the potential for miscoding in the database, lack of information about treatment regimens employed (if any), and lack of information about the temporal relationship between associations.

In summary, it is recommended that patients with pruritus and other characteristic clinical findings of scabies receive appropriate workup for scabies regardless of risk factors; however, the medical and psychiatric comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors identified in this study may help to identify at-risk patients. Our study showed that unsheltered patients are at increased risk for scabies, potentially due to unique dermatologic challenges and lack of access to health care and hygiene facilities. Positive correlations between scabies and HIV, T2DM, and PVD suggest that patients with chronic immunocompromising illnesses who live in group homes or other crowded quarters and present with symptoms could be evaluated for scabies infestation to prevent widespread and difficult- to-control outbreaks in these communities. Based on our findings, scabies also should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients with psychiatric illness and suggestive symptoms. Early identification and treatment of scabies infestation could prevent misdiagnosis and treatment delays.

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of valaciclovir as prophylaxis prevents herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab treatment, with no cases of zoster reported during the follow-up period in patients receiving valaciclovir.

METHODOLOGY:

• Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody binding to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, increases the risk for HZ in patients with SLE; however, specific recommendations to prevent HZ are currently nonexistent for patients with SLE receiving anifrolumab.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study in France from November 2021 to July 2024 to evaluate the prophylactic benefits of valaciclovir in 132 patients with SLE (mean age, 42 years; 92% women) treated with anifrolumab for ≥ 3 months.
• Among these patients, 87 received either 500 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 69) or 1000 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 18) as prophylaxis, whereas 45 did not receive valaciclovir.
• The patients were followed up for a median duration of 234 days under anifrolumab treatment, with monitoring for the development of herpes zoster.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for HZ was significantly lower in patients who received valaciclovir than in those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.08; P = .01).
• None of the patients treated with valaciclovir developed HZ during the survey period.
• The frequency of HZ in patients who did not receive valaciclovir increased progressively from 2.2% at 3 months to 6.2% at 6 months, reaching 23% at 12 months.
• None of the reported cases of HZ required hospitalization or led to anifrolumab discontinuation, although one patient developed neuralgia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Prophylactic treatment with valaciclovir is effective for preventing HZ [herpes zoster] infection in SLE patients treated with anifrolumab,” the authors wrote. “This finding is particularly relevant for SLE patients who cannot receive the recombinant HZ vaccine or for whom it is unavailable,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ludovic Trefond, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand in France. It was published online on January 4, 2025, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design of the study and the low number of herpes zoster events during the follow-up period may have affected the robustness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not receive any specific grants. Some authors reported having financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of valaciclovir as prophylaxis prevents herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab treatment, with no cases of zoster reported during the follow-up period in patients receiving valaciclovir.

METHODOLOGY:

• Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody binding to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, increases the risk for HZ in patients with SLE; however, specific recommendations to prevent HZ are currently nonexistent for patients with SLE receiving anifrolumab.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study in France from November 2021 to July 2024 to evaluate the prophylactic benefits of valaciclovir in 132 patients with SLE (mean age, 42 years; 92% women) treated with anifrolumab for ≥ 3 months.
• Among these patients, 87 received either 500 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 69) or 1000 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 18) as prophylaxis, whereas 45 did not receive valaciclovir.
• The patients were followed up for a median duration of 234 days under anifrolumab treatment, with monitoring for the development of herpes zoster.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for HZ was significantly lower in patients who received valaciclovir than in those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.08; P = .01).
• None of the patients treated with valaciclovir developed HZ during the survey period.
• The frequency of HZ in patients who did not receive valaciclovir increased progressively from 2.2% at 3 months to 6.2% at 6 months, reaching 23% at 12 months.
• None of the reported cases of HZ required hospitalization or led to anifrolumab discontinuation, although one patient developed neuralgia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Prophylactic treatment with valaciclovir is effective for preventing HZ [herpes zoster] infection in SLE patients treated with anifrolumab,” the authors wrote. “This finding is particularly relevant for SLE patients who cannot receive the recombinant HZ vaccine or for whom it is unavailable,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ludovic Trefond, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand in France. It was published online on January 4, 2025, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design of the study and the low number of herpes zoster events during the follow-up period may have affected the robustness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not receive any specific grants. Some authors reported having financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of valaciclovir as prophylaxis prevents herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab treatment, with no cases of zoster reported during the follow-up period in patients receiving valaciclovir.

METHODOLOGY:

• Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody binding to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, increases the risk for HZ in patients with SLE; however, specific recommendations to prevent HZ are currently nonexistent for patients with SLE receiving anifrolumab.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study in France from November 2021 to July 2024 to evaluate the prophylactic benefits of valaciclovir in 132 patients with SLE (mean age, 42 years; 92% women) treated with anifrolumab for ≥ 3 months.
• Among these patients, 87 received either 500 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 69) or 1000 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 18) as prophylaxis, whereas 45 did not receive valaciclovir.
• The patients were followed up for a median duration of 234 days under anifrolumab treatment, with monitoring for the development of herpes zoster.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for HZ was significantly lower in patients who received valaciclovir than in those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.08; P = .01).
• None of the patients treated with valaciclovir developed HZ during the survey period.
• The frequency of HZ in patients who did not receive valaciclovir increased progressively from 2.2% at 3 months to 6.2% at 6 months, reaching 23% at 12 months.
• None of the reported cases of HZ required hospitalization or led to anifrolumab discontinuation, although one patient developed neuralgia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Prophylactic treatment with valaciclovir is effective for preventing HZ [herpes zoster] infection in SLE patients treated with anifrolumab,” the authors wrote. “This finding is particularly relevant for SLE patients who cannot receive the recombinant HZ vaccine or for whom it is unavailable,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ludovic Trefond, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand in France. It was published online on January 4, 2025, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design of the study and the low number of herpes zoster events during the follow-up period may have affected the robustness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not receive any specific grants. Some authors reported having financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.