Infectious Diseases

Vaccination policy in the United States is set largely at the state level, and no state does a better job at vaccinating than Massachusetts, according to a new analysis from personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State’s top finish in the “children and teenagers immunization rates” category moved it ahead of Vermont in the overall rankings, which had the highest score in each of the other two broad categories – “adult and elderly vaccination rates” and “immunization uptake disparities and influencing factors” – but only finished 15th in child/teen immunization, Wallethub reported.

The state that ranked 51st in child/teen immunization – Mississippi – also finished 51st overall, behind every other state and Washington, D.C. The rest of the bottom five consisted of Texas (50th); Florida (49th), which ranked last in the adult/elderly category; Georgia (48th); and Indiana (47th). New Mexico, however, managed to show that last is not always least by earning a mid-pack overall rank of 30 despite its last-place showing in the disparities/influencing factors category, the WalletHub analysis showed.

Scores for the three broad categories were determined using 18 relevant metrics, including influenza vaccination rate in children aged 6 months to 17 years (1st, Rhode Island; 51st, Wyoming), share of adults aged 60 years and older with zoster vaccination (1st, Vermont; 51st, Mississippi), and share of population without health insurance coverage (1st, Massachusetts; 51st, Texas), WalletHub said.

“Each state should tailor its vaccines policy to its need, with an understanding that those needs may change,” Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, told WalletHub. When parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, it’s important to remember that “the state is not denying these children schooling. It is requiring that they be protected from disease first.”

[email protected]

Vaccination policy in the United States is set largely at the state level, and no state does a better job at vaccinating than Massachusetts, according to a new analysis from personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State’s top finish in the “children and teenagers immunization rates” category moved it ahead of Vermont in the overall rankings, which had the highest score in each of the other two broad categories – “adult and elderly vaccination rates” and “immunization uptake disparities and influencing factors” – but only finished 15th in child/teen immunization, Wallethub reported.

The state that ranked 51st in child/teen immunization – Mississippi – also finished 51st overall, behind every other state and Washington, D.C. The rest of the bottom five consisted of Texas (50th); Florida (49th), which ranked last in the adult/elderly category; Georgia (48th); and Indiana (47th). New Mexico, however, managed to show that last is not always least by earning a mid-pack overall rank of 30 despite its last-place showing in the disparities/influencing factors category, the WalletHub analysis showed.

Scores for the three broad categories were determined using 18 relevant metrics, including influenza vaccination rate in children aged 6 months to 17 years (1st, Rhode Island; 51st, Wyoming), share of adults aged 60 years and older with zoster vaccination (1st, Vermont; 51st, Mississippi), and share of population without health insurance coverage (1st, Massachusetts; 51st, Texas), WalletHub said.

“Each state should tailor its vaccines policy to its need, with an understanding that those needs may change,” Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, told WalletHub. When parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, it’s important to remember that “the state is not denying these children schooling. It is requiring that they be protected from disease first.”

[email protected]

Vaccination policy in the United States is set largely at the state level, and no state does a better job at vaccinating than Massachusetts, according to a new analysis from personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State’s top finish in the “children and teenagers immunization rates” category moved it ahead of Vermont in the overall rankings, which had the highest score in each of the other two broad categories – “adult and elderly vaccination rates” and “immunization uptake disparities and influencing factors” – but only finished 15th in child/teen immunization, Wallethub reported.

The state that ranked 51st in child/teen immunization – Mississippi – also finished 51st overall, behind every other state and Washington, D.C. The rest of the bottom five consisted of Texas (50th); Florida (49th), which ranked last in the adult/elderly category; Georgia (48th); and Indiana (47th). New Mexico, however, managed to show that last is not always least by earning a mid-pack overall rank of 30 despite its last-place showing in the disparities/influencing factors category, the WalletHub analysis showed.

Scores for the three broad categories were determined using 18 relevant metrics, including influenza vaccination rate in children aged 6 months to 17 years (1st, Rhode Island; 51st, Wyoming), share of adults aged 60 years and older with zoster vaccination (1st, Vermont; 51st, Mississippi), and share of population without health insurance coverage (1st, Massachusetts; 51st, Texas), WalletHub said.

“Each state should tailor its vaccines policy to its need, with an understanding that those needs may change,” Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, told WalletHub. When parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, it’s important to remember that “the state is not denying these children schooling. It is requiring that they be protected from disease first.”

[email protected]

Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug combination, Descovy, for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The decision, backing the earlier recommendation of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, was based upon results from DISCOVER, a pivotal, multiyear, global phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25-mg tablets for PrEP, compared with Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300-mg tablets).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

DISCOVER included more than 5,300 adult cisgender men who have sex with men or transgender women who have sex with men.

In the trial, Descovy achieved noninferiority to Truvada.

Descovy has a Boxed Warning in its U.S. product label regarding the risk of posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B, according to the company.

The Descovy label also includes a Boxed Warning regarding the risk of drug resistance with PrEP use in undiagnosed early HIV-1 infection. The effectiveness of Descovy for PrEP in individuals at risk of HIV-1 from receptive vaginal sex was not tested, and thus cisgender women at risk for infection from vaginal sex were not included in the population for which the drug was approved.

The Descovy label and safety information is available here.

The FDA version of the announcement is available here.

[email protected]

Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug combination, Descovy, for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The decision, backing the earlier recommendation of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, was based upon results from DISCOVER, a pivotal, multiyear, global phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25-mg tablets for PrEP, compared with Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300-mg tablets).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

DISCOVER included more than 5,300 adult cisgender men who have sex with men or transgender women who have sex with men.

In the trial, Descovy achieved noninferiority to Truvada.

Descovy has a Boxed Warning in its U.S. product label regarding the risk of posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B, according to the company.

The Descovy label also includes a Boxed Warning regarding the risk of drug resistance with PrEP use in undiagnosed early HIV-1 infection. The effectiveness of Descovy for PrEP in individuals at risk of HIV-1 from receptive vaginal sex was not tested, and thus cisgender women at risk for infection from vaginal sex were not included in the population for which the drug was approved.

The Descovy label and safety information is available here.

The FDA version of the announcement is available here.

[email protected]

Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug combination, Descovy, for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The decision, backing the earlier recommendation of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, was based upon results from DISCOVER, a pivotal, multiyear, global phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25-mg tablets for PrEP, compared with Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300-mg tablets).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

DISCOVER included more than 5,300 adult cisgender men who have sex with men or transgender women who have sex with men.

In the trial, Descovy achieved noninferiority to Truvada.

Descovy has a Boxed Warning in its U.S. product label regarding the risk of posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B, according to the company.

The Descovy label also includes a Boxed Warning regarding the risk of drug resistance with PrEP use in undiagnosed early HIV-1 infection. The effectiveness of Descovy for PrEP in individuals at risk of HIV-1 from receptive vaginal sex was not tested, and thus cisgender women at risk for infection from vaginal sex were not included in the population for which the drug was approved.

The Descovy label and safety information is available here.

The FDA version of the announcement is available here.

[email protected]

Recurrent invasive pneumococcal disease in children could be a signal of underlying primary immunodeficiency, according to a systematic review published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Coen Butters, BMed, DCH, of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, and coauthors wrote that, even with optimal vaccine coverage, there is still a group of children with increased susceptibility to invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), and this could be a potential marker of primary immunodeficiency.

They conducted a systematic review of 17 studies of 6,002 children to examine the evidence on the incidence of primary immunodeficiency in children who presented with IPD but without any other risk factors or predisposing conditions.

Overall, the frequency of primary immunodeficiency in children presenting with IPD who did not have any other predisposing condition ranged from 1% to 26%.

One study of 162 children with IPD, which had an overall frequency of primary immunodeficiency of 10%, found that children older than 2 years were significantly more likely to have primary immunodeficiency than those aged under 2 years (26% vs. 3%; P less than .001).

Primary antibody deficiency was the most commonly diagnosed immunodeficiency in these children with IPD, accounting for 71% of cases. These deficiencies presented as hypogammaglobulinemia, specific pneumococcal antibody deficiency, X-linked agammaglobulinemia, and IgG2 deficiency.

The review also included four studies that looked at the frequency of mannose-binding lectin deficiency in 1,493 children with primary IPD. Two of these studies reported a prevalence of mannose-binding lectin deficiency ranging from 31% in children aged younger than 2 years to 41% in children younger than 1 year.

Five studies looked at the rate of primary immunodeficiency in children presenting with recurrent IPD. In addition to other predisposing conditions such as sickle cell disease, cancer, and anatomical breach in the blood-brain barrier, the three studies that screened for primary immunodeficiency found rates ranging from 10% to 67%. The most common conditions were complement deficiency, pneumococcal antibody deficiency, and a single case of TLR-signaling defect.

In a study of 162 children with primary IPD, screening for asplenia identified a single case of congenital asplenia. In another study of 2,498 cases of IPD, 22 patients had asplenia at presentation, half of whom died at presentation.

Dr. Butters and associates concluded that “this review’s findings suggests that existing data support the immune evaluation of children older than 2 years without a known predisposing condition who present with their first episode of Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis, pneumonia, or recurrent IPD. Immune evaluation should include assessment for immunoglobulin deficiency, pneumococcal antibody deficiency, complement disorders, and asplenia.”

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen I. Pelton, MD, of the Maxwell Finland Laboratory for Infectious Diseases at Boston Medical Center, and coauthors wrote that in children with recurrent episodes of IPD caused by nonvaccine serotypes – particularly those aged over 5 years – evaluation for primary immunodeficiencies could uncover immune defects.

“Once identified, direct and indirect protection, penicillin prophylaxis, or a combination of these offers great potential for disease prevention and reduction of mortality and morbidity in children with [primary immunodeficiency],” they wrote.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared for the study. Two of the editorialists declared research funding or honoraria from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCES: Butters C et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3203; Pelton SI et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3185.

Recurrent invasive pneumococcal disease in children could be a signal of underlying primary immunodeficiency, according to a systematic review published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Coen Butters, BMed, DCH, of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, and coauthors wrote that, even with optimal vaccine coverage, there is still a group of children with increased susceptibility to invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), and this could be a potential marker of primary immunodeficiency.

They conducted a systematic review of 17 studies of 6,002 children to examine the evidence on the incidence of primary immunodeficiency in children who presented with IPD but without any other risk factors or predisposing conditions.

Overall, the frequency of primary immunodeficiency in children presenting with IPD who did not have any other predisposing condition ranged from 1% to 26%.

One study of 162 children with IPD, which had an overall frequency of primary immunodeficiency of 10%, found that children older than 2 years were significantly more likely to have primary immunodeficiency than those aged under 2 years (26% vs. 3%; P less than .001).

Primary antibody deficiency was the most commonly diagnosed immunodeficiency in these children with IPD, accounting for 71% of cases. These deficiencies presented as hypogammaglobulinemia, specific pneumococcal antibody deficiency, X-linked agammaglobulinemia, and IgG2 deficiency.

The review also included four studies that looked at the frequency of mannose-binding lectin deficiency in 1,493 children with primary IPD. Two of these studies reported a prevalence of mannose-binding lectin deficiency ranging from 31% in children aged younger than 2 years to 41% in children younger than 1 year.

Five studies looked at the rate of primary immunodeficiency in children presenting with recurrent IPD. In addition to other predisposing conditions such as sickle cell disease, cancer, and anatomical breach in the blood-brain barrier, the three studies that screened for primary immunodeficiency found rates ranging from 10% to 67%. The most common conditions were complement deficiency, pneumococcal antibody deficiency, and a single case of TLR-signaling defect.

In a study of 162 children with primary IPD, screening for asplenia identified a single case of congenital asplenia. In another study of 2,498 cases of IPD, 22 patients had asplenia at presentation, half of whom died at presentation.

Dr. Butters and associates concluded that “this review’s findings suggests that existing data support the immune evaluation of children older than 2 years without a known predisposing condition who present with their first episode of Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis, pneumonia, or recurrent IPD. Immune evaluation should include assessment for immunoglobulin deficiency, pneumococcal antibody deficiency, complement disorders, and asplenia.”

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen I. Pelton, MD, of the Maxwell Finland Laboratory for Infectious Diseases at Boston Medical Center, and coauthors wrote that in children with recurrent episodes of IPD caused by nonvaccine serotypes – particularly those aged over 5 years – evaluation for primary immunodeficiencies could uncover immune defects.

“Once identified, direct and indirect protection, penicillin prophylaxis, or a combination of these offers great potential for disease prevention and reduction of mortality and morbidity in children with [primary immunodeficiency],” they wrote.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared for the study. Two of the editorialists declared research funding or honoraria from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCES: Butters C et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3203; Pelton SI et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3185.

Recurrent invasive pneumococcal disease in children could be a signal of underlying primary immunodeficiency, according to a systematic review published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Coen Butters, BMed, DCH, of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, and coauthors wrote that, even with optimal vaccine coverage, there is still a group of children with increased susceptibility to invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), and this could be a potential marker of primary immunodeficiency.

They conducted a systematic review of 17 studies of 6,002 children to examine the evidence on the incidence of primary immunodeficiency in children who presented with IPD but without any other risk factors or predisposing conditions.

Overall, the frequency of primary immunodeficiency in children presenting with IPD who did not have any other predisposing condition ranged from 1% to 26%.

One study of 162 children with IPD, which had an overall frequency of primary immunodeficiency of 10%, found that children older than 2 years were significantly more likely to have primary immunodeficiency than those aged under 2 years (26% vs. 3%; P less than .001).

Primary antibody deficiency was the most commonly diagnosed immunodeficiency in these children with IPD, accounting for 71% of cases. These deficiencies presented as hypogammaglobulinemia, specific pneumococcal antibody deficiency, X-linked agammaglobulinemia, and IgG2 deficiency.

The review also included four studies that looked at the frequency of mannose-binding lectin deficiency in 1,493 children with primary IPD. Two of these studies reported a prevalence of mannose-binding lectin deficiency ranging from 31% in children aged younger than 2 years to 41% in children younger than 1 year.

Five studies looked at the rate of primary immunodeficiency in children presenting with recurrent IPD. In addition to other predisposing conditions such as sickle cell disease, cancer, and anatomical breach in the blood-brain barrier, the three studies that screened for primary immunodeficiency found rates ranging from 10% to 67%. The most common conditions were complement deficiency, pneumococcal antibody deficiency, and a single case of TLR-signaling defect.

In a study of 162 children with primary IPD, screening for asplenia identified a single case of congenital asplenia. In another study of 2,498 cases of IPD, 22 patients had asplenia at presentation, half of whom died at presentation.

Dr. Butters and associates concluded that “this review’s findings suggests that existing data support the immune evaluation of children older than 2 years without a known predisposing condition who present with their first episode of Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis, pneumonia, or recurrent IPD. Immune evaluation should include assessment for immunoglobulin deficiency, pneumococcal antibody deficiency, complement disorders, and asplenia.”

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen I. Pelton, MD, of the Maxwell Finland Laboratory for Infectious Diseases at Boston Medical Center, and coauthors wrote that in children with recurrent episodes of IPD caused by nonvaccine serotypes – particularly those aged over 5 years – evaluation for primary immunodeficiencies could uncover immune defects.

“Once identified, direct and indirect protection, penicillin prophylaxis, or a combination of these offers great potential for disease prevention and reduction of mortality and morbidity in children with [primary immunodeficiency],” they wrote.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared for the study. Two of the editorialists declared research funding or honoraria from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCES: Butters C et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3203; Pelton SI et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3185.

There are 4 variants of psoriasis: plaque, guttate, pustular, and erythroderma (in order of prevalence).² Guttate psoriasis is characterized by small, 2- to 10-mm, raindroplike lesions on the skin.¹ It accounts for approximately 2% of total psoriasis cases and is commonly triggered by group A streptococcal pharyngitis or tonsillitis.^3,4

Hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) is an illness most commonly caused by a coxsackievirus A infection but also can be caused by other enteroviruses.^5,6 Coxsackievirus is a serotype of the Enterovirus species within the Picornaviridae family.⁷ Hand-foot-and-mouth disease is characterized by a brief fever and vesicular rashes on the palms, soles, or buttocks, as well as oropharyngeal ulcers.⁸ Typically, the rash is benign and short-lived.⁹ In rare cases, neurologic complications develop. There have been no reported cases of guttate psoriasis following a coxsackievirus A infection.

The involvement of coxsackievirus B in the etiopathogenesis of psoriasis has been previously reported.¹⁰ We report the case of guttate psoriasis following presumed coxsackievirus A HFMD.

Case Report

A 56-year-old woman presented with a vesicular rash on the hands, feet, and lips. The patient reported having a sore throat that started around the same time that the rash developed. The severity of the sore throat was rated as moderate. No fever was reported. One day prior, the patient’s primary care physician prescribed a tapered course of prednisone for the rash. The patient reported a medical history of herpes zoster virus, sunburn, and genital herpes. She was taking clonazepam and had a known allergy to penicillin.

Physical examination revealed erythematous vesicular and papular lesions on the extensor surfaces of the hands and feet. Vesicles also were noted on the vermilion border of the lip. Examination of the patient’s mouth showed blisters and shallow ulcerations in the oral cavity. A clinical diagnosis of coxsackievirus A HFMD was made, and the treatment plan included triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.025% applied twice daily for 2 weeks and oral valacyclovir hydrochloride 1 g taken 3 times daily for 7 days. A topical emollient also was recommended for the lips when necessary. The lesions all resolved within a 2-week period with no sequela.

The patient returned 1 month later, citing newer red abdominal skin lesions. Fever was denied. She reported that both prescribed treatments had not been helping for the newer lesions. She noticed similar lesions on the groin and brought them to the attention of her gynecologist. Physical examination revealed salmon pink papules and plaques with silvery scaling involving the abdomen, bilateral upper extremities and ears, and scalp. The patient was then clinically diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. A shave biopsy of a representative lesion on the abdomen was performed. The treatment plan included betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% applied twice daily for 2 weeks, clobetasol propionate solution 0.05% applied twice daily for 14 days (for the scalp), and hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2% applied twice daily for 14 days (for the groin).

The skin biopsy shown in the Figure was received in 10% buffered formalin, measuring 5×4×1 mm of skin. Sections showed an acanthotic epidermis with foci of spongiosis and hypergranulosis covered by mounds of parakeratosis infiltrated by neutrophils. Superficial perivascular and interstitial lymphocytic inflammation was present. Tortuous blood vessels within the papillary dermis also were present. Results showed psoriasiform dermatitis with mild spongiosis. Periodic acid–Schiff stain did not reveal any fungal organisms. These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis.

Comment

Enterovirus-derived HFMD likely is caused by coxsackie-virus A. Current evidence supports the theory that guttate psoriasis can be environmentally triggered in genetically susceptible individuals, often but not exclusively by a streptococcal infection. The causative agent elicits a T-cell–mediated reaction leading to increased type 1 helper T cells, IFN-γ, and IL-2 cytokine levels. HLA-Cw^∗0602–positive patients are considered genetically susceptible and more likely to develop guttate psoriasis following an environmental trigger. Based on the coincidence in timing of both diagnoses, this reported case of guttate psoriasis may have been triggered by a coxsackievirus A infection.

There are 4 variants of psoriasis: plaque, guttate, pustular, and erythroderma (in order of prevalence).² Guttate psoriasis is characterized by small, 2- to 10-mm, raindroplike lesions on the skin.¹ It accounts for approximately 2% of total psoriasis cases and is commonly triggered by group A streptococcal pharyngitis or tonsillitis.^3,4

Hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) is an illness most commonly caused by a coxsackievirus A infection but also can be caused by other enteroviruses.^5,6 Coxsackievirus is a serotype of the Enterovirus species within the Picornaviridae family.⁷ Hand-foot-and-mouth disease is characterized by a brief fever and vesicular rashes on the palms, soles, or buttocks, as well as oropharyngeal ulcers.⁸ Typically, the rash is benign and short-lived.⁹ In rare cases, neurologic complications develop. There have been no reported cases of guttate psoriasis following a coxsackievirus A infection.

The involvement of coxsackievirus B in the etiopathogenesis of psoriasis has been previously reported.¹⁰ We report the case of guttate psoriasis following presumed coxsackievirus A HFMD.

Case Report

A 56-year-old woman presented with a vesicular rash on the hands, feet, and lips. The patient reported having a sore throat that started around the same time that the rash developed. The severity of the sore throat was rated as moderate. No fever was reported. One day prior, the patient’s primary care physician prescribed a tapered course of prednisone for the rash. The patient reported a medical history of herpes zoster virus, sunburn, and genital herpes. She was taking clonazepam and had a known allergy to penicillin.

Physical examination revealed erythematous vesicular and papular lesions on the extensor surfaces of the hands and feet. Vesicles also were noted on the vermilion border of the lip. Examination of the patient’s mouth showed blisters and shallow ulcerations in the oral cavity. A clinical diagnosis of coxsackievirus A HFMD was made, and the treatment plan included triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.025% applied twice daily for 2 weeks and oral valacyclovir hydrochloride 1 g taken 3 times daily for 7 days. A topical emollient also was recommended for the lips when necessary. The lesions all resolved within a 2-week period with no sequela.

The patient returned 1 month later, citing newer red abdominal skin lesions. Fever was denied. She reported that both prescribed treatments had not been helping for the newer lesions. She noticed similar lesions on the groin and brought them to the attention of her gynecologist. Physical examination revealed salmon pink papules and plaques with silvery scaling involving the abdomen, bilateral upper extremities and ears, and scalp. The patient was then clinically diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. A shave biopsy of a representative lesion on the abdomen was performed. The treatment plan included betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% applied twice daily for 2 weeks, clobetasol propionate solution 0.05% applied twice daily for 14 days (for the scalp), and hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2% applied twice daily for 14 days (for the groin).

The skin biopsy shown in the Figure was received in 10% buffered formalin, measuring 5×4×1 mm of skin. Sections showed an acanthotic epidermis with foci of spongiosis and hypergranulosis covered by mounds of parakeratosis infiltrated by neutrophils. Superficial perivascular and interstitial lymphocytic inflammation was present. Tortuous blood vessels within the papillary dermis also were present. Results showed psoriasiform dermatitis with mild spongiosis. Periodic acid–Schiff stain did not reveal any fungal organisms. These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis.

Comment

Enterovirus-derived HFMD likely is caused by coxsackie-virus A. Current evidence supports the theory that guttate psoriasis can be environmentally triggered in genetically susceptible individuals, often but not exclusively by a streptococcal infection. The causative agent elicits a T-cell–mediated reaction leading to increased type 1 helper T cells, IFN-γ, and IL-2 cytokine levels. HLA-Cw^∗0602–positive patients are considered genetically susceptible and more likely to develop guttate psoriasis following an environmental trigger. Based on the coincidence in timing of both diagnoses, this reported case of guttate psoriasis may have been triggered by a coxsackievirus A infection.

There are 4 variants of psoriasis: plaque, guttate, pustular, and erythroderma (in order of prevalence).² Guttate psoriasis is characterized by small, 2- to 10-mm, raindroplike lesions on the skin.¹ It accounts for approximately 2% of total psoriasis cases and is commonly triggered by group A streptococcal pharyngitis or tonsillitis.^3,4

Hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) is an illness most commonly caused by a coxsackievirus A infection but also can be caused by other enteroviruses.^5,6 Coxsackievirus is a serotype of the Enterovirus species within the Picornaviridae family.⁷ Hand-foot-and-mouth disease is characterized by a brief fever and vesicular rashes on the palms, soles, or buttocks, as well as oropharyngeal ulcers.⁸ Typically, the rash is benign and short-lived.⁹ In rare cases, neurologic complications develop. There have been no reported cases of guttate psoriasis following a coxsackievirus A infection.

The involvement of coxsackievirus B in the etiopathogenesis of psoriasis has been previously reported.¹⁰ We report the case of guttate psoriasis following presumed coxsackievirus A HFMD.

Case Report

A 56-year-old woman presented with a vesicular rash on the hands, feet, and lips. The patient reported having a sore throat that started around the same time that the rash developed. The severity of the sore throat was rated as moderate. No fever was reported. One day prior, the patient’s primary care physician prescribed a tapered course of prednisone for the rash. The patient reported a medical history of herpes zoster virus, sunburn, and genital herpes. She was taking clonazepam and had a known allergy to penicillin.

Physical examination revealed erythematous vesicular and papular lesions on the extensor surfaces of the hands and feet. Vesicles also were noted on the vermilion border of the lip. Examination of the patient’s mouth showed blisters and shallow ulcerations in the oral cavity. A clinical diagnosis of coxsackievirus A HFMD was made, and the treatment plan included triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.025% applied twice daily for 2 weeks and oral valacyclovir hydrochloride 1 g taken 3 times daily for 7 days. A topical emollient also was recommended for the lips when necessary. The lesions all resolved within a 2-week period with no sequela.

The patient returned 1 month later, citing newer red abdominal skin lesions. Fever was denied. She reported that both prescribed treatments had not been helping for the newer lesions. She noticed similar lesions on the groin and brought them to the attention of her gynecologist. Physical examination revealed salmon pink papules and plaques with silvery scaling involving the abdomen, bilateral upper extremities and ears, and scalp. The patient was then clinically diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. A shave biopsy of a representative lesion on the abdomen was performed. The treatment plan included betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% applied twice daily for 2 weeks, clobetasol propionate solution 0.05% applied twice daily for 14 days (for the scalp), and hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2% applied twice daily for 14 days (for the groin).

The skin biopsy shown in the Figure was received in 10% buffered formalin, measuring 5×4×1 mm of skin. Sections showed an acanthotic epidermis with foci of spongiosis and hypergranulosis covered by mounds of parakeratosis infiltrated by neutrophils. Superficial perivascular and interstitial lymphocytic inflammation was present. Tortuous blood vessels within the papillary dermis also were present. Results showed psoriasiform dermatitis with mild spongiosis. Periodic acid–Schiff stain did not reveal any fungal organisms. These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis.

Comment

Enterovirus-derived HFMD likely is caused by coxsackie-virus A. Current evidence supports the theory that guttate psoriasis can be environmentally triggered in genetically susceptible individuals, often but not exclusively by a streptococcal infection. The causative agent elicits a T-cell–mediated reaction leading to increased type 1 helper T cells, IFN-γ, and IL-2 cytokine levels. HLA-Cw^∗0602–positive patients are considered genetically susceptible and more likely to develop guttate psoriasis following an environmental trigger. Based on the coincidence in timing of both diagnoses, this reported case of guttate psoriasis may have been triggered by a coxsackievirus A infection.

Photolichenoid dermatitis is an uncommon eruptive dermatitis of variable clinical presentation. It has a histopathologic pattern of lichenoid inflammation and is best characterized as a photoallergic reaction.¹ Photolichenoid dermatitis was first described in 1954 in association with the use of quinidine in the treatment of malaria.² Subsequently, it has been associated with various medications, including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, azithromycin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^1,2 Photolichenoid dermatitis has been documented in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with variable clinical presentations. Photolichenoid dermatitis in patients with HIV has been described both with and without an associated photosensitizing systemic agent, suggesting that HIV infection is an independent risk factor for the development of this eruption in patients with HIV.^3-6

Case Report

A 62-year-old African man presented for evaluation of asymptomatic hypopigmented and depigmented patches in a photodistributed pattern. The eruption began the preceding summer when he noted a pink patch on the right side of the forehead. It progressed over 2 months to involve the face, ears, neck, and arms. His medical history was negative. The only medication he was taking was hydroxychloroquine, which was prescribed by another dermatologist when the patient first developed the eruption. The patient was unsure of the indication for the medication and admitted to poor compliance. A review of systems was negative. There was no personal or family history of autoimmune disease. A detailed sexual history and illicit drug history were not obtained. Physical examination revealed hypopigmented and depigmented patches, some with overlying erythema and collarettes of fine scale. The patches were photodistributed on the face, conchal bowls, neck, dorsal aspect of the hands, and extensor forearms (Figures 1 and 2). Macules of repigmentation were noted within some of the patches. There also were large hyperpigmented patches with peripheral hypopigmentation on the legs.

A punch biopsy taken from the left posterior neck revealed a patchy bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate in the superficial dermis with lymphocytes present at the dermoepidermal junction and scattered dyskeratotic keratinocytes extending into the mid spinous layer (Figure 3). Histopathologic findings were consistent with photolichenoid dermatitis.

Comment

Prevalence of Photosensitive Eruptions
Photodermatitis is an uncommon clinical manifestation of HIV occurring in approximately 5% of patients who are HIV positive.³ Photosensitive eruptions previously described in association with HIV include porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, chronic actinic dermatitis, granuloma annulare, photodistributed dyspigmentation, and lichenoid photodermatitis.⁷ These HIV-associated photosensitive eruptions have been found to disproportionally affect patients of African and Native American descent.^5,7,8 Therefore, a new photodistributed eruption in a patient of African or Native American descent should prompt evaluation of possible underlying HIV infection.

Presenting Sign of HIV Infection
We report a case of photolichenoid dermatitis presenting with loss of pigmentation as a presenting sign of HIV. The patient had no known history of HIV or prior opportunistic infections and was not taking any medications at the time of onset or presentation to clinic. Similar cases of photodistributed depigmentation with lichenoid inflammation on histopathology occurring in patients with HIV have been previously described.^4-6,9 In these cases, most patients were of African descent with previously diagnosed advanced HIV and CD4 counts of less than 50 cells/mL³. The additional clinical findings of lichenoid papules and plaques were noted in several of these cases.^5,6

Exposure to Photosensitizing Drugs
Photodermatitis in patients with HIV often is attributed to exposure to a photosensitizing drug. Many reported cases are retrospective and identify a temporal association between the onset of photodermatitis following the initiation of a photosensitizing drug. The most commonly implicated drugs have included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and azithromycin. Other potential offenders may include saquinavir, dapsone, ketoconazole, and efavirenz.^3,5 In cases in which temporal association with a new medication could not be identified, the photodermatitis often has been presumed to be due to polypharmacy and the potential synergistic effect of multiple photosensitizing drugs.^3,5-8

Advanced HIV
There are several reported cases of photodermatitis occurring in patients who were not exposed to systemic photosensitizers. These patients had advanced HIV, meeting criteria for AIDS with a CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mL³. The majority of patients had an even lower CD4 count of less than 50 cells/mL³. Clinical presentations have included photodistributed lichenoid papules and plaques as well as depigmented patches.^4,5,8,10

Evaluating HIV as a Risk Factor for Photodermatitis
Discerning the validity of the correlation between photodermatitis and HIV is difficult, as all previously reported cases are case reports and small retrospective case series. One study of 34 patients with HIV and photodermatitis showed that there was no significant increase in incidence of photodermatitis in patients who were exposed to a photosensitizing drug vs those who were not,³ which further validates that HIV infection may be an independent risk factor in the development of photodermatitis.

Conclusion

This case represents an uncommon presentation of photolichenoid dermatitis as the presenting sign of HIV infection.¹⁰ Although most reported cases of photodermatitis in HIV are attributed to photosensitizing drugs, we propose that HIV may be an independent risk factor for the development of photodermatitis. We recommend consideration of HIV testing in patients who present with photodistributed depigmenting eruptions, even in the absence of a photosensitizing drug, particularly in patients of African and Native American descent.

Photolichenoid dermatitis is an uncommon eruptive dermatitis of variable clinical presentation. It has a histopathologic pattern of lichenoid inflammation and is best characterized as a photoallergic reaction.¹ Photolichenoid dermatitis was first described in 1954 in association with the use of quinidine in the treatment of malaria.² Subsequently, it has been associated with various medications, including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, azithromycin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^1,2 Photolichenoid dermatitis has been documented in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with variable clinical presentations. Photolichenoid dermatitis in patients with HIV has been described both with and without an associated photosensitizing systemic agent, suggesting that HIV infection is an independent risk factor for the development of this eruption in patients with HIV.^3-6

Case Report

A 62-year-old African man presented for evaluation of asymptomatic hypopigmented and depigmented patches in a photodistributed pattern. The eruption began the preceding summer when he noted a pink patch on the right side of the forehead. It progressed over 2 months to involve the face, ears, neck, and arms. His medical history was negative. The only medication he was taking was hydroxychloroquine, which was prescribed by another dermatologist when the patient first developed the eruption. The patient was unsure of the indication for the medication and admitted to poor compliance. A review of systems was negative. There was no personal or family history of autoimmune disease. A detailed sexual history and illicit drug history were not obtained. Physical examination revealed hypopigmented and depigmented patches, some with overlying erythema and collarettes of fine scale. The patches were photodistributed on the face, conchal bowls, neck, dorsal aspect of the hands, and extensor forearms (Figures 1 and 2). Macules of repigmentation were noted within some of the patches. There also were large hyperpigmented patches with peripheral hypopigmentation on the legs.

A punch biopsy taken from the left posterior neck revealed a patchy bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate in the superficial dermis with lymphocytes present at the dermoepidermal junction and scattered dyskeratotic keratinocytes extending into the mid spinous layer (Figure 3). Histopathologic findings were consistent with photolichenoid dermatitis.

Comment

Prevalence of Photosensitive Eruptions
Photodermatitis is an uncommon clinical manifestation of HIV occurring in approximately 5% of patients who are HIV positive.³ Photosensitive eruptions previously described in association with HIV include porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, chronic actinic dermatitis, granuloma annulare, photodistributed dyspigmentation, and lichenoid photodermatitis.⁷ These HIV-associated photosensitive eruptions have been found to disproportionally affect patients of African and Native American descent.^5,7,8 Therefore, a new photodistributed eruption in a patient of African or Native American descent should prompt evaluation of possible underlying HIV infection.

Presenting Sign of HIV Infection
We report a case of photolichenoid dermatitis presenting with loss of pigmentation as a presenting sign of HIV. The patient had no known history of HIV or prior opportunistic infections and was not taking any medications at the time of onset or presentation to clinic. Similar cases of photodistributed depigmentation with lichenoid inflammation on histopathology occurring in patients with HIV have been previously described.^4-6,9 In these cases, most patients were of African descent with previously diagnosed advanced HIV and CD4 counts of less than 50 cells/mL³. The additional clinical findings of lichenoid papules and plaques were noted in several of these cases.^5,6

Exposure to Photosensitizing Drugs
Photodermatitis in patients with HIV often is attributed to exposure to a photosensitizing drug. Many reported cases are retrospective and identify a temporal association between the onset of photodermatitis following the initiation of a photosensitizing drug. The most commonly implicated drugs have included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and azithromycin. Other potential offenders may include saquinavir, dapsone, ketoconazole, and efavirenz.^3,5 In cases in which temporal association with a new medication could not be identified, the photodermatitis often has been presumed to be due to polypharmacy and the potential synergistic effect of multiple photosensitizing drugs.^3,5-8

Advanced HIV
There are several reported cases of photodermatitis occurring in patients who were not exposed to systemic photosensitizers. These patients had advanced HIV, meeting criteria for AIDS with a CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mL³. The majority of patients had an even lower CD4 count of less than 50 cells/mL³. Clinical presentations have included photodistributed lichenoid papules and plaques as well as depigmented patches.^4,5,8,10

Evaluating HIV as a Risk Factor for Photodermatitis
Discerning the validity of the correlation between photodermatitis and HIV is difficult, as all previously reported cases are case reports and small retrospective case series. One study of 34 patients with HIV and photodermatitis showed that there was no significant increase in incidence of photodermatitis in patients who were exposed to a photosensitizing drug vs those who were not,³ which further validates that HIV infection may be an independent risk factor in the development of photodermatitis.

Conclusion

This case represents an uncommon presentation of photolichenoid dermatitis as the presenting sign of HIV infection.¹⁰ Although most reported cases of photodermatitis in HIV are attributed to photosensitizing drugs, we propose that HIV may be an independent risk factor for the development of photodermatitis. We recommend consideration of HIV testing in patients who present with photodistributed depigmenting eruptions, even in the absence of a photosensitizing drug, particularly in patients of African and Native American descent.

Photolichenoid dermatitis is an uncommon eruptive dermatitis of variable clinical presentation. It has a histopathologic pattern of lichenoid inflammation and is best characterized as a photoallergic reaction.¹ Photolichenoid dermatitis was first described in 1954 in association with the use of quinidine in the treatment of malaria.² Subsequently, it has been associated with various medications, including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, azithromycin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^1,2 Photolichenoid dermatitis has been documented in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with variable clinical presentations. Photolichenoid dermatitis in patients with HIV has been described both with and without an associated photosensitizing systemic agent, suggesting that HIV infection is an independent risk factor for the development of this eruption in patients with HIV.^3-6

Case Report

A 62-year-old African man presented for evaluation of asymptomatic hypopigmented and depigmented patches in a photodistributed pattern. The eruption began the preceding summer when he noted a pink patch on the right side of the forehead. It progressed over 2 months to involve the face, ears, neck, and arms. His medical history was negative. The only medication he was taking was hydroxychloroquine, which was prescribed by another dermatologist when the patient first developed the eruption. The patient was unsure of the indication for the medication and admitted to poor compliance. A review of systems was negative. There was no personal or family history of autoimmune disease. A detailed sexual history and illicit drug history were not obtained. Physical examination revealed hypopigmented and depigmented patches, some with overlying erythema and collarettes of fine scale. The patches were photodistributed on the face, conchal bowls, neck, dorsal aspect of the hands, and extensor forearms (Figures 1 and 2). Macules of repigmentation were noted within some of the patches. There also were large hyperpigmented patches with peripheral hypopigmentation on the legs.

A punch biopsy taken from the left posterior neck revealed a patchy bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate in the superficial dermis with lymphocytes present at the dermoepidermal junction and scattered dyskeratotic keratinocytes extending into the mid spinous layer (Figure 3). Histopathologic findings were consistent with photolichenoid dermatitis.

Comment

Prevalence of Photosensitive Eruptions
Photodermatitis is an uncommon clinical manifestation of HIV occurring in approximately 5% of patients who are HIV positive.³ Photosensitive eruptions previously described in association with HIV include porphyria cutanea tarda, pseudoporphyria, chronic actinic dermatitis, granuloma annulare, photodistributed dyspigmentation, and lichenoid photodermatitis.⁷ These HIV-associated photosensitive eruptions have been found to disproportionally affect patients of African and Native American descent.^5,7,8 Therefore, a new photodistributed eruption in a patient of African or Native American descent should prompt evaluation of possible underlying HIV infection.

Presenting Sign of HIV Infection
We report a case of photolichenoid dermatitis presenting with loss of pigmentation as a presenting sign of HIV. The patient had no known history of HIV or prior opportunistic infections and was not taking any medications at the time of onset or presentation to clinic. Similar cases of photodistributed depigmentation with lichenoid inflammation on histopathology occurring in patients with HIV have been previously described.^4-6,9 In these cases, most patients were of African descent with previously diagnosed advanced HIV and CD4 counts of less than 50 cells/mL³. The additional clinical findings of lichenoid papules and plaques were noted in several of these cases.^5,6

Exposure to Photosensitizing Drugs
Photodermatitis in patients with HIV often is attributed to exposure to a photosensitizing drug. Many reported cases are retrospective and identify a temporal association between the onset of photodermatitis following the initiation of a photosensitizing drug. The most commonly implicated drugs have included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and azithromycin. Other potential offenders may include saquinavir, dapsone, ketoconazole, and efavirenz.^3,5 In cases in which temporal association with a new medication could not be identified, the photodermatitis often has been presumed to be due to polypharmacy and the potential synergistic effect of multiple photosensitizing drugs.^3,5-8

Advanced HIV
There are several reported cases of photodermatitis occurring in patients who were not exposed to systemic photosensitizers. These patients had advanced HIV, meeting criteria for AIDS with a CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mL³. The majority of patients had an even lower CD4 count of less than 50 cells/mL³. Clinical presentations have included photodistributed lichenoid papules and plaques as well as depigmented patches.^4,5,8,10

Evaluating HIV as a Risk Factor for Photodermatitis
Discerning the validity of the correlation between photodermatitis and HIV is difficult, as all previously reported cases are case reports and small retrospective case series. One study of 34 patients with HIV and photodermatitis showed that there was no significant increase in incidence of photodermatitis in patients who were exposed to a photosensitizing drug vs those who were not,³ which further validates that HIV infection may be an independent risk factor in the development of photodermatitis.

Conclusion

This case represents an uncommon presentation of photolichenoid dermatitis as the presenting sign of HIV infection.¹⁰ Although most reported cases of photodermatitis in HIV are attributed to photosensitizing drugs, we propose that HIV may be an independent risk factor for the development of photodermatitis. We recommend consideration of HIV testing in patients who present with photodistributed depigmenting eruptions, even in the absence of a photosensitizing drug, particularly in patients of African and Native American descent.

Infection with Mycobacterium haemophilum, a rare, slow-growing organism, most commonly presents as ulcerating cutaneous lesions and subcutaneous nodules in immunocompromised adults.¹ The most common clinical presentation in adults includes cutaneous lesions, nodules, cysts, and papules, with signs and symptoms of erythema, pain, pruritus, and drainage.² Disseminated disease states of septic arthritis, pulmonary infiltration, and osteomyelitis, though life-threatening, are less common manifestations reported in highly immunocompromised persons.³

Infection with M haemophilum presents a challenge to the dermatology community because it is infrequently suspected and misidentified, resulting in delayed diagnosis. Additionally, M haemophilum is an extremely fastidious organism that requires heme-supplemented culture media and a carefully regulated low temperature for many consecutive weeks to yield valid culture results.¹ These features contribute to complications and delays in diagnosis of an already overlooked source of infection.

We discuss the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of 3 unusual cases of cutaneous M haemophilum infection involving the upper arms. The findings in these cases highlight the challenges inherent in diagnosis as well as the obstacles that arise in providing effective, long-term treatment of this infection.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 69-year-old woman with a medical history of a single functioning kidney and moderate psoriasis managed with low-dosage methotrexate presented with an erythematous nonhealing wound on the left forearm that developed after she was scratched by a dog. The pustules, appearing as bright red, tender, warm abscesses, had been present for 3 months and were distributed on the left proximal and distal dorsal forearm (Figure 1A). The patient reported no recent travel, sick contacts, allergies, or new medications.

A shave biopsy was initially obtained. Swab specimens were sent for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial culture following discontinuation of methotrexate. Initial histopathologic analysis revealed aggregates of histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells within the dermis, surrounded by infiltrates of lymphocytes and neutrophils (Figure 2), consistent with a dermal noncaseating granulomatosis. Acid-fast bacilli (AFB), periodic acid–Schiff, Gram, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for pathogenic microorganisms. There was no evidence of vasculitis.

Despite negative special stains, an infectious cause was still suspected. Oral doxycycline monohydrate 100 mg twice daily, oral fluconazole 200 mg daily, and econazole cream 1% were prescribed because of concern for mycobacterial infection and initial growth of Candida parapsilosis in the swab culture.

A punch biopsy also was performed at this time for both repeat histopathologic analysis and tissue culture. Follow-up appointments were scheduled every 2 weeks. Staining by AFB of the repeat histopathologic specimen was negative.

The patient demonstrated symptomatic and aesthetic improvement (Figure 1B) during consecutive regular follow-up appointments while culture results were pending. No lesions appeared above the left elbow and she had no lymphadenopathy. Results of blood chemistry analyses and complete blood cell count throughout follow-up were normal.

The final tissue culture report obtained 7 weeks after initial presentation showed growth of M haemophilum despite a negative smear. The swab culture that initially was taken did not grow pathogenic organisms.

The patient was referred to an infectious disease specialist who confirmed that the atypical mycobacterial infection likely was the main source of the cutaneous lesions. She was instructed to continue econazole cream 1% and was given prescriptions for clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily, and rifampin 300 mg twice daily for a total duration of 12 to 18 months. The patient has remained on this triple-drug regimen and demonstrated improvement in the lesions. She has been off methotrexate while on antibiotic therapy.

Patient 2
A 79-year-old man with a medical history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma presented with a nonhealing, painful, red lesion on the left forearm of 1 week’s duration. Physical examination revealed a violaceous nontender plaque with erosions and desquamation that was initially diagnosed as a carbuncle. The patient reported a similar eruption on the right foot that was successfully treated with silver sulfadiazine by another physician.

Biopsy was performed by the shave method for histologic analysis and tissue culture. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was prescribed because of high suspicion of infection. Histologic findings revealed granulomatous inflammation with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, reported as squamous cell carcinoma. A second opinion confirmed suspicion of an infectious process; the patient remained on doxycycline. During follow-up, the lesion progressed to a 5-cm plaque studded with pustules and satellite papules. Multiple additional tissue cultures were performed over 2 months until “light growth” of M haemophilum was reported.

The patient showed minimal improvement on tetracycline antibiotics. His condition was complicated by a photosensitivity reaction to doxycycline on the left and right forearms, hands, and nose. Consequently, triamcinolone was prescribed, doxycycline was discontinued, and minocycline 100 mg twice daily and ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily were prescribed.

Nine months after initial presentation, the lesions were still present but remarkably improved. The antibiotic regimen was discontinued after 11 months.

Patient 3
A 77-year-old woman with a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate and abatacept as well as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma treated with narrowband UVB radiation presented to the emergency department with fever and an inflamed right forearm (Figure 3A). Initial bacterial cultures of the wound and blood were negative.

Arm edema and pustules slowly resolved, but the eschar and verrucous plaques continued to slowly progress while the patient was off immunosuppression. She was kept off antibiotics until mycobacterial culture was positive at 4 weeks, at which time she was placed on doxycycline and clarithromycin. Final identification of M haemophilum was made at 6 weeks; consequently, doxycycline was discontinued and she was referred to infectious disease for multidrug therapy. She remained afebrile during the entire 6 weeks until cultures were final.

While immunosuppressants were discontinued and clarithromycin was administered, the plaque changed from an edematous pustular dermatitis to a verrucous crusted plaque. Neither epitrochlear nor axillary lymphadenopathy was noted during the treatment period. The infectious disease specialist prescribed azithromycin, ethambutol, and rifampin, which produced marked improvement (Figure 3B). The patient has remained off immunosuppressive therapy while on antibiotics.

Comment

Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis
Mycobacterium haemophilum is a rare infectious organism that affects primarily immunocompromised adults but also has been identified in immunocompetent adults and pediatric patients.² Commonly affected immunosuppressed groups include solid organ transplant recipients, bone marrow transplant recipients, human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The infection typically presents as small violaceous papules and pustules that become painful and erythematous, with progression and draining ulceration in later stages.² In our cases, all lesions tended to evolve into a verrucous plaque that slowly resolved with antibiotic therapy.

Due to the rarity of this infection, the initial differential diagnosis can include infection with other mycobacteria, Sporothrix, Staphylococcus aureus, and other fungal pathogens. Misdiagnosis is a common obstacle in the treatment of M haemophilum due to its rarity, often negative AFB stains, and slow growth on culture media; therefore, tissue culture is essential to successful diagnosis and management. The natural reservoir of M haemophilum is unknown, but infection has been associated with contaminated water sources.¹ In one case (patient 1), symptoms developed after a dog scratch; the other 2 patients were unaware of injury to the skin.Laboratory diagnosis of M haemophilum is inherently difficult and protracted. The species is a highly fastidious and slow-growing Mycobacterium that requires cooler (30°C) incubation for many weeks on agar medium enriched with hemin or ferric ammonium citrate to obtain valid growth.¹ To secure timely diagnosis, the organism’s slow agar growth warrants immediate tissue culture and biopsy when an immunocompromised patient presents with clinical features of atypical infection of an extremity. Mycobacterium haemophilum infection likely is underreported because of these difficulties in diagnosis.

Management
Although there are no standard guidelines for antibiotic treatment of M haemophilum, the current literature recommends triple-drug therapy with clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and rifamycin for at least 12 to 24 months.²

Upon clinical suspicion of an atypical Mycobacterium, we recommend a macrolide antibiotic over doxycycline, however, because this class of agents maintains broad coverage while being more specific for atypical mycobacteria. Although an atypical Mycobacterium was suspected early in the presentation in our cases, we discourage immediate use of triple-agent antibiotic therapy until laboratory evidence is procured to minimize antibiotic overuse in patients who do not have a final diagnosis. Single-agent therapy for prolonged treatment is discouraged for atypical mycobacterial infections because of the high risk of antibiotic resistance. Therapy should be tailored to the needs of the individual based on the extent of dissemination of disease and the severity of immunosuppression.^1,2

Additionally, underlying disease that results in immunosuppression might necessitate treatment reevaluation (as occurred in our cases) requiring cessation of immunosuppressive drugs, extended careful monitoring, and pharmacotherapeutic readjustment through the course of treatment. The degree to which antibiotics contribute to eradication of M haemophilum is unknown; therefore, it is recommended that long-term antibiotic use and treatment aimed at recovering the immunocompromised state (eg, highly active antiretroviral therapy in a patient with AIDS) be implemented.²

Conclusion

Our 3 cases of M haemophilum infection involved the upper extremities of immunosuppressed patients older than 65 years. This propensity to affect the upper extremities could possibly be due to the lower temperature required for growth of M haemophilum. Initial histopathologic study showed granulomatous and neutrophilic infiltrates, yet histopathologic specimens from all 3 patients failed to display positive AFB staining, which delayed the initial antibiotic choice. In all cases, diagnosis was made by tissue culture after swab culture failed to grow the pathogen. Furthermore, the 3 cases took approximately 6 weeks to achieve final identification of the organism. Neither clinical lymphadenopathy nor systemic spread was noted in our patients; immunosuppression was discontinued when possible.

Mycobacterium haemophilum is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening infection that should be suspected in immunocompromised adults who present with atypical cellulitis of the extremities. The ultimate diagnosis often is delayed because the organism grows slowly (as long as 8 weeks) in tissue culture. For that reason, empiric antibiotic treatment, including a macrolide, should be considered in patients with disseminated or severe infection or critical immunosuppression and in those who do not demonstrate improvement in symptoms once immunosuppressants are withheld. A prolonged course of multiple-drug antibiotic therapy has proved to be effective for treating cutaneous infection with M haemophilum.

Infection with Mycobacterium haemophilum, a rare, slow-growing organism, most commonly presents as ulcerating cutaneous lesions and subcutaneous nodules in immunocompromised adults.¹ The most common clinical presentation in adults includes cutaneous lesions, nodules, cysts, and papules, with signs and symptoms of erythema, pain, pruritus, and drainage.² Disseminated disease states of septic arthritis, pulmonary infiltration, and osteomyelitis, though life-threatening, are less common manifestations reported in highly immunocompromised persons.³

Infection with M haemophilum presents a challenge to the dermatology community because it is infrequently suspected and misidentified, resulting in delayed diagnosis. Additionally, M haemophilum is an extremely fastidious organism that requires heme-supplemented culture media and a carefully regulated low temperature for many consecutive weeks to yield valid culture results.¹ These features contribute to complications and delays in diagnosis of an already overlooked source of infection.

We discuss the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of 3 unusual cases of cutaneous M haemophilum infection involving the upper arms. The findings in these cases highlight the challenges inherent in diagnosis as well as the obstacles that arise in providing effective, long-term treatment of this infection.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 69-year-old woman with a medical history of a single functioning kidney and moderate psoriasis managed with low-dosage methotrexate presented with an erythematous nonhealing wound on the left forearm that developed after she was scratched by a dog. The pustules, appearing as bright red, tender, warm abscesses, had been present for 3 months and were distributed on the left proximal and distal dorsal forearm (Figure 1A). The patient reported no recent travel, sick contacts, allergies, or new medications.

A shave biopsy was initially obtained. Swab specimens were sent for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial culture following discontinuation of methotrexate. Initial histopathologic analysis revealed aggregates of histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells within the dermis, surrounded by infiltrates of lymphocytes and neutrophils (Figure 2), consistent with a dermal noncaseating granulomatosis. Acid-fast bacilli (AFB), periodic acid–Schiff, Gram, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for pathogenic microorganisms. There was no evidence of vasculitis.

Despite negative special stains, an infectious cause was still suspected. Oral doxycycline monohydrate 100 mg twice daily, oral fluconazole 200 mg daily, and econazole cream 1% were prescribed because of concern for mycobacterial infection and initial growth of Candida parapsilosis in the swab culture.

A punch biopsy also was performed at this time for both repeat histopathologic analysis and tissue culture. Follow-up appointments were scheduled every 2 weeks. Staining by AFB of the repeat histopathologic specimen was negative.

The patient demonstrated symptomatic and aesthetic improvement (Figure 1B) during consecutive regular follow-up appointments while culture results were pending. No lesions appeared above the left elbow and she had no lymphadenopathy. Results of blood chemistry analyses and complete blood cell count throughout follow-up were normal.

The final tissue culture report obtained 7 weeks after initial presentation showed growth of M haemophilum despite a negative smear. The swab culture that initially was taken did not grow pathogenic organisms.

The patient was referred to an infectious disease specialist who confirmed that the atypical mycobacterial infection likely was the main source of the cutaneous lesions. She was instructed to continue econazole cream 1% and was given prescriptions for clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily, and rifampin 300 mg twice daily for a total duration of 12 to 18 months. The patient has remained on this triple-drug regimen and demonstrated improvement in the lesions. She has been off methotrexate while on antibiotic therapy.

Patient 2
A 79-year-old man with a medical history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma presented with a nonhealing, painful, red lesion on the left forearm of 1 week’s duration. Physical examination revealed a violaceous nontender plaque with erosions and desquamation that was initially diagnosed as a carbuncle. The patient reported a similar eruption on the right foot that was successfully treated with silver sulfadiazine by another physician.

Biopsy was performed by the shave method for histologic analysis and tissue culture. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was prescribed because of high suspicion of infection. Histologic findings revealed granulomatous inflammation with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, reported as squamous cell carcinoma. A second opinion confirmed suspicion of an infectious process; the patient remained on doxycycline. During follow-up, the lesion progressed to a 5-cm plaque studded with pustules and satellite papules. Multiple additional tissue cultures were performed over 2 months until “light growth” of M haemophilum was reported.

The patient showed minimal improvement on tetracycline antibiotics. His condition was complicated by a photosensitivity reaction to doxycycline on the left and right forearms, hands, and nose. Consequently, triamcinolone was prescribed, doxycycline was discontinued, and minocycline 100 mg twice daily and ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily were prescribed.

Nine months after initial presentation, the lesions were still present but remarkably improved. The antibiotic regimen was discontinued after 11 months.

Patient 3
A 77-year-old woman with a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate and abatacept as well as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma treated with narrowband UVB radiation presented to the emergency department with fever and an inflamed right forearm (Figure 3A). Initial bacterial cultures of the wound and blood were negative.

Arm edema and pustules slowly resolved, but the eschar and verrucous plaques continued to slowly progress while the patient was off immunosuppression. She was kept off antibiotics until mycobacterial culture was positive at 4 weeks, at which time she was placed on doxycycline and clarithromycin. Final identification of M haemophilum was made at 6 weeks; consequently, doxycycline was discontinued and she was referred to infectious disease for multidrug therapy. She remained afebrile during the entire 6 weeks until cultures were final.

While immunosuppressants were discontinued and clarithromycin was administered, the plaque changed from an edematous pustular dermatitis to a verrucous crusted plaque. Neither epitrochlear nor axillary lymphadenopathy was noted during the treatment period. The infectious disease specialist prescribed azithromycin, ethambutol, and rifampin, which produced marked improvement (Figure 3B). The patient has remained off immunosuppressive therapy while on antibiotics.

Comment

Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis
Mycobacterium haemophilum is a rare infectious organism that affects primarily immunocompromised adults but also has been identified in immunocompetent adults and pediatric patients.² Commonly affected immunosuppressed groups include solid organ transplant recipients, bone marrow transplant recipients, human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The infection typically presents as small violaceous papules and pustules that become painful and erythematous, with progression and draining ulceration in later stages.² In our cases, all lesions tended to evolve into a verrucous plaque that slowly resolved with antibiotic therapy.

Due to the rarity of this infection, the initial differential diagnosis can include infection with other mycobacteria, Sporothrix, Staphylococcus aureus, and other fungal pathogens. Misdiagnosis is a common obstacle in the treatment of M haemophilum due to its rarity, often negative AFB stains, and slow growth on culture media; therefore, tissue culture is essential to successful diagnosis and management. The natural reservoir of M haemophilum is unknown, but infection has been associated with contaminated water sources.¹ In one case (patient 1), symptoms developed after a dog scratch; the other 2 patients were unaware of injury to the skin.Laboratory diagnosis of M haemophilum is inherently difficult and protracted. The species is a highly fastidious and slow-growing Mycobacterium that requires cooler (30°C) incubation for many weeks on agar medium enriched with hemin or ferric ammonium citrate to obtain valid growth.¹ To secure timely diagnosis, the organism’s slow agar growth warrants immediate tissue culture and biopsy when an immunocompromised patient presents with clinical features of atypical infection of an extremity. Mycobacterium haemophilum infection likely is underreported because of these difficulties in diagnosis.

Management
Although there are no standard guidelines for antibiotic treatment of M haemophilum, the current literature recommends triple-drug therapy with clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and rifamycin for at least 12 to 24 months.²

Upon clinical suspicion of an atypical Mycobacterium, we recommend a macrolide antibiotic over doxycycline, however, because this class of agents maintains broad coverage while being more specific for atypical mycobacteria. Although an atypical Mycobacterium was suspected early in the presentation in our cases, we discourage immediate use of triple-agent antibiotic therapy until laboratory evidence is procured to minimize antibiotic overuse in patients who do not have a final diagnosis. Single-agent therapy for prolonged treatment is discouraged for atypical mycobacterial infections because of the high risk of antibiotic resistance. Therapy should be tailored to the needs of the individual based on the extent of dissemination of disease and the severity of immunosuppression.^1,2

Additionally, underlying disease that results in immunosuppression might necessitate treatment reevaluation (as occurred in our cases) requiring cessation of immunosuppressive drugs, extended careful monitoring, and pharmacotherapeutic readjustment through the course of treatment. The degree to which antibiotics contribute to eradication of M haemophilum is unknown; therefore, it is recommended that long-term antibiotic use and treatment aimed at recovering the immunocompromised state (eg, highly active antiretroviral therapy in a patient with AIDS) be implemented.²

Conclusion

Our 3 cases of M haemophilum infection involved the upper extremities of immunosuppressed patients older than 65 years. This propensity to affect the upper extremities could possibly be due to the lower temperature required for growth of M haemophilum. Initial histopathologic study showed granulomatous and neutrophilic infiltrates, yet histopathologic specimens from all 3 patients failed to display positive AFB staining, which delayed the initial antibiotic choice. In all cases, diagnosis was made by tissue culture after swab culture failed to grow the pathogen. Furthermore, the 3 cases took approximately 6 weeks to achieve final identification of the organism. Neither clinical lymphadenopathy nor systemic spread was noted in our patients; immunosuppression was discontinued when possible.

Mycobacterium haemophilum is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening infection that should be suspected in immunocompromised adults who present with atypical cellulitis of the extremities. The ultimate diagnosis often is delayed because the organism grows slowly (as long as 8 weeks) in tissue culture. For that reason, empiric antibiotic treatment, including a macrolide, should be considered in patients with disseminated or severe infection or critical immunosuppression and in those who do not demonstrate improvement in symptoms once immunosuppressants are withheld. A prolonged course of multiple-drug antibiotic therapy has proved to be effective for treating cutaneous infection with M haemophilum.

Infection with Mycobacterium haemophilum, a rare, slow-growing organism, most commonly presents as ulcerating cutaneous lesions and subcutaneous nodules in immunocompromised adults.¹ The most common clinical presentation in adults includes cutaneous lesions, nodules, cysts, and papules, with signs and symptoms of erythema, pain, pruritus, and drainage.² Disseminated disease states of septic arthritis, pulmonary infiltration, and osteomyelitis, though life-threatening, are less common manifestations reported in highly immunocompromised persons.³

Infection with M haemophilum presents a challenge to the dermatology community because it is infrequently suspected and misidentified, resulting in delayed diagnosis. Additionally, M haemophilum is an extremely fastidious organism that requires heme-supplemented culture media and a carefully regulated low temperature for many consecutive weeks to yield valid culture results.¹ These features contribute to complications and delays in diagnosis of an already overlooked source of infection.

We discuss the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of 3 unusual cases of cutaneous M haemophilum infection involving the upper arms. The findings in these cases highlight the challenges inherent in diagnosis as well as the obstacles that arise in providing effective, long-term treatment of this infection.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 69-year-old woman with a medical history of a single functioning kidney and moderate psoriasis managed with low-dosage methotrexate presented with an erythematous nonhealing wound on the left forearm that developed after she was scratched by a dog. The pustules, appearing as bright red, tender, warm abscesses, had been present for 3 months and were distributed on the left proximal and distal dorsal forearm (Figure 1A). The patient reported no recent travel, sick contacts, allergies, or new medications.

A shave biopsy was initially obtained. Swab specimens were sent for bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial culture following discontinuation of methotrexate. Initial histopathologic analysis revealed aggregates of histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells within the dermis, surrounded by infiltrates of lymphocytes and neutrophils (Figure 2), consistent with a dermal noncaseating granulomatosis. Acid-fast bacilli (AFB), periodic acid–Schiff, Gram, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for pathogenic microorganisms. There was no evidence of vasculitis.

Despite negative special stains, an infectious cause was still suspected. Oral doxycycline monohydrate 100 mg twice daily, oral fluconazole 200 mg daily, and econazole cream 1% were prescribed because of concern for mycobacterial infection and initial growth of Candida parapsilosis in the swab culture.

A punch biopsy also was performed at this time for both repeat histopathologic analysis and tissue culture. Follow-up appointments were scheduled every 2 weeks. Staining by AFB of the repeat histopathologic specimen was negative.

The patient demonstrated symptomatic and aesthetic improvement (Figure 1B) during consecutive regular follow-up appointments while culture results were pending. No lesions appeared above the left elbow and she had no lymphadenopathy. Results of blood chemistry analyses and complete blood cell count throughout follow-up were normal.

The final tissue culture report obtained 7 weeks after initial presentation showed growth of M haemophilum despite a negative smear. The swab culture that initially was taken did not grow pathogenic organisms.

The patient was referred to an infectious disease specialist who confirmed that the atypical mycobacterial infection likely was the main source of the cutaneous lesions. She was instructed to continue econazole cream 1% and was given prescriptions for clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily, and rifampin 300 mg twice daily for a total duration of 12 to 18 months. The patient has remained on this triple-drug regimen and demonstrated improvement in the lesions. She has been off methotrexate while on antibiotic therapy.

Patient 2
A 79-year-old man with a medical history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma presented with a nonhealing, painful, red lesion on the left forearm of 1 week’s duration. Physical examination revealed a violaceous nontender plaque with erosions and desquamation that was initially diagnosed as a carbuncle. The patient reported a similar eruption on the right foot that was successfully treated with silver sulfadiazine by another physician.

Biopsy was performed by the shave method for histologic analysis and tissue culture. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was prescribed because of high suspicion of infection. Histologic findings revealed granulomatous inflammation with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, reported as squamous cell carcinoma. A second opinion confirmed suspicion of an infectious process; the patient remained on doxycycline. During follow-up, the lesion progressed to a 5-cm plaque studded with pustules and satellite papules. Multiple additional tissue cultures were performed over 2 months until “light growth” of M haemophilum was reported.

The patient showed minimal improvement on tetracycline antibiotics. His condition was complicated by a photosensitivity reaction to doxycycline on the left and right forearms, hands, and nose. Consequently, triamcinolone was prescribed, doxycycline was discontinued, and minocycline 100 mg twice daily and ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily were prescribed.

Nine months after initial presentation, the lesions were still present but remarkably improved. The antibiotic regimen was discontinued after 11 months.

Patient 3
A 77-year-old woman with a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate and abatacept as well as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma treated with narrowband UVB radiation presented to the emergency department with fever and an inflamed right forearm (Figure 3A). Initial bacterial cultures of the wound and blood were negative.

Arm edema and pustules slowly resolved, but the eschar and verrucous plaques continued to slowly progress while the patient was off immunosuppression. She was kept off antibiotics until mycobacterial culture was positive at 4 weeks, at which time she was placed on doxycycline and clarithromycin. Final identification of M haemophilum was made at 6 weeks; consequently, doxycycline was discontinued and she was referred to infectious disease for multidrug therapy. She remained afebrile during the entire 6 weeks until cultures were final.

While immunosuppressants were discontinued and clarithromycin was administered, the plaque changed from an edematous pustular dermatitis to a verrucous crusted plaque. Neither epitrochlear nor axillary lymphadenopathy was noted during the treatment period. The infectious disease specialist prescribed azithromycin, ethambutol, and rifampin, which produced marked improvement (Figure 3B). The patient has remained off immunosuppressive therapy while on antibiotics.

Comment

Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis
Mycobacterium haemophilum is a rare infectious organism that affects primarily immunocompromised adults but also has been identified in immunocompetent adults and pediatric patients.² Commonly affected immunosuppressed groups include solid organ transplant recipients, bone marrow transplant recipients, human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The infection typically presents as small violaceous papules and pustules that become painful and erythematous, with progression and draining ulceration in later stages.² In our cases, all lesions tended to evolve into a verrucous plaque that slowly resolved with antibiotic therapy.

Due to the rarity of this infection, the initial differential diagnosis can include infection with other mycobacteria, Sporothrix, Staphylococcus aureus, and other fungal pathogens. Misdiagnosis is a common obstacle in the treatment of M haemophilum due to its rarity, often negative AFB stains, and slow growth on culture media; therefore, tissue culture is essential to successful diagnosis and management. The natural reservoir of M haemophilum is unknown, but infection has been associated with contaminated water sources.¹ In one case (patient 1), symptoms developed after a dog scratch; the other 2 patients were unaware of injury to the skin.Laboratory diagnosis of M haemophilum is inherently difficult and protracted. The species is a highly fastidious and slow-growing Mycobacterium that requires cooler (30°C) incubation for many weeks on agar medium enriched with hemin or ferric ammonium citrate to obtain valid growth.¹ To secure timely diagnosis, the organism’s slow agar growth warrants immediate tissue culture and biopsy when an immunocompromised patient presents with clinical features of atypical infection of an extremity. Mycobacterium haemophilum infection likely is underreported because of these difficulties in diagnosis.

Management
Although there are no standard guidelines for antibiotic treatment of M haemophilum, the current literature recommends triple-drug therapy with clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and rifamycin for at least 12 to 24 months.²

Upon clinical suspicion of an atypical Mycobacterium, we recommend a macrolide antibiotic over doxycycline, however, because this class of agents maintains broad coverage while being more specific for atypical mycobacteria. Although an atypical Mycobacterium was suspected early in the presentation in our cases, we discourage immediate use of triple-agent antibiotic therapy until laboratory evidence is procured to minimize antibiotic overuse in patients who do not have a final diagnosis. Single-agent therapy for prolonged treatment is discouraged for atypical mycobacterial infections because of the high risk of antibiotic resistance. Therapy should be tailored to the needs of the individual based on the extent of dissemination of disease and the severity of immunosuppression.^1,2

Additionally, underlying disease that results in immunosuppression might necessitate treatment reevaluation (as occurred in our cases) requiring cessation of immunosuppressive drugs, extended careful monitoring, and pharmacotherapeutic readjustment through the course of treatment. The degree to which antibiotics contribute to eradication of M haemophilum is unknown; therefore, it is recommended that long-term antibiotic use and treatment aimed at recovering the immunocompromised state (eg, highly active antiretroviral therapy in a patient with AIDS) be implemented.²

Conclusion

Our 3 cases of M haemophilum infection involved the upper extremities of immunosuppressed patients older than 65 years. This propensity to affect the upper extremities could possibly be due to the lower temperature required for growth of M haemophilum. Initial histopathologic study showed granulomatous and neutrophilic infiltrates, yet histopathologic specimens from all 3 patients failed to display positive AFB staining, which delayed the initial antibiotic choice. In all cases, diagnosis was made by tissue culture after swab culture failed to grow the pathogen. Furthermore, the 3 cases took approximately 6 weeks to achieve final identification of the organism. Neither clinical lymphadenopathy nor systemic spread was noted in our patients; immunosuppression was discontinued when possible.

Mycobacterium haemophilum is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening infection that should be suspected in immunocompromised adults who present with atypical cellulitis of the extremities. The ultimate diagnosis often is delayed because the organism grows slowly (as long as 8 weeks) in tissue culture. For that reason, empiric antibiotic treatment, including a macrolide, should be considered in patients with disseminated or severe infection or critical immunosuppression and in those who do not demonstrate improvement in symptoms once immunosuppressants are withheld. A prolonged course of multiple-drug antibiotic therapy has proved to be effective for treating cutaneous infection with M haemophilum.

Case Report

A 79-year-old man with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who was being treated with ibrutinib presented to the emergency department with a dry cough, ataxia and falls, and vision loss. Physical examination was remarkable for diffuse crackles heard throughout the right lung and bilateral lower extremity weakness. Additionally, he had 4 pink mobile nodules on the left side of the forehead, right side of the chin, left submental area, and left postauricular scalp, which arose approximately 2 weeks prior to presentation. The left postauricular lesion had been tender at times and had developed a crust. The cutaneous lesions were all smaller than 2 cm.

The patient had a history of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin and was under the care of a dermatologist as an outpatient. His dermatologist had described him as an active gardener; he was noted to have healing abrasions on the forearms due to gardening raspberry bushes.

Computed tomography of the head revealed a 14-mm, ring-enhancing lesion in the left paramedian posterior frontal lobe with surrounding white matter vasogenic edema (Figure 1). Computed tomography of the chest revealed a peripheral mass on the right upper lobe measuring 6.3 cm at its greatest dimension (Figure 2).

Clinically, the constellation of symptoms was thought to represent an infectious process or less likely metastatic malignancy. Biopsies of the nodule on the right side of the chin were performed and sent for culture and histologic examination. Sections from the anterior right chin showed compact orthokeratosis overlying a slightly spongiotic epidermis (Figure 3). Within the deep dermis, there was a dense mixed inflammatory infiltrate comprising predominantly neutrophils, with occasional eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes (Figure 4).

Gram stain revealed gram-variable, branching, bacterial organisms morphologically consistent with Nocardia. Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver and periodic acid–Schiff stains also highlighted the bacterial organisms (Figure 5). An auramine-O stain was negative for acid-fast microorganisms. After 3 days on a blood agar plate, cultures of a specimen of the chin nodule grew branching filamentous bacterial organisms consistent with Nocardia.

Comment

Presentation and Diagnosis
Nocardiosis is an infrequently encountered opportunistic infection that typically targets skin, lungs, and the central nervous system (CNS). Nocardia species characteristically are gram-positive, thin rods that form beaded, right-angle, branching filaments.¹ More than 50 Nocardia species have been clinically isolated.²

Definitive diagnosis requires culture. Nocardia grows well on nonselective media, such as blood or Löwenstein-Jensen agar; growth can be enhanced with 10% CO₂. Growth can be slow, however, and takes from 48 hours to several weeks. Nocardia typically grows as buff or pigmented, waxy, cerebriform colonies at 3 to 5 days’ incubation.¹

Cause of Infection
Nocardia species are commonly found in the environment—soil, plant matter, water, and decomposing organic material—as well as in the gastrointestinal tract and skin of animals. Infection has been reported in cattle, dogs, horses, swine, birds, cats, foxes, and a few other animals.² A history of exposure, such as gardening or handling animals, should increase suspicion of Nocardia.³ Although infection is classically thought to affect immunocompromised patients, there are case reports of immunocompetent individuals developing disseminated infection.^4-7 However, infected immunocompetent individuals typically have localized cutaneous infection, which often includes cellulitis, abscesses, or sporotrichoid patterns.² Cutaneous infections typically are the result of direct inoculation of the skin through a penetrating injury.⁸

Disseminated nocardiosis can be caused by numerous species and generally is the result of primary pulmonary infection.⁹ In these cases, skin disease is present in approximately 10% of patients. Disseminated infection from cutaneous nocardiosis is uncommon; when it does occur, the most common site of dissemination is the CNS, resulting in abscess or cerebritis.¹⁰ Therefore, CNS involvement should always be ruled out on diagnosis in immunocompromised patients, even if neurologic symptoms are absent.⁹ Nearly 80% of patients with disseminated disease are, in fact, immunocompromised.⁸

Association With CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is associated with profound immunodeficiency caused by quantitative and qualitative aberrations in both innate and adaptive immunity. This perturbation of the immune system predisposes the patient to infection.^11,12 Early in the course of CLL, a patient develops neutropenia, which predisposes to bacterial infection; later, the patient develops a sustained B- and T-cell immunodeficiency that predisposes to opportunistic infection.¹³ Treatment-naïve patients with CLL are commonly diagnosed with respiratory and urinary tract infections.¹² Chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with alemtuzumab or purine analogs have been reported to have the highest risk for major infection.¹⁴

Ibrutinib is a commonly used treatment of CLL because it induces apoptosis in B cells, which are abnormal in CLL. Ibrutinib functions by inhibiting the Bruton tyrosine kinase pathway, which is essential in B-cell production and maintenance.¹⁵ Studies have reported a high rate of infection in ibrutinib-treated CLL patients^14,16; salvage ibrutinib therapy has been associated with higher infection risk than primary ibrutinib therapy.^16,17 Long-term follow-up studies have shown a decreased rate of infection in ibrutinib-treated CLL after 2 years or longer of treatment, suggesting a reconstitution of normal B cells and humoral immunity with longer ibrutinib therapy.^16,17

Many infections have been identified in association with ibrutinib therapy, including invasive aspergillosis, disseminated fusariosis, cerebral mucormycosis, disseminated cryptococcosis, and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.^18-22 Disseminated nocardiosis has been reported in a few patients with CLL, though the treatment they received for CLL varied from case to case.^23-25

Identification and Treatment
Clinical and microscopic identification of Nocardia organisms can be exceedingly difficult. Primary cutaneous nocardiosis clinically presents as tumors or nodules that often have a sporotrichoid pattern along the lymphatics. In disease that disseminates to skin, nocardiosis presents as vesiculopustules or abscesses. The biopsy specimen most often shows a dense dermal and subcutaneous infiltrate of neutrophils with abscess formation. Long-standing lesions might show chronic inflammation and nonspecific granulomas.

The appearance of Nocardia organisms is quite subtle on hematoxylin and eosin staining and can be easily missed. Special stains, such as Gram and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains as well as stains for acid-fast organisms, can be invaluable in diagnosing this disease. Biopsy in immunocompromised patients when nocardiosis is part of the differential diagnosis requires extra attention because the organisms can be gram variable and only partially acid fast, as was the case in our patient. Organisms typically will be positive with silver stains.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole typically is the first-line treatment of nocardiosis. Although prognosis is excellent when disease is confined to skin, disseminated infection has 25% mortality.⁸ Diagnosticians should maintain a high index of suspicion for the disease, especially in immunocompromised patients, because clinical and imaging findings can be nonspecific.

Conclusion

Our patient’s primary risk factor for nocardiosis was his immunocompromised state. In addition, he was an avid gardener, which increased his risk for exposure to the microorganism. Given the timing of disease progression, our case most likely represents primary cutaneous nocardiosis with dissemination to brain, lungs, and other organs, leading to death, and serves as a reminder to dermatologists and pathologists to establish a broad differential diagnosis when dealing with an infectious process in immunocompromised patients.

Case Report

A 79-year-old man with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who was being treated with ibrutinib presented to the emergency department with a dry cough, ataxia and falls, and vision loss. Physical examination was remarkable for diffuse crackles heard throughout the right lung and bilateral lower extremity weakness. Additionally, he had 4 pink mobile nodules on the left side of the forehead, right side of the chin, left submental area, and left postauricular scalp, which arose approximately 2 weeks prior to presentation. The left postauricular lesion had been tender at times and had developed a crust. The cutaneous lesions were all smaller than 2 cm.

The patient had a history of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin and was under the care of a dermatologist as an outpatient. His dermatologist had described him as an active gardener; he was noted to have healing abrasions on the forearms due to gardening raspberry bushes.

Computed tomography of the head revealed a 14-mm, ring-enhancing lesion in the left paramedian posterior frontal lobe with surrounding white matter vasogenic edema (Figure 1). Computed tomography of the chest revealed a peripheral mass on the right upper lobe measuring 6.3 cm at its greatest dimension (Figure 2).

Clinically, the constellation of symptoms was thought to represent an infectious process or less likely metastatic malignancy. Biopsies of the nodule on the right side of the chin were performed and sent for culture and histologic examination. Sections from the anterior right chin showed compact orthokeratosis overlying a slightly spongiotic epidermis (Figure 3). Within the deep dermis, there was a dense mixed inflammatory infiltrate comprising predominantly neutrophils, with occasional eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes (Figure 4).

Gram stain revealed gram-variable, branching, bacterial organisms morphologically consistent with Nocardia. Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver and periodic acid–Schiff stains also highlighted the bacterial organisms (Figure 5). An auramine-O stain was negative for acid-fast microorganisms. After 3 days on a blood agar plate, cultures of a specimen of the chin nodule grew branching filamentous bacterial organisms consistent with Nocardia.

Comment

Presentation and Diagnosis
Nocardiosis is an infrequently encountered opportunistic infection that typically targets skin, lungs, and the central nervous system (CNS). Nocardia species characteristically are gram-positive, thin rods that form beaded, right-angle, branching filaments.¹ More than 50 Nocardia species have been clinically isolated.²

Definitive diagnosis requires culture. Nocardia grows well on nonselective media, such as blood or Löwenstein-Jensen agar; growth can be enhanced with 10% CO₂. Growth can be slow, however, and takes from 48 hours to several weeks. Nocardia typically grows as buff or pigmented, waxy, cerebriform colonies at 3 to 5 days’ incubation.¹

Cause of Infection
Nocardia species are commonly found in the environment—soil, plant matter, water, and decomposing organic material—as well as in the gastrointestinal tract and skin of animals. Infection has been reported in cattle, dogs, horses, swine, birds, cats, foxes, and a few other animals.² A history of exposure, such as gardening or handling animals, should increase suspicion of Nocardia.³ Although infection is classically thought to affect immunocompromised patients, there are case reports of immunocompetent individuals developing disseminated infection.^4-7 However, infected immunocompetent individuals typically have localized cutaneous infection, which often includes cellulitis, abscesses, or sporotrichoid patterns.² Cutaneous infections typically are the result of direct inoculation of the skin through a penetrating injury.⁸

Disseminated nocardiosis can be caused by numerous species and generally is the result of primary pulmonary infection.⁹ In these cases, skin disease is present in approximately 10% of patients. Disseminated infection from cutaneous nocardiosis is uncommon; when it does occur, the most common site of dissemination is the CNS, resulting in abscess or cerebritis.¹⁰ Therefore, CNS involvement should always be ruled out on diagnosis in immunocompromised patients, even if neurologic symptoms are absent.⁹ Nearly 80% of patients with disseminated disease are, in fact, immunocompromised.⁸

Association With CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is associated with profound immunodeficiency caused by quantitative and qualitative aberrations in both innate and adaptive immunity. This perturbation of the immune system predisposes the patient to infection.^11,12 Early in the course of CLL, a patient develops neutropenia, which predisposes to bacterial infection; later, the patient develops a sustained B- and T-cell immunodeficiency that predisposes to opportunistic infection.¹³ Treatment-naïve patients with CLL are commonly diagnosed with respiratory and urinary tract infections.¹² Chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with alemtuzumab or purine analogs have been reported to have the highest risk for major infection.¹⁴

Ibrutinib is a commonly used treatment of CLL because it induces apoptosis in B cells, which are abnormal in CLL. Ibrutinib functions by inhibiting the Bruton tyrosine kinase pathway, which is essential in B-cell production and maintenance.¹⁵ Studies have reported a high rate of infection in ibrutinib-treated CLL patients^14,16; salvage ibrutinib therapy has been associated with higher infection risk than primary ibrutinib therapy.^16,17 Long-term follow-up studies have shown a decreased rate of infection in ibrutinib-treated CLL after 2 years or longer of treatment, suggesting a reconstitution of normal B cells and humoral immunity with longer ibrutinib therapy.^16,17

Many infections have been identified in association with ibrutinib therapy, including invasive aspergillosis, disseminated fusariosis, cerebral mucormycosis, disseminated cryptococcosis, and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.^18-22 Disseminated nocardiosis has been reported in a few patients with CLL, though the treatment they received for CLL varied from case to case.^23-25

Identification and Treatment
Clinical and microscopic identification of Nocardia organisms can be exceedingly difficult. Primary cutaneous nocardiosis clinically presents as tumors or nodules that often have a sporotrichoid pattern along the lymphatics. In disease that disseminates to skin, nocardiosis presents as vesiculopustules or abscesses. The biopsy specimen most often shows a dense dermal and subcutaneous infiltrate of neutrophils with abscess formation. Long-standing lesions might show chronic inflammation and nonspecific granulomas.

The appearance of Nocardia organisms is quite subtle on hematoxylin and eosin staining and can be easily missed. Special stains, such as Gram and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains as well as stains for acid-fast organisms, can be invaluable in diagnosing this disease. Biopsy in immunocompromised patients when nocardiosis is part of the differential diagnosis requires extra attention because the organisms can be gram variable and only partially acid fast, as was the case in our patient. Organisms typically will be positive with silver stains.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole typically is the first-line treatment of nocardiosis. Although prognosis is excellent when disease is confined to skin, disseminated infection has 25% mortality.⁸ Diagnosticians should maintain a high index of suspicion for the disease, especially in immunocompromised patients, because clinical and imaging findings can be nonspecific.

Conclusion

Our patient’s primary risk factor for nocardiosis was his immunocompromised state. In addition, he was an avid gardener, which increased his risk for exposure to the microorganism. Given the timing of disease progression, our case most likely represents primary cutaneous nocardiosis with dissemination to brain, lungs, and other organs, leading to death, and serves as a reminder to dermatologists and pathologists to establish a broad differential diagnosis when dealing with an infectious process in immunocompromised patients.

Case Report

A 79-year-old man with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who was being treated with ibrutinib presented to the emergency department with a dry cough, ataxia and falls, and vision loss. Physical examination was remarkable for diffuse crackles heard throughout the right lung and bilateral lower extremity weakness. Additionally, he had 4 pink mobile nodules on the left side of the forehead, right side of the chin, left submental area, and left postauricular scalp, which arose approximately 2 weeks prior to presentation. The left postauricular lesion had been tender at times and had developed a crust. The cutaneous lesions were all smaller than 2 cm.

The patient had a history of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin and was under the care of a dermatologist as an outpatient. His dermatologist had described him as an active gardener; he was noted to have healing abrasions on the forearms due to gardening raspberry bushes.

Computed tomography of the head revealed a 14-mm, ring-enhancing lesion in the left paramedian posterior frontal lobe with surrounding white matter vasogenic edema (Figure 1). Computed tomography of the chest revealed a peripheral mass on the right upper lobe measuring 6.3 cm at its greatest dimension (Figure 2).

Clinically, the constellation of symptoms was thought to represent an infectious process or less likely metastatic malignancy. Biopsies of the nodule on the right side of the chin were performed and sent for culture and histologic examination. Sections from the anterior right chin showed compact orthokeratosis overlying a slightly spongiotic epidermis (Figure 3). Within the deep dermis, there was a dense mixed inflammatory infiltrate comprising predominantly neutrophils, with occasional eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes (Figure 4).

Gram stain revealed gram-variable, branching, bacterial organisms morphologically consistent with Nocardia. Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver and periodic acid–Schiff stains also highlighted the bacterial organisms (Figure 5). An auramine-O stain was negative for acid-fast microorganisms. After 3 days on a blood agar plate, cultures of a specimen of the chin nodule grew branching filamentous bacterial organisms consistent with Nocardia.

Comment

Presentation and Diagnosis
Nocardiosis is an infrequently encountered opportunistic infection that typically targets skin, lungs, and the central nervous system (CNS). Nocardia species characteristically are gram-positive, thin rods that form beaded, right-angle, branching filaments.¹ More than 50 Nocardia species have been clinically isolated.²

Definitive diagnosis requires culture. Nocardia grows well on nonselective media, such as blood or Löwenstein-Jensen agar; growth can be enhanced with 10% CO₂. Growth can be slow, however, and takes from 48 hours to several weeks. Nocardia typically grows as buff or pigmented, waxy, cerebriform colonies at 3 to 5 days’ incubation.¹

Cause of Infection
Nocardia species are commonly found in the environment—soil, plant matter, water, and decomposing organic material—as well as in the gastrointestinal tract and skin of animals. Infection has been reported in cattle, dogs, horses, swine, birds, cats, foxes, and a few other animals.² A history of exposure, such as gardening or handling animals, should increase suspicion of Nocardia.³ Although infection is classically thought to affect immunocompromised patients, there are case reports of immunocompetent individuals developing disseminated infection.^4-7 However, infected immunocompetent individuals typically have localized cutaneous infection, which often includes cellulitis, abscesses, or sporotrichoid patterns.² Cutaneous infections typically are the result of direct inoculation of the skin through a penetrating injury.⁸

Disseminated nocardiosis can be caused by numerous species and generally is the result of primary pulmonary infection.⁹ In these cases, skin disease is present in approximately 10% of patients. Disseminated infection from cutaneous nocardiosis is uncommon; when it does occur, the most common site of dissemination is the CNS, resulting in abscess or cerebritis.¹⁰ Therefore, CNS involvement should always be ruled out on diagnosis in immunocompromised patients, even if neurologic symptoms are absent.⁹ Nearly 80% of patients with disseminated disease are, in fact, immunocompromised.⁸

Association With CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is associated with profound immunodeficiency caused by quantitative and qualitative aberrations in both innate and adaptive immunity. This perturbation of the immune system predisposes the patient to infection.^11,12 Early in the course of CLL, a patient develops neutropenia, which predisposes to bacterial infection; later, the patient develops a sustained B- and T-cell immunodeficiency that predisposes to opportunistic infection.¹³ Treatment-naïve patients with CLL are commonly diagnosed with respiratory and urinary tract infections.¹² Chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with alemtuzumab or purine analogs have been reported to have the highest risk for major infection.¹⁴

Ibrutinib is a commonly used treatment of CLL because it induces apoptosis in B cells, which are abnormal in CLL. Ibrutinib functions by inhibiting the Bruton tyrosine kinase pathway, which is essential in B-cell production and maintenance.¹⁵ Studies have reported a high rate of infection in ibrutinib-treated CLL patients^14,16; salvage ibrutinib therapy has been associated with higher infection risk than primary ibrutinib therapy.^16,17 Long-term follow-up studies have shown a decreased rate of infection in ibrutinib-treated CLL after 2 years or longer of treatment, suggesting a reconstitution of normal B cells and humoral immunity with longer ibrutinib therapy.^16,17

Many infections have been identified in association with ibrutinib therapy, including invasive aspergillosis, disseminated fusariosis, cerebral mucormycosis, disseminated cryptococcosis, and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.^18-22 Disseminated nocardiosis has been reported in a few patients with CLL, though the treatment they received for CLL varied from case to case.^23-25

Identification and Treatment
Clinical and microscopic identification of Nocardia organisms can be exceedingly difficult. Primary cutaneous nocardiosis clinically presents as tumors or nodules that often have a sporotrichoid pattern along the lymphatics. In disease that disseminates to skin, nocardiosis presents as vesiculopustules or abscesses. The biopsy specimen most often shows a dense dermal and subcutaneous infiltrate of neutrophils with abscess formation. Long-standing lesions might show chronic inflammation and nonspecific granulomas.

The appearance of Nocardia organisms is quite subtle on hematoxylin and eosin staining and can be easily missed. Special stains, such as Gram and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains as well as stains for acid-fast organisms, can be invaluable in diagnosing this disease. Biopsy in immunocompromised patients when nocardiosis is part of the differential diagnosis requires extra attention because the organisms can be gram variable and only partially acid fast, as was the case in our patient. Organisms typically will be positive with silver stains.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole typically is the first-line treatment of nocardiosis. Although prognosis is excellent when disease is confined to skin, disseminated infection has 25% mortality.⁸ Diagnosticians should maintain a high index of suspicion for the disease, especially in immunocompromised patients, because clinical and imaging findings can be nonspecific.

Conclusion

Our patient’s primary risk factor for nocardiosis was his immunocompromised state. In addition, he was an avid gardener, which increased his risk for exposure to the microorganism. Given the timing of disease progression, our case most likely represents primary cutaneous nocardiosis with dissemination to brain, lungs, and other organs, leading to death, and serves as a reminder to dermatologists and pathologists to establish a broad differential diagnosis when dealing with an infectious process in immunocompromised patients.

Identification

The South African fattail scorpion (Parabuthus transvaalicus)(Figure) is one of the most poisonous scorpions in southern Africa.¹ A member of the Buthidae scorpion family, it can grow as long as 15 cm and is dark brown-black with lighter red-brown pincers. Similar to other fattail scorpions, it has slender pincers (pedipalps) and a thick square tail (the telson). Parabuthus transvaalicus inhabits hot dry deserts, scrublands, and semiarid regions.^1,2 It also is popular in exotic pet collections, the most common source of stings in the United States.

Stings and Envenomation

Scorpions with thicker tails generally have more potent venom than those with slender tails and thick pincers. Venom is injected by a stinger at the tip of the telson¹; P transvaalicus also can spray venom as far as 3 m.^1,2 Venom is not known to cause toxicity through skin contact but could represent a hazard if sprayed in the eye.

Scorpion toxins are a group of complex neurotoxins that act on sodium channels, either retarding inactivation (α toxin) or enhancing activation (β toxin), causing massive depolarization of excitable cells.^1,3 The toxin causes neurons to fire repetitively.⁴ Neurotransmitters—noradrenaline, adrenaline, and acetylcholine—cause the observed sympathetic, parasympathetic, and skeletal muscle effects.¹

Incidence
Worldwide, more than 1.2 million individuals are stung by a scorpion annually, causing more than 3250 deaths a year.⁵ Adults are stung more often, but children experience more severe envenomation, are more likely to develop severe illness requiring intensive supportive care, and have a higher mortality.⁴

As many as one-third of patients stung by a Parabuthus scorpion develop neuromuscular toxicity, which can be life-threatening.⁶ In a study of 277 envenomations by P transvaalicus, 10% of patients developed severe symptoms and 5 died. Children younger than 10 years and adults older than 50 years are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.⁶ Children have a case fatality rate as high as 10 times the adult fatality rate.⁷

Clinical Presentation
The clinical presentation of scorpion envenomation varies with the species involved, the amount of venom injected, and the victim’s weight and baseline health.¹ Scorpion envenomation is divided into 4 grades based on the severity of a sting:

• Grade I: pain and paresthesia at the envenomation site; usually, no local inflammation

• Grade II: local symptoms as well as more remote pain and paresthesia; pain can radiate up the affected limb

• Grade III: cranial nerve or somatic skeletal neuromuscular dysfunction; either presentation can have associated autonomic dysfunction

• Grade IV: both cranial nerve and somatic skeletal neuromuscular dysfunction, with associated auto-nomic dysfunction

 

 

The initial symptom of a scorpion sting is intense burning pain. The sting site might be unimpressive, with only a mild local reaction. Symptoms usually progress to maximum severity within 5 hours.¹ Muscle pain, cramps, and weakness are prominent. The patient might have difficulty walking and swallowing, with increased salivation and drooling, and visual disturbance with abnormal eye movements. Pulse, blood pressure, and temperature often are elevated. The patient might be hyperreflexic with clonus.^1,6

Symptoms of increased sympathetic activity are hypertension, tachycardia, cardiac dysrhythmia, perspiration, hyperglycemia, and restlessness.^1,2 Parasympathetic effects are increased salivation, hypotension, bradycardia, and gastric distension. Skeletal muscle effects include tremors and involuntary muscle movement, which can be severe. Cranial nerve dysfunction may manifest as dysphagia, drooling, abnormal eye movements, blurred vision, slurred speech, and tongue fasciculations. Subsequent development of muscle weakness, bulbar paralysis, and difficulty breathing may be caused by depletion of neurotransmitters after prolonged excessive neuronal activity.¹

Distinctive Signs in Younger Patients
A child who is stung by a scorpion might have symptoms similar to those seen in an adult victim but can also experience an extreme form of restlessness that indicates severe envenomation characterized by inability to lay still, violent muscle twitching, and uncontrollable flailing of extremities. The child might have facial grimacing, with lip-smacking and chewing motions. In addition, bulbar paralysis and respiratory distress are more likely in children who have been stung than in adults.^1,2

Management

Treatment of a P transvaalicus sting is directed at “scorpionism,” envenomation that is associated with systemic symptoms that can be life-threatening. Treatment comprises support of vital functions, symptomatic measures, and injection of antivenin.⁸

Support of Vital Functions
In adults, systemic symptoms can be delayed as long as 8 hours after the sting. However, most severe cases usually are evident within 60 minutes; infants can reach grade IV as quickly as 15 to 30 minutes.^9,10 Loss of pharyngeal reflexes and development of respiratory distress are ominous warning signs requiring immediate respiratory support. Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death.¹ An asymptomatic child should be admitted to a hospital for observation for a minimum of 12 hours if the species of scorpion was not identified.²

Pain Relief
Most patients cannot tolerate an ice pack because of severe hyperesthesia. Infiltration of the local sting site with an anesthetic generally is safe and can provide some local pain relief. Intravenous fentanyl has been used in closely monitored patients because the drug is not associated with histamine release. Medications that cause release of histamine, such as morphine, can exacerbate or confuse the clinical picture.

Antivenin
Scorpion antivenin contains purified IgG fragments; allergic reactions are now rare. The sooner antivenin is administered, the greater the benefit. When administered early, it can prevent many of the most serious complications.⁷ In a randomized, double-blind study of critically ill children with clinically significant signs of scorpion envenomation, intravenous administration of scorpion-specific fragment antigen-binding 2 (F[(ab’]₂) antivenin resulted in resolution of clinical symptoms within 4 hours.¹¹

When managing grade III or IV scorpion envenomation, all patients should be admitted to a medical facility equipped to provide intensive supportive care; consider consultation with a regional poison control center. The World Health Organization maintains an international poison control center (at https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/centre/en/) with regional telephone numbers; alternatively, in the United States, call the nationwide telephone number of the Poison Control Center (800-222-1222).

The World Health Organization has identified declining production of antivenin as a crisis.¹²

Resolution
Symptoms of envenomation typically resolve 9 to 30 hours after a sting in a patient with grade III or IV envenomation not treated with antivenin.⁴ However, pain and paresthesia occasionally last as long as 2 weeks. In rare cases, more long-term sequelae of burning paresthesia persist for months.⁴

Conclusion

It is important for dermatologists to be aware of the potential for life-threatening envenomation by certain scorpion species native to southern Africa. In the United States, stings of these species most often are seen in patients with a pet collection, but late sequelae also can be seen in travelers returning from an endemic region. The site of a sting often appears unimpressive initially, but severe hyperesthesia is common. Patients with cardiac, neurologic, or respiratory symptoms require intensive supportive care. Proper care can be lifesaving.

Identification

The South African fattail scorpion (Parabuthus transvaalicus)(Figure) is one of the most poisonous scorpions in southern Africa.¹ A member of the Buthidae scorpion family, it can grow as long as 15 cm and is dark brown-black with lighter red-brown pincers. Similar to other fattail scorpions, it has slender pincers (pedipalps) and a thick square tail (the telson). Parabuthus transvaalicus inhabits hot dry deserts, scrublands, and semiarid regions.^1,2 It also is popular in exotic pet collections, the most common source of stings in the United States.

Stings and Envenomation

Scorpions with thicker tails generally have more potent venom than those with slender tails and thick pincers. Venom is injected by a stinger at the tip of the telson¹; P transvaalicus also can spray venom as far as 3 m.^1,2 Venom is not known to cause toxicity through skin contact but could represent a hazard if sprayed in the eye.

Scorpion toxins are a group of complex neurotoxins that act on sodium channels, either retarding inactivation (α toxin) or enhancing activation (β toxin), causing massive depolarization of excitable cells.^1,3 The toxin causes neurons to fire repetitively.⁴ Neurotransmitters—noradrenaline, adrenaline, and acetylcholine—cause the observed sympathetic, parasympathetic, and skeletal muscle effects.¹

Incidence
Worldwide, more than 1.2 million individuals are stung by a scorpion annually, causing more than 3250 deaths a year.⁵ Adults are stung more often, but children experience more severe envenomation, are more likely to develop severe illness requiring intensive supportive care, and have a higher mortality.⁴

As many as one-third of patients stung by a Parabuthus scorpion develop neuromuscular toxicity, which can be life-threatening.⁶ In a study of 277 envenomations by P transvaalicus, 10% of patients developed severe symptoms and 5 died. Children younger than 10 years and adults older than 50 years are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.⁶ Children have a case fatality rate as high as 10 times the adult fatality rate.⁷

Clinical Presentation
The clinical presentation of scorpion envenomation varies with the species involved, the amount of venom injected, and the victim’s weight and baseline health.¹ Scorpion envenomation is divided into 4 grades based on the severity of a sting:

• Grade I: pain and paresthesia at the envenomation site; usually, no local inflammation

• Grade II: local symptoms as well as more remote pain and paresthesia; pain can radiate up the affected limb

• Grade III: cranial nerve or somatic skeletal neuromuscular dysfunction; either presentation can have associated autonomic dysfunction

• Grade IV: both cranial nerve and somatic skeletal neuromuscular dysfunction, with associated auto-nomic dysfunction

 

 

The initial symptom of a scorpion sting is intense burning pain. The sting site might be unimpressive, with only a mild local reaction. Symptoms usually progress to maximum severity within 5 hours.¹ Muscle pain, cramps, and weakness are prominent. The patient might have difficulty walking and swallowing, with increased salivation and drooling, and visual disturbance with abnormal eye movements. Pulse, blood pressure, and temperature often are elevated. The patient might be hyperreflexic with clonus.^1,6

Symptoms of increased sympathetic activity are hypertension, tachycardia, cardiac dysrhythmia, perspiration, hyperglycemia, and restlessness.^1,2 Parasympathetic effects are increased salivation, hypotension, bradycardia, and gastric distension. Skeletal muscle effects include tremors and involuntary muscle movement, which can be severe. Cranial nerve dysfunction may manifest as dysphagia, drooling, abnormal eye movements, blurred vision, slurred speech, and tongue fasciculations. Subsequent development of muscle weakness, bulbar paralysis, and difficulty breathing may be caused by depletion of neurotransmitters after prolonged excessive neuronal activity.¹

Distinctive Signs in Younger Patients
A child who is stung by a scorpion might have symptoms similar to those seen in an adult victim but can also experience an extreme form of restlessness that indicates severe envenomation characterized by inability to lay still, violent muscle twitching, and uncontrollable flailing of extremities. The child might have facial grimacing, with lip-smacking and chewing motions. In addition, bulbar paralysis and respiratory distress are more likely in children who have been stung than in adults.^1,2

Management

Treatment of a P transvaalicus sting is directed at “scorpionism,” envenomation that is associated with systemic symptoms that can be life-threatening. Treatment comprises support of vital functions, symptomatic measures, and injection of antivenin.⁸

Support of Vital Functions
In adults, systemic symptoms can be delayed as long as 8 hours after the sting. However, most severe cases usually are evident within 60 minutes; infants can reach grade IV as quickly as 15 to 30 minutes.^9,10 Loss of pharyngeal reflexes and development of respiratory distress are ominous warning signs requiring immediate respiratory support. Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death.¹ An asymptomatic child should be admitted to a hospital for observation for a minimum of 12 hours if the species of scorpion was not identified.²

Pain Relief
Most patients cannot tolerate an ice pack because of severe hyperesthesia. Infiltration of the local sting site with an anesthetic generally is safe and can provide some local pain relief. Intravenous fentanyl has been used in closely monitored patients because the drug is not associated with histamine release. Medications that cause release of histamine, such as morphine, can exacerbate or confuse the clinical picture.

Antivenin
Scorpion antivenin contains purified IgG fragments; allergic reactions are now rare. The sooner antivenin is administered, the greater the benefit. When administered early, it can prevent many of the most serious complications.⁷ In a randomized, double-blind study of critically ill children with clinically significant signs of scorpion envenomation, intravenous administration of scorpion-specific fragment antigen-binding 2 (F[(ab’]₂) antivenin resulted in resolution of clinical symptoms within 4 hours.¹¹

When managing grade III or IV scorpion envenomation, all patients should be admitted to a medical facility equipped to provide intensive supportive care; consider consultation with a regional poison control center. The World Health Organization maintains an international poison control center (at https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/centre/en/) with regional telephone numbers; alternatively, in the United States, call the nationwide telephone number of the Poison Control Center (800-222-1222).

The World Health Organization has identified declining production of antivenin as a crisis.¹²

Resolution
Symptoms of envenomation typically resolve 9 to 30 hours after a sting in a patient with grade III or IV envenomation not treated with antivenin.⁴ However, pain and paresthesia occasionally last as long as 2 weeks. In rare cases, more long-term sequelae of burning paresthesia persist for months.⁴

Conclusion

It is important for dermatologists to be aware of the potential for life-threatening envenomation by certain scorpion species native to southern Africa. In the United States, stings of these species most often are seen in patients with a pet collection, but late sequelae also can be seen in travelers returning from an endemic region. The site of a sting often appears unimpressive initially, but severe hyperesthesia is common. Patients with cardiac, neurologic, or respiratory symptoms require intensive supportive care. Proper care can be lifesaving.

Identification

The South African fattail scorpion (Parabuthus transvaalicus)(Figure) is one of the most poisonous scorpions in southern Africa.¹ A member of the Buthidae scorpion family, it can grow as long as 15 cm and is dark brown-black with lighter red-brown pincers. Similar to other fattail scorpions, it has slender pincers (pedipalps) and a thick square tail (the telson). Parabuthus transvaalicus inhabits hot dry deserts, scrublands, and semiarid regions.^1,2 It also is popular in exotic pet collections, the most common source of stings in the United States.

Stings and Envenomation

Scorpions with thicker tails generally have more potent venom than those with slender tails and thick pincers. Venom is injected by a stinger at the tip of the telson¹; P transvaalicus also can spray venom as far as 3 m.^1,2 Venom is not known to cause toxicity through skin contact but could represent a hazard if sprayed in the eye.

Scorpion toxins are a group of complex neurotoxins that act on sodium channels, either retarding inactivation (α toxin) or enhancing activation (β toxin), causing massive depolarization of excitable cells.^1,3 The toxin causes neurons to fire repetitively.⁴ Neurotransmitters—noradrenaline, adrenaline, and acetylcholine—cause the observed sympathetic, parasympathetic, and skeletal muscle effects.¹

Incidence
Worldwide, more than 1.2 million individuals are stung by a scorpion annually, causing more than 3250 deaths a year.⁵ Adults are stung more often, but children experience more severe envenomation, are more likely to develop severe illness requiring intensive supportive care, and have a higher mortality.⁴

As many as one-third of patients stung by a Parabuthus scorpion develop neuromuscular toxicity, which can be life-threatening.⁶ In a study of 277 envenomations by P transvaalicus, 10% of patients developed severe symptoms and 5 died. Children younger than 10 years and adults older than 50 years are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.⁶ Children have a case fatality rate as high as 10 times the adult fatality rate.⁷

Clinical Presentation
The clinical presentation of scorpion envenomation varies with the species involved, the amount of venom injected, and the victim’s weight and baseline health.¹ Scorpion envenomation is divided into 4 grades based on the severity of a sting:

• Grade I: pain and paresthesia at the envenomation site; usually, no local inflammation

• Grade II: local symptoms as well as more remote pain and paresthesia; pain can radiate up the affected limb

• Grade III: cranial nerve or somatic skeletal neuromuscular dysfunction; either presentation can have associated autonomic dysfunction

• Grade IV: both cranial nerve and somatic skeletal neuromuscular dysfunction, with associated auto-nomic dysfunction

 

 

The initial symptom of a scorpion sting is intense burning pain. The sting site might be unimpressive, with only a mild local reaction. Symptoms usually progress to maximum severity within 5 hours.¹ Muscle pain, cramps, and weakness are prominent. The patient might have difficulty walking and swallowing, with increased salivation and drooling, and visual disturbance with abnormal eye movements. Pulse, blood pressure, and temperature often are elevated. The patient might be hyperreflexic with clonus.^1,6

Symptoms of increased sympathetic activity are hypertension, tachycardia, cardiac dysrhythmia, perspiration, hyperglycemia, and restlessness.^1,2 Parasympathetic effects are increased salivation, hypotension, bradycardia, and gastric distension. Skeletal muscle effects include tremors and involuntary muscle movement, which can be severe. Cranial nerve dysfunction may manifest as dysphagia, drooling, abnormal eye movements, blurred vision, slurred speech, and tongue fasciculations. Subsequent development of muscle weakness, bulbar paralysis, and difficulty breathing may be caused by depletion of neurotransmitters after prolonged excessive neuronal activity.¹

Distinctive Signs in Younger Patients
A child who is stung by a scorpion might have symptoms similar to those seen in an adult victim but can also experience an extreme form of restlessness that indicates severe envenomation characterized by inability to lay still, violent muscle twitching, and uncontrollable flailing of extremities. The child might have facial grimacing, with lip-smacking and chewing motions. In addition, bulbar paralysis and respiratory distress are more likely in children who have been stung than in adults.^1,2

Management

Treatment of a P transvaalicus sting is directed at “scorpionism,” envenomation that is associated with systemic symptoms that can be life-threatening. Treatment comprises support of vital functions, symptomatic measures, and injection of antivenin.⁸

Support of Vital Functions
In adults, systemic symptoms can be delayed as long as 8 hours after the sting. However, most severe cases usually are evident within 60 minutes; infants can reach grade IV as quickly as 15 to 30 minutes.^9,10 Loss of pharyngeal reflexes and development of respiratory distress are ominous warning signs requiring immediate respiratory support. Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death.¹ An asymptomatic child should be admitted to a hospital for observation for a minimum of 12 hours if the species of scorpion was not identified.²

Pain Relief
Most patients cannot tolerate an ice pack because of severe hyperesthesia. Infiltration of the local sting site with an anesthetic generally is safe and can provide some local pain relief. Intravenous fentanyl has been used in closely monitored patients because the drug is not associated with histamine release. Medications that cause release of histamine, such as morphine, can exacerbate or confuse the clinical picture.

Antivenin
Scorpion antivenin contains purified IgG fragments; allergic reactions are now rare. The sooner antivenin is administered, the greater the benefit. When administered early, it can prevent many of the most serious complications.⁷ In a randomized, double-blind study of critically ill children with clinically significant signs of scorpion envenomation, intravenous administration of scorpion-specific fragment antigen-binding 2 (F[(ab’]₂) antivenin resulted in resolution of clinical symptoms within 4 hours.¹¹

When managing grade III or IV scorpion envenomation, all patients should be admitted to a medical facility equipped to provide intensive supportive care; consider consultation with a regional poison control center. The World Health Organization maintains an international poison control center (at https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/centre/en/) with regional telephone numbers; alternatively, in the United States, call the nationwide telephone number of the Poison Control Center (800-222-1222).

The World Health Organization has identified declining production of antivenin as a crisis.¹²

Resolution
Symptoms of envenomation typically resolve 9 to 30 hours after a sting in a patient with grade III or IV envenomation not treated with antivenin.⁴ However, pain and paresthesia occasionally last as long as 2 weeks. In rare cases, more long-term sequelae of burning paresthesia persist for months.⁴

Conclusion

It is important for dermatologists to be aware of the potential for life-threatening envenomation by certain scorpion species native to southern Africa. In the United States, stings of these species most often are seen in patients with a pet collection, but late sequelae also can be seen in travelers returning from an endemic region. The site of a sting often appears unimpressive initially, but severe hyperesthesia is common. Patients with cardiac, neurologic, or respiratory symptoms require intensive supportive care. Proper care can be lifesaving.

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of 20 diseases that typically are chronic and cause long-term disability, which negatively impacts work productivity, child survival, and school performance and attendance with adverse effect on future earnings.¹ Data from the 2013 Global Burden of Disease study revealed that half of the world’s NTDs occur in poor populations living in wealthy countries.² Neglected tropical diseases with skin manifestations include parasitic infections (eg, American trypanosomiasis, African trypanosomiasis, dracunculiasis, echinococcosis, foodborne trematodiases, leishmaniasis, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, scabies and other ectoparasites, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths, taeniasis/cysticercosis), bacterial infections (eg, Buruli ulcer, leprosy, yaws), fungal infections (eg, mycetoma, chromoblastomycosis, deep mycoses), and viral infections (eg, dengue, chikungunya). Rabies and snakebite envenomization involve the skin through inoculation. Within the larger group of NTDs, the World Health Organization has identified “skin NTDs” as a subgroup of NTDs that present primarily with changes in the skin.³ In the absence of early diagnosis and treatment of these diseases, chronic and lifelong disfigurement, disability, stigma, and socioeconomic losses ensue.

The Department of Health of the Government of Western Australia stated:

Stigma is a mark of disgrace that sets a person apart from others. When a person is labeled by their illness they are no longer seen as an individual but as part of a stereotyped group. Negative attitudes and beliefs toward this group create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination.⁴

Stigma associated with skin NTDs exemplifies how skin diseases can have enduring impact on individuals.⁵ For example, scarring from inactive cutaneous leishmaniasis carries heavy psychosocial burden. Young women reported that facial scarring from cutaneous leishmaniasis led to marriage rejections.⁶ Some even reported extreme suicidal ideations.⁷ Recently, major depressive disorder associated with scarring from inactive cutaneous leishmaniasis has been recognized as a notable contributor to disease burden from cutaneous leishmaniasis.⁸

Lymphatic filariasis is a major cause of leg and scrotal lymphedema worldwide. Even when the condition is treated, lymphedema often persists due to chronic irreversible lymphatic damage. A systematic review of 18 stigma studies in lymphatic filariasis found common themes related to the deleterious consequences of stigma on social relationships; work and education opportunities; health outcomes from reduced treatment-seeking behavior; and mental health, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies.⁹ In one subdistrict in India, implementation of a community-based lymphedema management program that consisted of teaching hygiene and limb care for more than 20,000 lymphedema patients and performing community outreach activities (eg, street plays, radio programs, informational brochures) to teach people about lymphatic filariasis and lymphedema care was associated with community members being accepting of patients and an improvement in their understanding of disease etiology.¹⁰

Skin involvement from onchocerciasis infection (onchocercal skin disease) is another condition associated with notable stigma.⁹ Through the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control, annual mass drug administration of ivermectin in onchocerciasis-endemic communities has reduced the rate of onchocercal skin disease in these communities. In looking at perception of stigma in onchocercal skin diseases before community-directed ivermectin therapy and 7 to 10 years after, avoidance of people with onchocercal skin disease decreased from 32.7% to 4.3%. There also was an improvement in relationships between healthy people and those with onchocercal skin disease.¹¹

One of the most stigmatizing conditions is leprosy, often referred to as Hansen disease to give credit to the person who discovered that leprosy was caused by Mycobacterium leprae and not from sin, being cursed, or genetic inheritance. Even with this knowledge, stigma persists that can lead to family abandonment and social isolation, which further impacts afflicted individuals’ willingness to seek care, thus leading to disease progression. More recently, there has been research looking at interventions to reduce the stigma that individuals afflicted with leprosy face. In a study from Indonesia where individuals with leprosy were randomized to counseling, socioeconomic development, or contact between community members and affected people, all interventions were associated with a reduction in stigma.¹² A rights-based counseling module integrated individual, family, and group forms of counseling and consisted of 5 sessions that focused on medical knowledge of leprosy and rights of individuals with leprosy, along with elements of cognitive behavioral therapy. Socioeconomic development involved opportunities for business training, creation of community groups through which microfinance services were administered, and other assistance to improve livelihood. Informed by evidence from the field of human immunodeficiency virus and mental health that contact with affected people reduces negative attitudes and behavior among those participating in the intervention, contact between community members and persons affected by leprosy occurred through dialogue and interaction at events held in schools, village halls, and mosques. Furthermore, early detection and subsequent early treatment of leprosy can prevent individuals from the disability and disfigurement that we commonly associate with the disease, which often is not the message that afflicted individuals and their communities are hearing and seeing. Targeting media portrayal, the New Face of Leprosy project seeks to shift the messaging around leprosy to one of hope and positivity by promoting positive images—not presenting severe disfigurement as the representative image of leprosy—and strong messaging that the disease is curable.¹³

Although steps are being taken to address the psychosocial burden of skin NTDs, there is still much work to be done. From the public health lens that largely governs the policies and approaches toward addressing NTDs, the focus often is on interrupting and eliminating disease transmission. Morbidity management, including reduction in stigma and functional impairment, is not always the priority. It is in this space that dermatologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for management approaches that address the morbidity associated with skin NTDs. We have an intimate understanding of how impactful skin diseases can be, even if they are not commonly fatal. Globally, skin diseases are the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden,¹⁴ yet dermatology lacks effective evidence-based interventions for reducing stigma in our patients with visible chronic diseases.¹⁵

Every day, we see firsthand how skin diseases affect not only our patients but also their families, friends, and caregivers. Although we may not see skin NTDs on a regular basis in our clinics, we can understand almost intuitively how devastating skin NTDs could be on individuals, families, and communities. For patients with skin NTDs, receiving medical therapy is only one component of treatment. In addition to optimizing early diagnosis and treatment, interventions taken to educate families and communities affected by skin NTDs are vitally important. Stigma reduction is possible, as we have seen from the aforementioned interventions used in communities with lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, and leprosy. We call upon our fellow dermatologists to take interest in creating, evaluating, and promoting interventions that address stigma in skin NTDs; it is critical in achieving and maintaining health and well-being for our patients.

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of 20 diseases that typically are chronic and cause long-term disability, which negatively impacts work productivity, child survival, and school performance and attendance with adverse effect on future earnings.¹ Data from the 2013 Global Burden of Disease study revealed that half of the world’s NTDs occur in poor populations living in wealthy countries.² Neglected tropical diseases with skin manifestations include parasitic infections (eg, American trypanosomiasis, African trypanosomiasis, dracunculiasis, echinococcosis, foodborne trematodiases, leishmaniasis, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, scabies and other ectoparasites, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths, taeniasis/cysticercosis), bacterial infections (eg, Buruli ulcer, leprosy, yaws), fungal infections (eg, mycetoma, chromoblastomycosis, deep mycoses), and viral infections (eg, dengue, chikungunya). Rabies and snakebite envenomization involve the skin through inoculation. Within the larger group of NTDs, the World Health Organization has identified “skin NTDs” as a subgroup of NTDs that present primarily with changes in the skin.³ In the absence of early diagnosis and treatment of these diseases, chronic and lifelong disfigurement, disability, stigma, and socioeconomic losses ensue.

The Department of Health of the Government of Western Australia stated:

Stigma is a mark of disgrace that sets a person apart from others. When a person is labeled by their illness they are no longer seen as an individual but as part of a stereotyped group. Negative attitudes and beliefs toward this group create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination.⁴

Stigma associated with skin NTDs exemplifies how skin diseases can have enduring impact on individuals.⁵ For example, scarring from inactive cutaneous leishmaniasis carries heavy psychosocial burden. Young women reported that facial scarring from cutaneous leishmaniasis led to marriage rejections.⁶ Some even reported extreme suicidal ideations.⁷ Recently, major depressive disorder associated with scarring from inactive cutaneous leishmaniasis has been recognized as a notable contributor to disease burden from cutaneous leishmaniasis.⁸

Lymphatic filariasis is a major cause of leg and scrotal lymphedema worldwide. Even when the condition is treated, lymphedema often persists due to chronic irreversible lymphatic damage. A systematic review of 18 stigma studies in lymphatic filariasis found common themes related to the deleterious consequences of stigma on social relationships; work and education opportunities; health outcomes from reduced treatment-seeking behavior; and mental health, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies.⁹ In one subdistrict in India, implementation of a community-based lymphedema management program that consisted of teaching hygiene and limb care for more than 20,000 lymphedema patients and performing community outreach activities (eg, street plays, radio programs, informational brochures) to teach people about lymphatic filariasis and lymphedema care was associated with community members being accepting of patients and an improvement in their understanding of disease etiology.¹⁰

Skin involvement from onchocerciasis infection (onchocercal skin disease) is another condition associated with notable stigma.⁹ Through the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control, annual mass drug administration of ivermectin in onchocerciasis-endemic communities has reduced the rate of onchocercal skin disease in these communities. In looking at perception of stigma in onchocercal skin diseases before community-directed ivermectin therapy and 7 to 10 years after, avoidance of people with onchocercal skin disease decreased from 32.7% to 4.3%. There also was an improvement in relationships between healthy people and those with onchocercal skin disease.¹¹

One of the most stigmatizing conditions is leprosy, often referred to as Hansen disease to give credit to the person who discovered that leprosy was caused by Mycobacterium leprae and not from sin, being cursed, or genetic inheritance. Even with this knowledge, stigma persists that can lead to family abandonment and social isolation, which further impacts afflicted individuals’ willingness to seek care, thus leading to disease progression. More recently, there has been research looking at interventions to reduce the stigma that individuals afflicted with leprosy face. In a study from Indonesia where individuals with leprosy were randomized to counseling, socioeconomic development, or contact between community members and affected people, all interventions were associated with a reduction in stigma.¹² A rights-based counseling module integrated individual, family, and group forms of counseling and consisted of 5 sessions that focused on medical knowledge of leprosy and rights of individuals with leprosy, along with elements of cognitive behavioral therapy. Socioeconomic development involved opportunities for business training, creation of community groups through which microfinance services were administered, and other assistance to improve livelihood. Informed by evidence from the field of human immunodeficiency virus and mental health that contact with affected people reduces negative attitudes and behavior among those participating in the intervention, contact between community members and persons affected by leprosy occurred through dialogue and interaction at events held in schools, village halls, and mosques. Furthermore, early detection and subsequent early treatment of leprosy can prevent individuals from the disability and disfigurement that we commonly associate with the disease, which often is not the message that afflicted individuals and their communities are hearing and seeing. Targeting media portrayal, the New Face of Leprosy project seeks to shift the messaging around leprosy to one of hope and positivity by promoting positive images—not presenting severe disfigurement as the representative image of leprosy—and strong messaging that the disease is curable.¹³

Although steps are being taken to address the psychosocial burden of skin NTDs, there is still much work to be done. From the public health lens that largely governs the policies and approaches toward addressing NTDs, the focus often is on interrupting and eliminating disease transmission. Morbidity management, including reduction in stigma and functional impairment, is not always the priority. It is in this space that dermatologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for management approaches that address the morbidity associated with skin NTDs. We have an intimate understanding of how impactful skin diseases can be, even if they are not commonly fatal. Globally, skin diseases are the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden,¹⁴ yet dermatology lacks effective evidence-based interventions for reducing stigma in our patients with visible chronic diseases.¹⁵

Every day, we see firsthand how skin diseases affect not only our patients but also their families, friends, and caregivers. Although we may not see skin NTDs on a regular basis in our clinics, we can understand almost intuitively how devastating skin NTDs could be on individuals, families, and communities. For patients with skin NTDs, receiving medical therapy is only one component of treatment. In addition to optimizing early diagnosis and treatment, interventions taken to educate families and communities affected by skin NTDs are vitally important. Stigma reduction is possible, as we have seen from the aforementioned interventions used in communities with lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, and leprosy. We call upon our fellow dermatologists to take interest in creating, evaluating, and promoting interventions that address stigma in skin NTDs; it is critical in achieving and maintaining health and well-being for our patients.

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of 20 diseases that typically are chronic and cause long-term disability, which negatively impacts work productivity, child survival, and school performance and attendance with adverse effect on future earnings.¹ Data from the 2013 Global Burden of Disease study revealed that half of the world’s NTDs occur in poor populations living in wealthy countries.² Neglected tropical diseases with skin manifestations include parasitic infections (eg, American trypanosomiasis, African trypanosomiasis, dracunculiasis, echinococcosis, foodborne trematodiases, leishmaniasis, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, scabies and other ectoparasites, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths, taeniasis/cysticercosis), bacterial infections (eg, Buruli ulcer, leprosy, yaws), fungal infections (eg, mycetoma, chromoblastomycosis, deep mycoses), and viral infections (eg, dengue, chikungunya). Rabies and snakebite envenomization involve the skin through inoculation. Within the larger group of NTDs, the World Health Organization has identified “skin NTDs” as a subgroup of NTDs that present primarily with changes in the skin.³ In the absence of early diagnosis and treatment of these diseases, chronic and lifelong disfigurement, disability, stigma, and socioeconomic losses ensue.

The Department of Health of the Government of Western Australia stated:

Stigma is a mark of disgrace that sets a person apart from others. When a person is labeled by their illness they are no longer seen as an individual but as part of a stereotyped group. Negative attitudes and beliefs toward this group create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination.⁴

Stigma associated with skin NTDs exemplifies how skin diseases can have enduring impact on individuals.⁵ For example, scarring from inactive cutaneous leishmaniasis carries heavy psychosocial burden. Young women reported that facial scarring from cutaneous leishmaniasis led to marriage rejections.⁶ Some even reported extreme suicidal ideations.⁷ Recently, major depressive disorder associated with scarring from inactive cutaneous leishmaniasis has been recognized as a notable contributor to disease burden from cutaneous leishmaniasis.⁸

Lymphatic filariasis is a major cause of leg and scrotal lymphedema worldwide. Even when the condition is treated, lymphedema often persists due to chronic irreversible lymphatic damage. A systematic review of 18 stigma studies in lymphatic filariasis found common themes related to the deleterious consequences of stigma on social relationships; work and education opportunities; health outcomes from reduced treatment-seeking behavior; and mental health, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies.⁹ In one subdistrict in India, implementation of a community-based lymphedema management program that consisted of teaching hygiene and limb care for more than 20,000 lymphedema patients and performing community outreach activities (eg, street plays, radio programs, informational brochures) to teach people about lymphatic filariasis and lymphedema care was associated with community members being accepting of patients and an improvement in their understanding of disease etiology.¹⁰

Skin involvement from onchocerciasis infection (onchocercal skin disease) is another condition associated with notable stigma.⁹ Through the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control, annual mass drug administration of ivermectin in onchocerciasis-endemic communities has reduced the rate of onchocercal skin disease in these communities. In looking at perception of stigma in onchocercal skin diseases before community-directed ivermectin therapy and 7 to 10 years after, avoidance of people with onchocercal skin disease decreased from 32.7% to 4.3%. There also was an improvement in relationships between healthy people and those with onchocercal skin disease.¹¹

One of the most stigmatizing conditions is leprosy, often referred to as Hansen disease to give credit to the person who discovered that leprosy was caused by Mycobacterium leprae and not from sin, being cursed, or genetic inheritance. Even with this knowledge, stigma persists that can lead to family abandonment and social isolation, which further impacts afflicted individuals’ willingness to seek care, thus leading to disease progression. More recently, there has been research looking at interventions to reduce the stigma that individuals afflicted with leprosy face. In a study from Indonesia where individuals with leprosy were randomized to counseling, socioeconomic development, or contact between community members and affected people, all interventions were associated with a reduction in stigma.¹² A rights-based counseling module integrated individual, family, and group forms of counseling and consisted of 5 sessions that focused on medical knowledge of leprosy and rights of individuals with leprosy, along with elements of cognitive behavioral therapy. Socioeconomic development involved opportunities for business training, creation of community groups through which microfinance services were administered, and other assistance to improve livelihood. Informed by evidence from the field of human immunodeficiency virus and mental health that contact with affected people reduces negative attitudes and behavior among those participating in the intervention, contact between community members and persons affected by leprosy occurred through dialogue and interaction at events held in schools, village halls, and mosques. Furthermore, early detection and subsequent early treatment of leprosy can prevent individuals from the disability and disfigurement that we commonly associate with the disease, which often is not the message that afflicted individuals and their communities are hearing and seeing. Targeting media portrayal, the New Face of Leprosy project seeks to shift the messaging around leprosy to one of hope and positivity by promoting positive images—not presenting severe disfigurement as the representative image of leprosy—and strong messaging that the disease is curable.¹³

Although steps are being taken to address the psychosocial burden of skin NTDs, there is still much work to be done. From the public health lens that largely governs the policies and approaches toward addressing NTDs, the focus often is on interrupting and eliminating disease transmission. Morbidity management, including reduction in stigma and functional impairment, is not always the priority. It is in this space that dermatologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for management approaches that address the morbidity associated with skin NTDs. We have an intimate understanding of how impactful skin diseases can be, even if they are not commonly fatal. Globally, skin diseases are the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden,¹⁴ yet dermatology lacks effective evidence-based interventions for reducing stigma in our patients with visible chronic diseases.¹⁵

Every day, we see firsthand how skin diseases affect not only our patients but also their families, friends, and caregivers. Although we may not see skin NTDs on a regular basis in our clinics, we can understand almost intuitively how devastating skin NTDs could be on individuals, families, and communities. For patients with skin NTDs, receiving medical therapy is only one component of treatment. In addition to optimizing early diagnosis and treatment, interventions taken to educate families and communities affected by skin NTDs are vitally important. Stigma reduction is possible, as we have seen from the aforementioned interventions used in communities with lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, and leprosy. We call upon our fellow dermatologists to take interest in creating, evaluating, and promoting interventions that address stigma in skin NTDs; it is critical in achieving and maintaining health and well-being for our patients.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.