Article

The Diagnosis: Pellagra

The patient was diagnosed with pellagra based on the clinical and laboratory findings. He was discharged with nicotinamide 250 mg and folic acid 5 mg supplementation daily. After 3 months, all symptoms resolved.

Pellagra is a condition usually associated with the 4 Ds: dermatitis; diarrhea; dementia; and, if untreated, death.¹ The word pellagra is derived from the Italian terms pelle and agra, which mean skin and rough, respectively.² Spanish physician Gasper Casal first described pellagra in 1762 after observing the disease in poorer peasants in Asturias who mainly relied on maize and rarely consumed fresh meat.^1,2 Joseph Goldberger conducted research in the early 20th century, provoking the disease in jail prisoners by modifying their diets. However, it was not until 1926 that Goldberger discovered the true cause of the illness to be a poor diet and named what would become known as nicotinamide as the pellagra preventative factor.^1,2 Niacin (vitamin B3), the deficient molecule in pellagra, also is known as nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, or niacinamide. It is a water-soluble vitamin that is converted into nicotinamide-adenine-dinucleotide (NAD) and its phosphate NADP.^1,2 It has been hypothesized that pellagra symptoms arise from insufficient amounts of NAD and NADP, making the body unable to support cellular energy transfer processes.³

Pellagra manifests 50 to 60 days after starting a diet low in niacin. Niacin and nicotinamide are absorbed from the digested food to the stomach through a sodiumdependent mechanism, and then nicotinamide may be transformed into nicotinic acid with microsomal deamidation.³ Niacin may be obtained from one’s diet or produced from tryptophan. Foods with the highest amounts of niacin include liver, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, pork, mushrooms, avocados, almonds, and legumes.^1,3 Coffee also contains trigonelline, which may be transformed into nicotinic acid when roasted, increasing the niacin level by 30 times.³ Approximately 60 mg of dietary tryptophan is needed to produce up to 1 mg of niacin in the presence of B2 and B6 vitamins. This mechanism provides approximately half of the needs for niacin.3 Insufficient dietary intake of niacin or the essential amino acid tryptophan can cause pellagra (primary pellagra), which is a concern in resource-limited countries. Alternatively, the body may not be able to properly utilize niacin for metabolic processes (secondary pellagra), which occurs more frequently in developed countries.¹ Secondary pellagra also may be caused by alcoholism, colitis, cirrhosis, carcinoid tumors, Hartnup disease, or gastrointestinal tuberculosis, as these conditions prevent niacin from being consumed, absorbed, or processed. Certain medications can cause pellagra by interfering with the tryptophan-niacin pathway, including isoniazid, 5-fluorouracil, pyrazinamide, 6-mercaptopurine, hydantoins, ethionamide, phenobarbital, azathioprine, and chloramphenicol.²

The clinical manifestations of pellagra are diverse because it affects tissues with high turnover rates. Clinical features of pellagra include symmetric photosensitive skin eruptions, gastrointestinal tract symptoms, and neurologic and mental disorders.³ The first signs of pellagra may include muscle weakness, digestive concerns, and psychological or emotional discomfort.² Pellagra dermatitis manifests as an acute or intermittent, bilaterally symmetrical eruption on sun-exposed areas and is markedly distinct from healthy skin.³ Some individuals may experience vesiculation and bullae development (wet pellagra). The erythema is first brilliant red then turns into a cinnamon-brown color. Over time, the skin becomes thickened, scaly, cracked, and hyperpigmented.¹ The dryness of the skin likely is due to a remarkable decrease in wax ester and sebaceous gland atrophy seen on histopathology.⁴ Pellagra most frequently affects the back of the hands (77%–97% of cases), which can extend upward to create the so-called pellagra glove or gauntlet.³ It is common to see symmetrical eruptions in the shape of a butterfly following an anatomical pattern innervated by the trigeminal nerve, which resembles lupus erythematosus on the face. Another common manifestation is Casal necklace, a well-marginated eruption frequently seen on the front of the neck (Figure).² On the foot, lesions often do not develop close to the malleoli but rather terminate distally on the backs of the toes. Sometimes a boot pattern may form that covers the front and back of the leg.^1-3

The pathophysiology of photosensitivity in pellagra was hypothesized by Karthikeyan and Thappa.³ They discovered an excessive synthesis of a phototoxic substance, kynurenic acid, and a deficiency in urocanic acid, which normally protects the skin by absorbing light in the UVB range. Niacin deprivation leads to the production of kynurenic acid through the tryptophan-kynurenine-nicotinic acid pathway and reduces the amount of urocanic acid by affecting the enzyme histidase in the stratum corneum.^1-3 In one-third of patients, pellagra affects the oral mucosa, causing characteristic symptoms such as glossitis, angular stomatitis, and cheilitis.² In nearly 50% of patients, poor appetite, nausea, epigastric discomfort, diarrhea, and excessive salivation are present. Most of the gastrointestinal tract is affected by mucosal inflammation and atrophy, which can cause malnutrition and cachexia due to anorexia and malabsorptive diarrhea.² Headache, irritability, poor concentration, hallucinations, photophobia, tremor, and depression are some of the neuropsychiatric symptoms. Patients experience delirium and disorientation as pellagra progresses, followed by a comatose state and ultimately death.²

The patient’s history and physical examination are used to make the diagnosis, with particular attention to the patient’s dietary details. The diagnosis is made in part ex juvantibus by seeing how the patient responds to higher niacin doses. Anemia, hypoproteinemia, elevated blood calcium, reduced serum potassium and phosphorus, abnormal liver function tests, and elevated serum porphyrin levels also indicate pellagra. Niacin 300 mg in divided doses for up to 4 weeks has been recommended by the World Health Organization to treat pellagra.⁵ The flushing seen with niacin administration is not linked to the usage of nicotinamide. The recommended nicotinamide dosage for adults is 100 mg orally every 6 hours until most acute symptoms have disappeared, followed by oral administration of 50 mg every 8 to 12 hours until all skin lesions have healed.²

Among the differential diagnoses, necrolytic migratory erythema is characterized by an episodic eruption of crusted, erosive, annular erythematous plaques with blister development, which occurs in 70% of patients with glucagonoma syndrome. The perioral region, perineum, lower belly, thighs, and distal extremities are the usual locations.^6,7 Laboratory test results include elevated fasting serum glucagon (>1000 ng/L) and normocytic anemia, which aided in ruling out this diagnosis in our patient. Generalized acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus may appear as a broad morbilliform eruption. The hands frequently exhibit erythema and edema, especially across the dorsal and interphalangeal regions.8 Other typical findings of systemic lupus erythematosus such as antinuclear antibody were not seen in our patient, making this diagnosis unlikely. Porphyria cutanea tarda also must be considered in the differential diagnosis. The hepatic deficiency of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase is the primary cause of this condition. Although it is characterized by blistering lesions, patients more frequently describe increased skin fragility in sun-exposed regions. Hypertrichosis, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, hirsutism, or scarring may appear in the later stage of the disease.9 Phototoxic reaction was ruled out because the patient spent most of the time at home, and no new drugs had been prescribed in the previous months.

The Diagnosis: Pellagra

The patient was diagnosed with pellagra based on the clinical and laboratory findings. He was discharged with nicotinamide 250 mg and folic acid 5 mg supplementation daily. After 3 months, all symptoms resolved.

Pellagra is a condition usually associated with the 4 Ds: dermatitis; diarrhea; dementia; and, if untreated, death.¹ The word pellagra is derived from the Italian terms pelle and agra, which mean skin and rough, respectively.² Spanish physician Gasper Casal first described pellagra in 1762 after observing the disease in poorer peasants in Asturias who mainly relied on maize and rarely consumed fresh meat.^1,2 Joseph Goldberger conducted research in the early 20th century, provoking the disease in jail prisoners by modifying their diets. However, it was not until 1926 that Goldberger discovered the true cause of the illness to be a poor diet and named what would become known as nicotinamide as the pellagra preventative factor.^1,2 Niacin (vitamin B3), the deficient molecule in pellagra, also is known as nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, or niacinamide. It is a water-soluble vitamin that is converted into nicotinamide-adenine-dinucleotide (NAD) and its phosphate NADP.^1,2 It has been hypothesized that pellagra symptoms arise from insufficient amounts of NAD and NADP, making the body unable to support cellular energy transfer processes.³

Pellagra manifests 50 to 60 days after starting a diet low in niacin. Niacin and nicotinamide are absorbed from the digested food to the stomach through a sodiumdependent mechanism, and then nicotinamide may be transformed into nicotinic acid with microsomal deamidation.³ Niacin may be obtained from one’s diet or produced from tryptophan. Foods with the highest amounts of niacin include liver, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, pork, mushrooms, avocados, almonds, and legumes.^1,3 Coffee also contains trigonelline, which may be transformed into nicotinic acid when roasted, increasing the niacin level by 30 times.³ Approximately 60 mg of dietary tryptophan is needed to produce up to 1 mg of niacin in the presence of B2 and B6 vitamins. This mechanism provides approximately half of the needs for niacin.3 Insufficient dietary intake of niacin or the essential amino acid tryptophan can cause pellagra (primary pellagra), which is a concern in resource-limited countries. Alternatively, the body may not be able to properly utilize niacin for metabolic processes (secondary pellagra), which occurs more frequently in developed countries.¹ Secondary pellagra also may be caused by alcoholism, colitis, cirrhosis, carcinoid tumors, Hartnup disease, or gastrointestinal tuberculosis, as these conditions prevent niacin from being consumed, absorbed, or processed. Certain medications can cause pellagra by interfering with the tryptophan-niacin pathway, including isoniazid, 5-fluorouracil, pyrazinamide, 6-mercaptopurine, hydantoins, ethionamide, phenobarbital, azathioprine, and chloramphenicol.²

The clinical manifestations of pellagra are diverse because it affects tissues with high turnover rates. Clinical features of pellagra include symmetric photosensitive skin eruptions, gastrointestinal tract symptoms, and neurologic and mental disorders.³ The first signs of pellagra may include muscle weakness, digestive concerns, and psychological or emotional discomfort.² Pellagra dermatitis manifests as an acute or intermittent, bilaterally symmetrical eruption on sun-exposed areas and is markedly distinct from healthy skin.³ Some individuals may experience vesiculation and bullae development (wet pellagra). The erythema is first brilliant red then turns into a cinnamon-brown color. Over time, the skin becomes thickened, scaly, cracked, and hyperpigmented.¹ The dryness of the skin likely is due to a remarkable decrease in wax ester and sebaceous gland atrophy seen on histopathology.⁴ Pellagra most frequently affects the back of the hands (77%–97% of cases), which can extend upward to create the so-called pellagra glove or gauntlet.³ It is common to see symmetrical eruptions in the shape of a butterfly following an anatomical pattern innervated by the trigeminal nerve, which resembles lupus erythematosus on the face. Another common manifestation is Casal necklace, a well-marginated eruption frequently seen on the front of the neck (Figure).² On the foot, lesions often do not develop close to the malleoli but rather terminate distally on the backs of the toes. Sometimes a boot pattern may form that covers the front and back of the leg.^1-3

The pathophysiology of photosensitivity in pellagra was hypothesized by Karthikeyan and Thappa.³ They discovered an excessive synthesis of a phototoxic substance, kynurenic acid, and a deficiency in urocanic acid, which normally protects the skin by absorbing light in the UVB range. Niacin deprivation leads to the production of kynurenic acid through the tryptophan-kynurenine-nicotinic acid pathway and reduces the amount of urocanic acid by affecting the enzyme histidase in the stratum corneum.^1-3 In one-third of patients, pellagra affects the oral mucosa, causing characteristic symptoms such as glossitis, angular stomatitis, and cheilitis.² In nearly 50% of patients, poor appetite, nausea, epigastric discomfort, diarrhea, and excessive salivation are present. Most of the gastrointestinal tract is affected by mucosal inflammation and atrophy, which can cause malnutrition and cachexia due to anorexia and malabsorptive diarrhea.² Headache, irritability, poor concentration, hallucinations, photophobia, tremor, and depression are some of the neuropsychiatric symptoms. Patients experience delirium and disorientation as pellagra progresses, followed by a comatose state and ultimately death.²

The patient’s history and physical examination are used to make the diagnosis, with particular attention to the patient’s dietary details. The diagnosis is made in part ex juvantibus by seeing how the patient responds to higher niacin doses. Anemia, hypoproteinemia, elevated blood calcium, reduced serum potassium and phosphorus, abnormal liver function tests, and elevated serum porphyrin levels also indicate pellagra. Niacin 300 mg in divided doses for up to 4 weeks has been recommended by the World Health Organization to treat pellagra.⁵ The flushing seen with niacin administration is not linked to the usage of nicotinamide. The recommended nicotinamide dosage for adults is 100 mg orally every 6 hours until most acute symptoms have disappeared, followed by oral administration of 50 mg every 8 to 12 hours until all skin lesions have healed.²

Among the differential diagnoses, necrolytic migratory erythema is characterized by an episodic eruption of crusted, erosive, annular erythematous plaques with blister development, which occurs in 70% of patients with glucagonoma syndrome. The perioral region, perineum, lower belly, thighs, and distal extremities are the usual locations.^6,7 Laboratory test results include elevated fasting serum glucagon (>1000 ng/L) and normocytic anemia, which aided in ruling out this diagnosis in our patient. Generalized acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus may appear as a broad morbilliform eruption. The hands frequently exhibit erythema and edema, especially across the dorsal and interphalangeal regions.8 Other typical findings of systemic lupus erythematosus such as antinuclear antibody were not seen in our patient, making this diagnosis unlikely. Porphyria cutanea tarda also must be considered in the differential diagnosis. The hepatic deficiency of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase is the primary cause of this condition. Although it is characterized by blistering lesions, patients more frequently describe increased skin fragility in sun-exposed regions. Hypertrichosis, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, hirsutism, or scarring may appear in the later stage of the disease.9 Phototoxic reaction was ruled out because the patient spent most of the time at home, and no new drugs had been prescribed in the previous months.

The Diagnosis: Pellagra

The patient was diagnosed with pellagra based on the clinical and laboratory findings. He was discharged with nicotinamide 250 mg and folic acid 5 mg supplementation daily. After 3 months, all symptoms resolved.

Pellagra is a condition usually associated with the 4 Ds: dermatitis; diarrhea; dementia; and, if untreated, death.¹ The word pellagra is derived from the Italian terms pelle and agra, which mean skin and rough, respectively.² Spanish physician Gasper Casal first described pellagra in 1762 after observing the disease in poorer peasants in Asturias who mainly relied on maize and rarely consumed fresh meat.^1,2 Joseph Goldberger conducted research in the early 20th century, provoking the disease in jail prisoners by modifying their diets. However, it was not until 1926 that Goldberger discovered the true cause of the illness to be a poor diet and named what would become known as nicotinamide as the pellagra preventative factor.^1,2 Niacin (vitamin B3), the deficient molecule in pellagra, also is known as nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, or niacinamide. It is a water-soluble vitamin that is converted into nicotinamide-adenine-dinucleotide (NAD) and its phosphate NADP.^1,2 It has been hypothesized that pellagra symptoms arise from insufficient amounts of NAD and NADP, making the body unable to support cellular energy transfer processes.³

Pellagra manifests 50 to 60 days after starting a diet low in niacin. Niacin and nicotinamide are absorbed from the digested food to the stomach through a sodiumdependent mechanism, and then nicotinamide may be transformed into nicotinic acid with microsomal deamidation.³ Niacin may be obtained from one’s diet or produced from tryptophan. Foods with the highest amounts of niacin include liver, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, pork, mushrooms, avocados, almonds, and legumes.^1,3 Coffee also contains trigonelline, which may be transformed into nicotinic acid when roasted, increasing the niacin level by 30 times.³ Approximately 60 mg of dietary tryptophan is needed to produce up to 1 mg of niacin in the presence of B2 and B6 vitamins. This mechanism provides approximately half of the needs for niacin.3 Insufficient dietary intake of niacin or the essential amino acid tryptophan can cause pellagra (primary pellagra), which is a concern in resource-limited countries. Alternatively, the body may not be able to properly utilize niacin for metabolic processes (secondary pellagra), which occurs more frequently in developed countries.¹ Secondary pellagra also may be caused by alcoholism, colitis, cirrhosis, carcinoid tumors, Hartnup disease, or gastrointestinal tuberculosis, as these conditions prevent niacin from being consumed, absorbed, or processed. Certain medications can cause pellagra by interfering with the tryptophan-niacin pathway, including isoniazid, 5-fluorouracil, pyrazinamide, 6-mercaptopurine, hydantoins, ethionamide, phenobarbital, azathioprine, and chloramphenicol.²

The clinical manifestations of pellagra are diverse because it affects tissues with high turnover rates. Clinical features of pellagra include symmetric photosensitive skin eruptions, gastrointestinal tract symptoms, and neurologic and mental disorders.³ The first signs of pellagra may include muscle weakness, digestive concerns, and psychological or emotional discomfort.² Pellagra dermatitis manifests as an acute or intermittent, bilaterally symmetrical eruption on sun-exposed areas and is markedly distinct from healthy skin.³ Some individuals may experience vesiculation and bullae development (wet pellagra). The erythema is first brilliant red then turns into a cinnamon-brown color. Over time, the skin becomes thickened, scaly, cracked, and hyperpigmented.¹ The dryness of the skin likely is due to a remarkable decrease in wax ester and sebaceous gland atrophy seen on histopathology.⁴ Pellagra most frequently affects the back of the hands (77%–97% of cases), which can extend upward to create the so-called pellagra glove or gauntlet.³ It is common to see symmetrical eruptions in the shape of a butterfly following an anatomical pattern innervated by the trigeminal nerve, which resembles lupus erythematosus on the face. Another common manifestation is Casal necklace, a well-marginated eruption frequently seen on the front of the neck (Figure).² On the foot, lesions often do not develop close to the malleoli but rather terminate distally on the backs of the toes. Sometimes a boot pattern may form that covers the front and back of the leg.^1-3

The pathophysiology of photosensitivity in pellagra was hypothesized by Karthikeyan and Thappa.³ They discovered an excessive synthesis of a phototoxic substance, kynurenic acid, and a deficiency in urocanic acid, which normally protects the skin by absorbing light in the UVB range. Niacin deprivation leads to the production of kynurenic acid through the tryptophan-kynurenine-nicotinic acid pathway and reduces the amount of urocanic acid by affecting the enzyme histidase in the stratum corneum.^1-3 In one-third of patients, pellagra affects the oral mucosa, causing characteristic symptoms such as glossitis, angular stomatitis, and cheilitis.² In nearly 50% of patients, poor appetite, nausea, epigastric discomfort, diarrhea, and excessive salivation are present. Most of the gastrointestinal tract is affected by mucosal inflammation and atrophy, which can cause malnutrition and cachexia due to anorexia and malabsorptive diarrhea.² Headache, irritability, poor concentration, hallucinations, photophobia, tremor, and depression are some of the neuropsychiatric symptoms. Patients experience delirium and disorientation as pellagra progresses, followed by a comatose state and ultimately death.²

The patient’s history and physical examination are used to make the diagnosis, with particular attention to the patient’s dietary details. The diagnosis is made in part ex juvantibus by seeing how the patient responds to higher niacin doses. Anemia, hypoproteinemia, elevated blood calcium, reduced serum potassium and phosphorus, abnormal liver function tests, and elevated serum porphyrin levels also indicate pellagra. Niacin 300 mg in divided doses for up to 4 weeks has been recommended by the World Health Organization to treat pellagra.⁵ The flushing seen with niacin administration is not linked to the usage of nicotinamide. The recommended nicotinamide dosage for adults is 100 mg orally every 6 hours until most acute symptoms have disappeared, followed by oral administration of 50 mg every 8 to 12 hours until all skin lesions have healed.²

Among the differential diagnoses, necrolytic migratory erythema is characterized by an episodic eruption of crusted, erosive, annular erythematous plaques with blister development, which occurs in 70% of patients with glucagonoma syndrome. The perioral region, perineum, lower belly, thighs, and distal extremities are the usual locations.^6,7 Laboratory test results include elevated fasting serum glucagon (>1000 ng/L) and normocytic anemia, which aided in ruling out this diagnosis in our patient. Generalized acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus may appear as a broad morbilliform eruption. The hands frequently exhibit erythema and edema, especially across the dorsal and interphalangeal regions.8 Other typical findings of systemic lupus erythematosus such as antinuclear antibody were not seen in our patient, making this diagnosis unlikely. Porphyria cutanea tarda also must be considered in the differential diagnosis. The hepatic deficiency of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase is the primary cause of this condition. Although it is characterized by blistering lesions, patients more frequently describe increased skin fragility in sun-exposed regions. Hypertrichosis, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, hirsutism, or scarring may appear in the later stage of the disease.9 Phototoxic reaction was ruled out because the patient spent most of the time at home, and no new drugs had been prescribed in the previous months.

Additionally, several recently published reviews have examined the risks of comorbidities that are not neurologic or cardiovascular, such as allergies, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, and diabetes. Although these types of associations are not inherently obvious in terms of migraine pathophysiology, determining whether there is a link may help shed a light on some contributing factors that could play a role in migraine or in the comorbid disorders.

Authors of a study published in the January 2024 issue of the European Journal of Medical Research sought to examine the relationship between allergic rhinitis and migraine. They noted that several studies, as well as a statement from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, published in 2013, reported an increased frequency of migraines in patients with allergic rhinitis. The researchers used data extracted from the UK Biobank, comprising 25,486 patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and 87,097 controls and 8547 migraine cases and 176,107 controls. They performed statistical analysis using bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization with publicly available summary-level statistics of large genome-wide association studies to estimate the possible causal effects. The researchers did not find any clear causal or genetic association between allergic rhinitis and migraine risk. However, the lack of causation between migraine and allergic rhinitis does not contradict previous studies that point to the prevalence of comorbidity of the two conditions. It's also important to note that congestion is a known migraine trigger, and the results of the study do not contradict that relationship. Given the variability of results from different research studies, the authors suggested that more research is warranted to help untangle the complex association between allergic rhinitis and migraine.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is another condition with a higher prevalence in patients who have migraine. A January 2024 article in Scientific Reports described the results of a nationwide population-based study that was conducted using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. This study included 10,131,193 individuals. The researchers found that the risk for development of IBD in patients with migraine was significantly higher, by 1.3 times, compared with the general population. These results are similar to previous studies, such as a meta-analysis published in May 2023 in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine, which reported a pooled prevalence of migraine in IBD cases of 19%, with 1.5-fold higher odds of developing migraine in IBD cases when compared with controls.^[3] These studies were both aimed at examining epidemiologic data rather than uncovering a physiologic or genetic cause of the link, and neither study described an explanation for this connection.

A Mendelian randomization study published in May 2023 in Headache investigated potential genetic links between migraine and IBD. As with the January 2024 European Journal of Medical Research study that was done to search for a genetic association between migraine and allergic rhinitis, the authors stated that there was no evidence of a shared genetic basis or of a causal association between migraine and either IBD or celiac disease.^[4] Although the evidence doesn't point to a causal relationship, it's important to note that diet plays a role in migraine management, and diet is especially important in managing IBD. Consideration of dietary factors could be beneficial for preventing symptoms — and is even more important for avoiding exacerbation of symptoms.

A high body mass index (BMI) is correlated with migraine. A study published in January 2024 in BMC Geriatrics analyzed data from people who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, comprising a total of 31,126 participants. The researchers found a linear association between BMI and migraine. They also noted that increased BMI was related to a significantly higher risk for migraine in the group with diabetes, but this positive relationship between BMI and migraine seemed to be smaller in the group without diabetes. The authors considered inflammation associated with obesity as a possible contributing factor for this link but acknowledged that the pathophysiologic mechanism is unknown and suggested that there is a high likelihood of confounding factors. Given that diabetes and obesity are both correlated with an increased risk for vascular disease and migraine is associated with a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, it could be especially important to identify these comorbidities in individual patients.

Migraine is common, and many comorbidities have been verified with population studies. Although there are some explanations for the links between migraine and vascular or neurologic conditions, the cause of associations between migraine and other conditions is not known. Some theories that have begun to be investigated include inflammation and genetics. Eventually, further research and understanding of contributing factors could potentially provide explanations that may help in diagnosing migraine or associated disorders at an early stage — and might even be used to help guide treatment.

Additional References

1. Ashina M, Katsarava Z, Do TP, et al. Migraine: Epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet. 2021;397:1485-1495. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32160-7 Source

2. Burch RC, Buse DC, Lipton RB. Migraine: Epidemiology, burden, and comorbidity. Neurol Clin. 2019;37:631-649. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2019.06.001 Source

3. Olfati H, Mirmosayyeb O, Hosseinabadi AM, Ghajarzadeh M. The prevalence of migraine in inflammatory bowel disease, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prev Med. 2023;14:66. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_413_21 Source

4. Welander NZ, Rukh G, Rask-Andersen M, Harder AV, et al and International Headache Genetics Consortium. Migraine, inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease: A Mendelian randomization study. Headache. 2023;63:642-651. doi: 10.1111/head.14470 Source

Additionally, several recently published reviews have examined the risks of comorbidities that are not neurologic or cardiovascular, such as allergies, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, and diabetes. Although these types of associations are not inherently obvious in terms of migraine pathophysiology, determining whether there is a link may help shed a light on some contributing factors that could play a role in migraine or in the comorbid disorders.

Authors of a study published in the January 2024 issue of the European Journal of Medical Research sought to examine the relationship between allergic rhinitis and migraine. They noted that several studies, as well as a statement from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, published in 2013, reported an increased frequency of migraines in patients with allergic rhinitis. The researchers used data extracted from the UK Biobank, comprising 25,486 patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and 87,097 controls and 8547 migraine cases and 176,107 controls. They performed statistical analysis using bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization with publicly available summary-level statistics of large genome-wide association studies to estimate the possible causal effects. The researchers did not find any clear causal or genetic association between allergic rhinitis and migraine risk. However, the lack of causation between migraine and allergic rhinitis does not contradict previous studies that point to the prevalence of comorbidity of the two conditions. It's also important to note that congestion is a known migraine trigger, and the results of the study do not contradict that relationship. Given the variability of results from different research studies, the authors suggested that more research is warranted to help untangle the complex association between allergic rhinitis and migraine.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is another condition with a higher prevalence in patients who have migraine. A January 2024 article in Scientific Reports described the results of a nationwide population-based study that was conducted using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. This study included 10,131,193 individuals. The researchers found that the risk for development of IBD in patients with migraine was significantly higher, by 1.3 times, compared with the general population. These results are similar to previous studies, such as a meta-analysis published in May 2023 in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine, which reported a pooled prevalence of migraine in IBD cases of 19%, with 1.5-fold higher odds of developing migraine in IBD cases when compared with controls.^[3] These studies were both aimed at examining epidemiologic data rather than uncovering a physiologic or genetic cause of the link, and neither study described an explanation for this connection.

A Mendelian randomization study published in May 2023 in Headache investigated potential genetic links between migraine and IBD. As with the January 2024 European Journal of Medical Research study that was done to search for a genetic association between migraine and allergic rhinitis, the authors stated that there was no evidence of a shared genetic basis or of a causal association between migraine and either IBD or celiac disease.^[4] Although the evidence doesn't point to a causal relationship, it's important to note that diet plays a role in migraine management, and diet is especially important in managing IBD. Consideration of dietary factors could be beneficial for preventing symptoms — and is even more important for avoiding exacerbation of symptoms.

A high body mass index (BMI) is correlated with migraine. A study published in January 2024 in BMC Geriatrics analyzed data from people who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, comprising a total of 31,126 participants. The researchers found a linear association between BMI and migraine. They also noted that increased BMI was related to a significantly higher risk for migraine in the group with diabetes, but this positive relationship between BMI and migraine seemed to be smaller in the group without diabetes. The authors considered inflammation associated with obesity as a possible contributing factor for this link but acknowledged that the pathophysiologic mechanism is unknown and suggested that there is a high likelihood of confounding factors. Given that diabetes and obesity are both correlated with an increased risk for vascular disease and migraine is associated with a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, it could be especially important to identify these comorbidities in individual patients.

Migraine is common, and many comorbidities have been verified with population studies. Although there are some explanations for the links between migraine and vascular or neurologic conditions, the cause of associations between migraine and other conditions is not known. Some theories that have begun to be investigated include inflammation and genetics. Eventually, further research and understanding of contributing factors could potentially provide explanations that may help in diagnosing migraine or associated disorders at an early stage — and might even be used to help guide treatment.

Additional References

1. Ashina M, Katsarava Z, Do TP, et al. Migraine: Epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet. 2021;397:1485-1495. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32160-7 Source

2. Burch RC, Buse DC, Lipton RB. Migraine: Epidemiology, burden, and comorbidity. Neurol Clin. 2019;37:631-649. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2019.06.001 Source

3. Olfati H, Mirmosayyeb O, Hosseinabadi AM, Ghajarzadeh M. The prevalence of migraine in inflammatory bowel disease, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prev Med. 2023;14:66. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_413_21 Source

4. Welander NZ, Rukh G, Rask-Andersen M, Harder AV, et al and International Headache Genetics Consortium. Migraine, inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease: A Mendelian randomization study. Headache. 2023;63:642-651. doi: 10.1111/head.14470 Source

Additionally, several recently published reviews have examined the risks of comorbidities that are not neurologic or cardiovascular, such as allergies, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, and diabetes. Although these types of associations are not inherently obvious in terms of migraine pathophysiology, determining whether there is a link may help shed a light on some contributing factors that could play a role in migraine or in the comorbid disorders.

Authors of a study published in the January 2024 issue of the European Journal of Medical Research sought to examine the relationship between allergic rhinitis and migraine. They noted that several studies, as well as a statement from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, published in 2013, reported an increased frequency of migraines in patients with allergic rhinitis. The researchers used data extracted from the UK Biobank, comprising 25,486 patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and 87,097 controls and 8547 migraine cases and 176,107 controls. They performed statistical analysis using bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization with publicly available summary-level statistics of large genome-wide association studies to estimate the possible causal effects. The researchers did not find any clear causal or genetic association between allergic rhinitis and migraine risk. However, the lack of causation between migraine and allergic rhinitis does not contradict previous studies that point to the prevalence of comorbidity of the two conditions. It's also important to note that congestion is a known migraine trigger, and the results of the study do not contradict that relationship. Given the variability of results from different research studies, the authors suggested that more research is warranted to help untangle the complex association between allergic rhinitis and migraine.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is another condition with a higher prevalence in patients who have migraine. A January 2024 article in Scientific Reports described the results of a nationwide population-based study that was conducted using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. This study included 10,131,193 individuals. The researchers found that the risk for development of IBD in patients with migraine was significantly higher, by 1.3 times, compared with the general population. These results are similar to previous studies, such as a meta-analysis published in May 2023 in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine, which reported a pooled prevalence of migraine in IBD cases of 19%, with 1.5-fold higher odds of developing migraine in IBD cases when compared with controls.^[3] These studies were both aimed at examining epidemiologic data rather than uncovering a physiologic or genetic cause of the link, and neither study described an explanation for this connection.

A Mendelian randomization study published in May 2023 in Headache investigated potential genetic links between migraine and IBD. As with the January 2024 European Journal of Medical Research study that was done to search for a genetic association between migraine and allergic rhinitis, the authors stated that there was no evidence of a shared genetic basis or of a causal association between migraine and either IBD or celiac disease.^[4] Although the evidence doesn't point to a causal relationship, it's important to note that diet plays a role in migraine management, and diet is especially important in managing IBD. Consideration of dietary factors could be beneficial for preventing symptoms — and is even more important for avoiding exacerbation of symptoms.

A high body mass index (BMI) is correlated with migraine. A study published in January 2024 in BMC Geriatrics analyzed data from people who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, comprising a total of 31,126 participants. The researchers found a linear association between BMI and migraine. They also noted that increased BMI was related to a significantly higher risk for migraine in the group with diabetes, but this positive relationship between BMI and migraine seemed to be smaller in the group without diabetes. The authors considered inflammation associated with obesity as a possible contributing factor for this link but acknowledged that the pathophysiologic mechanism is unknown and suggested that there is a high likelihood of confounding factors. Given that diabetes and obesity are both correlated with an increased risk for vascular disease and migraine is associated with a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, it could be especially important to identify these comorbidities in individual patients.

Migraine is common, and many comorbidities have been verified with population studies. Although there are some explanations for the links between migraine and vascular or neurologic conditions, the cause of associations between migraine and other conditions is not known. Some theories that have begun to be investigated include inflammation and genetics. Eventually, further research and understanding of contributing factors could potentially provide explanations that may help in diagnosing migraine or associated disorders at an early stage — and might even be used to help guide treatment.

Additional References

1. Ashina M, Katsarava Z, Do TP, et al. Migraine: Epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet. 2021;397:1485-1495. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32160-7 Source

2. Burch RC, Buse DC, Lipton RB. Migraine: Epidemiology, burden, and comorbidity. Neurol Clin. 2019;37:631-649. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2019.06.001 Source

3. Olfati H, Mirmosayyeb O, Hosseinabadi AM, Ghajarzadeh M. The prevalence of migraine in inflammatory bowel disease, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prev Med. 2023;14:66. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_413_21 Source

4. Welander NZ, Rukh G, Rask-Andersen M, Harder AV, et al and International Headache Genetics Consortium. Migraine, inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease: A Mendelian randomization study. Headache. 2023;63:642-651. doi: 10.1111/head.14470 Source

This study provides compelling evidence that a twice-daily dosing regimen of moderate-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is superior to a once-daily regimen for inducing histologic remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This finding suggests a significant paradigm shift in EoE management, challenging the current standard treatment guideline that recommends a PPI trial of 20-40 mg twice daily. The limited data on various dosing regimens for EoE treatment underscores the importance of this research. Dr Muftah and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted a novel retrospective cohort study to address the question: Does a twice-daily PPI dose induce a higher remission rate in EoE than a once-daily regimen does regardless of the total daily dose?

The study enrolled adult patients with newly-diagnosed treatment-naive EoE at a tertiary care center, dividing participants into four groups on the basis of their treatment regimen: once-daily standard dose (20 mg omeprazole), once-daily moderate dose (40 mg), twice-daily moderate dose (20 mg), and twice-daily high dose (40 mg). Patients underwent endoscopy 8-12 weeks after initiating PPI treatment, with the primary outcome being the histologic response to PPI, defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils/high power field in repeat esophageal biopsies.

Out of 305 patients (54.6% men, mean age 44.7 ± 16.7 years), 42.3% achieved a histologic response to PPI treatment. Patients receiving the standard PPI dose (20 mg omeprazole once daily) vs those on twice-daily moderate and high doses showed significantly higher histologic response rates (52.8% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; and 54.3% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that twice-daily moderate and high doses were significantly more effective (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 6.75; CI 2.53-18.0, P = .0008; and aOR 12.8, CI 4.69-34.8, P < .001; respectively).

However, the study's retrospective design limits its ability to establish causality and may introduce selection bias. In addition, the lack of specified adjustments for PPI dosing based on diet and lifestyle factors across the cohort could influence treatment response and outcomes. Last, as a single-center study, the results may not generalize across diverse patient populations, particularly those with different demographics or disease severities.

This research heralds a shift toward a more effective treatment strategy in EoE management, suggesting that a twice-daily PPI regimen may be more beneficial than once-daily dosing is for inducing histologic remission, especially in patients inadequately responding to once-daily PPI treatment. It advocates for a personalized treatment approach, considering factors such as symptom severity, previous PPI response, and potential for adherence to a twice-daily regimen.

Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–induced eosinophilia and EoE poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Given that the incidence of EoE is 3-5 times higher in patients with IBD compared with the general population, there is a pressing need for new biomarkers to differentiate between these two conditions. In response to this need, Dr Butzke and colleagues at Nemours Children's Health in Wilmington, Delaware, conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the roles of Major Basic Protein (MBP) and interleukin (IL)-13 in distinguishing these diseases. The study included participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies for IBD workup or suspicion of EoE. It comprised 27 patients with EoE-IBD, 39 with EoE, 29 with IBD eosinophilia, 30 with IBD only, and 30 control patients. The biopsies were stained with MBP and IL-13 antibodies, and the results (percent staining/total tissue area), demographic, and clinical findings were compared among the groups.

The study revealed that MBP staining levels among patients with EoE-IBD were 3.8 units, which is significantly lower than those in the EoE group at 52.8 units and higher than those with IBD eosinophilia at 0.2 units (P < .001). IL-13 expression was significantly higher only compared with the IBD and control groups and not with EoE-IBD or IBD eosinophilia. MBP predicted EoE with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity, whereas IL-13 demonstrated 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity using a cutoff point from the cohort of patients without EoE-IBD. Based on the MBP cutoff point of 3.49 units that distinguished between EoE and non-EoE cases, 100% of patients with EoE were MBP-positive compared with 3% of patients with IBD-associated eosinophilia (P < .05).

To implement this new biomarker into clinical practice, guidelines for interpreting MBP staining results should be developed and established, including defining cutoff points for positive and negative results. However, this study faces several limitations, such as not evaluating the differences in MBP results based on EoE-IBD type and disease activity. The retrospective nature of the study and its small sample size limit its power. In addition, the study did not assess how different treatments and disease activity affect MBP levels nor did it address the lack of longitudinal evaluation in assessing MBP levels.

Despite these limitations, the study presents a compelling case for the use of MBP as a biomarker to distinguish true EoE from EoE-IBD. This differentiation is crucial because it can guide therapeutic approaches, influencing medication choices and dietary interventions. MBP shows promise as an excellent biomarker for distinguishing true EoE from eosinophilia caused by IBD. When combined with endoscopic and histologic changes, MBP can assist with the diagnosis of EoE in IBD patients, thereby reducing the possibility of misdiagnosis.

Being diagnosed with EoE poses a challenging and life-altering experience for patients and their families. They face numerous challenges, from undergoing diagnostic procedures and treatments to adapting daily diets. Limited information is available on the eating habits of patients diagnosed with EoE. In this study, Dr Kennedy and colleagues explored how a diagnosis of EoE affects eating behaviors among pediatric patients.

The researchers conducted a prospective study involving 27 patients diagnosed with EoE and compared their eating behaviors to those of 25 healthy control participants. The participants were evaluated on the basis of their responses to four food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid), focusing on the number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time.

The study found that, on average, patients with EoE (63.5% boys, mean age 11 years) required more chews per bite across several food textures (soft solid P = .031; chewable P = .047; and hard solid P = .037) and demonstrated increased consumption time for soft solid (P = .002), chewable (P = .005), and hard solid foods (P = .034) compared to healthy controls. In addition, endoscopic reference scores positively correlated with consumption time (r = 0.53; P = .008) and the number of chews (r = 0.45; P = .027) for chewable foods as well as with the number of chews (r = 0.44; P = .043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time also correlated with increased eosinophil counts (r = 0.42; P = .050) and decreased esophageal distensibility (r = -0.82; P < .0001).

Though these findings open promising avenues for the noninvasive assessment and personalized management of EoE, further research with larger, longitudinal studies is essential to validate these behaviors as reliable clinical biomarkers. Increasing the sample size would enhance the study's power and broaden the generalizability of its findings to a wider pediatric EoE population. The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to assess how eating behaviors change over time with treatment or disease progression.

This study underscores the potential of eating behaviors as clinical markers for pediatric patients with EoE, enabling early identification through increased chewing and consumption times, especially with harder textures. Such markers could prompt diagnostic evaluations in settings where endoscopy and biopsy are gold standards for diagnosing EoE. Moreover, eating patterns could assist in monitoring disease activity and progression, offering a noninvasive means of assessing disease status and response to therapy, thus allowing for more frequent assessments of disease status without the need for invasive procedures. Understanding these behaviors allows healthcare providers to tailor dietary advice and interventions, potentially enhancing treatment compliance and improving the quality of life for pediatric patients with EoE.

This study provides compelling evidence that a twice-daily dosing regimen of moderate-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is superior to a once-daily regimen for inducing histologic remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This finding suggests a significant paradigm shift in EoE management, challenging the current standard treatment guideline that recommends a PPI trial of 20-40 mg twice daily. The limited data on various dosing regimens for EoE treatment underscores the importance of this research. Dr Muftah and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted a novel retrospective cohort study to address the question: Does a twice-daily PPI dose induce a higher remission rate in EoE than a once-daily regimen does regardless of the total daily dose?

The study enrolled adult patients with newly-diagnosed treatment-naive EoE at a tertiary care center, dividing participants into four groups on the basis of their treatment regimen: once-daily standard dose (20 mg omeprazole), once-daily moderate dose (40 mg), twice-daily moderate dose (20 mg), and twice-daily high dose (40 mg). Patients underwent endoscopy 8-12 weeks after initiating PPI treatment, with the primary outcome being the histologic response to PPI, defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils/high power field in repeat esophageal biopsies.

Out of 305 patients (54.6% men, mean age 44.7 ± 16.7 years), 42.3% achieved a histologic response to PPI treatment. Patients receiving the standard PPI dose (20 mg omeprazole once daily) vs those on twice-daily moderate and high doses showed significantly higher histologic response rates (52.8% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; and 54.3% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that twice-daily moderate and high doses were significantly more effective (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 6.75; CI 2.53-18.0, P = .0008; and aOR 12.8, CI 4.69-34.8, P < .001; respectively).

However, the study's retrospective design limits its ability to establish causality and may introduce selection bias. In addition, the lack of specified adjustments for PPI dosing based on diet and lifestyle factors across the cohort could influence treatment response and outcomes. Last, as a single-center study, the results may not generalize across diverse patient populations, particularly those with different demographics or disease severities.

This research heralds a shift toward a more effective treatment strategy in EoE management, suggesting that a twice-daily PPI regimen may be more beneficial than once-daily dosing is for inducing histologic remission, especially in patients inadequately responding to once-daily PPI treatment. It advocates for a personalized treatment approach, considering factors such as symptom severity, previous PPI response, and potential for adherence to a twice-daily regimen.

Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–induced eosinophilia and EoE poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Given that the incidence of EoE is 3-5 times higher in patients with IBD compared with the general population, there is a pressing need for new biomarkers to differentiate between these two conditions. In response to this need, Dr Butzke and colleagues at Nemours Children's Health in Wilmington, Delaware, conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the roles of Major Basic Protein (MBP) and interleukin (IL)-13 in distinguishing these diseases. The study included participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies for IBD workup or suspicion of EoE. It comprised 27 patients with EoE-IBD, 39 with EoE, 29 with IBD eosinophilia, 30 with IBD only, and 30 control patients. The biopsies were stained with MBP and IL-13 antibodies, and the results (percent staining/total tissue area), demographic, and clinical findings were compared among the groups.

The study revealed that MBP staining levels among patients with EoE-IBD were 3.8 units, which is significantly lower than those in the EoE group at 52.8 units and higher than those with IBD eosinophilia at 0.2 units (P < .001). IL-13 expression was significantly higher only compared with the IBD and control groups and not with EoE-IBD or IBD eosinophilia. MBP predicted EoE with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity, whereas IL-13 demonstrated 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity using a cutoff point from the cohort of patients without EoE-IBD. Based on the MBP cutoff point of 3.49 units that distinguished between EoE and non-EoE cases, 100% of patients with EoE were MBP-positive compared with 3% of patients with IBD-associated eosinophilia (P < .05).

To implement this new biomarker into clinical practice, guidelines for interpreting MBP staining results should be developed and established, including defining cutoff points for positive and negative results. However, this study faces several limitations, such as not evaluating the differences in MBP results based on EoE-IBD type and disease activity. The retrospective nature of the study and its small sample size limit its power. In addition, the study did not assess how different treatments and disease activity affect MBP levels nor did it address the lack of longitudinal evaluation in assessing MBP levels.

Despite these limitations, the study presents a compelling case for the use of MBP as a biomarker to distinguish true EoE from EoE-IBD. This differentiation is crucial because it can guide therapeutic approaches, influencing medication choices and dietary interventions. MBP shows promise as an excellent biomarker for distinguishing true EoE from eosinophilia caused by IBD. When combined with endoscopic and histologic changes, MBP can assist with the diagnosis of EoE in IBD patients, thereby reducing the possibility of misdiagnosis.

Being diagnosed with EoE poses a challenging and life-altering experience for patients and their families. They face numerous challenges, from undergoing diagnostic procedures and treatments to adapting daily diets. Limited information is available on the eating habits of patients diagnosed with EoE. In this study, Dr Kennedy and colleagues explored how a diagnosis of EoE affects eating behaviors among pediatric patients.

The researchers conducted a prospective study involving 27 patients diagnosed with EoE and compared their eating behaviors to those of 25 healthy control participants. The participants were evaluated on the basis of their responses to four food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid), focusing on the number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time.

The study found that, on average, patients with EoE (63.5% boys, mean age 11 years) required more chews per bite across several food textures (soft solid P = .031; chewable P = .047; and hard solid P = .037) and demonstrated increased consumption time for soft solid (P = .002), chewable (P = .005), and hard solid foods (P = .034) compared to healthy controls. In addition, endoscopic reference scores positively correlated with consumption time (r = 0.53; P = .008) and the number of chews (r = 0.45; P = .027) for chewable foods as well as with the number of chews (r = 0.44; P = .043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time also correlated with increased eosinophil counts (r = 0.42; P = .050) and decreased esophageal distensibility (r = -0.82; P < .0001).

Though these findings open promising avenues for the noninvasive assessment and personalized management of EoE, further research with larger, longitudinal studies is essential to validate these behaviors as reliable clinical biomarkers. Increasing the sample size would enhance the study's power and broaden the generalizability of its findings to a wider pediatric EoE population. The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to assess how eating behaviors change over time with treatment or disease progression.

This study underscores the potential of eating behaviors as clinical markers for pediatric patients with EoE, enabling early identification through increased chewing and consumption times, especially with harder textures. Such markers could prompt diagnostic evaluations in settings where endoscopy and biopsy are gold standards for diagnosing EoE. Moreover, eating patterns could assist in monitoring disease activity and progression, offering a noninvasive means of assessing disease status and response to therapy, thus allowing for more frequent assessments of disease status without the need for invasive procedures. Understanding these behaviors allows healthcare providers to tailor dietary advice and interventions, potentially enhancing treatment compliance and improving the quality of life for pediatric patients with EoE.

This study provides compelling evidence that a twice-daily dosing regimen of moderate-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is superior to a once-daily regimen for inducing histologic remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This finding suggests a significant paradigm shift in EoE management, challenging the current standard treatment guideline that recommends a PPI trial of 20-40 mg twice daily. The limited data on various dosing regimens for EoE treatment underscores the importance of this research. Dr Muftah and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted a novel retrospective cohort study to address the question: Does a twice-daily PPI dose induce a higher remission rate in EoE than a once-daily regimen does regardless of the total daily dose?

The study enrolled adult patients with newly-diagnosed treatment-naive EoE at a tertiary care center, dividing participants into four groups on the basis of their treatment regimen: once-daily standard dose (20 mg omeprazole), once-daily moderate dose (40 mg), twice-daily moderate dose (20 mg), and twice-daily high dose (40 mg). Patients underwent endoscopy 8-12 weeks after initiating PPI treatment, with the primary outcome being the histologic response to PPI, defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils/high power field in repeat esophageal biopsies.

Out of 305 patients (54.6% men, mean age 44.7 ± 16.7 years), 42.3% achieved a histologic response to PPI treatment. Patients receiving the standard PPI dose (20 mg omeprazole once daily) vs those on twice-daily moderate and high doses showed significantly higher histologic response rates (52.8% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; and 54.3% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that twice-daily moderate and high doses were significantly more effective (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 6.75; CI 2.53-18.0, P = .0008; and aOR 12.8, CI 4.69-34.8, P < .001; respectively).

However, the study's retrospective design limits its ability to establish causality and may introduce selection bias. In addition, the lack of specified adjustments for PPI dosing based on diet and lifestyle factors across the cohort could influence treatment response and outcomes. Last, as a single-center study, the results may not generalize across diverse patient populations, particularly those with different demographics or disease severities.

This research heralds a shift toward a more effective treatment strategy in EoE management, suggesting that a twice-daily PPI regimen may be more beneficial than once-daily dosing is for inducing histologic remission, especially in patients inadequately responding to once-daily PPI treatment. It advocates for a personalized treatment approach, considering factors such as symptom severity, previous PPI response, and potential for adherence to a twice-daily regimen.

Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–induced eosinophilia and EoE poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Given that the incidence of EoE is 3-5 times higher in patients with IBD compared with the general population, there is a pressing need for new biomarkers to differentiate between these two conditions. In response to this need, Dr Butzke and colleagues at Nemours Children's Health in Wilmington, Delaware, conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the roles of Major Basic Protein (MBP) and interleukin (IL)-13 in distinguishing these diseases. The study included participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies for IBD workup or suspicion of EoE. It comprised 27 patients with EoE-IBD, 39 with EoE, 29 with IBD eosinophilia, 30 with IBD only, and 30 control patients. The biopsies were stained with MBP and IL-13 antibodies, and the results (percent staining/total tissue area), demographic, and clinical findings were compared among the groups.

The study revealed that MBP staining levels among patients with EoE-IBD were 3.8 units, which is significantly lower than those in the EoE group at 52.8 units and higher than those with IBD eosinophilia at 0.2 units (P < .001). IL-13 expression was significantly higher only compared with the IBD and control groups and not with EoE-IBD or IBD eosinophilia. MBP predicted EoE with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity, whereas IL-13 demonstrated 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity using a cutoff point from the cohort of patients without EoE-IBD. Based on the MBP cutoff point of 3.49 units that distinguished between EoE and non-EoE cases, 100% of patients with EoE were MBP-positive compared with 3% of patients with IBD-associated eosinophilia (P < .05).

To implement this new biomarker into clinical practice, guidelines for interpreting MBP staining results should be developed and established, including defining cutoff points for positive and negative results. However, this study faces several limitations, such as not evaluating the differences in MBP results based on EoE-IBD type and disease activity. The retrospective nature of the study and its small sample size limit its power. In addition, the study did not assess how different treatments and disease activity affect MBP levels nor did it address the lack of longitudinal evaluation in assessing MBP levels.

Despite these limitations, the study presents a compelling case for the use of MBP as a biomarker to distinguish true EoE from EoE-IBD. This differentiation is crucial because it can guide therapeutic approaches, influencing medication choices and dietary interventions. MBP shows promise as an excellent biomarker for distinguishing true EoE from eosinophilia caused by IBD. When combined with endoscopic and histologic changes, MBP can assist with the diagnosis of EoE in IBD patients, thereby reducing the possibility of misdiagnosis.

Being diagnosed with EoE poses a challenging and life-altering experience for patients and their families. They face numerous challenges, from undergoing diagnostic procedures and treatments to adapting daily diets. Limited information is available on the eating habits of patients diagnosed with EoE. In this study, Dr Kennedy and colleagues explored how a diagnosis of EoE affects eating behaviors among pediatric patients.

The researchers conducted a prospective study involving 27 patients diagnosed with EoE and compared their eating behaviors to those of 25 healthy control participants. The participants were evaluated on the basis of their responses to four food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid), focusing on the number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time.

The study found that, on average, patients with EoE (63.5% boys, mean age 11 years) required more chews per bite across several food textures (soft solid P = .031; chewable P = .047; and hard solid P = .037) and demonstrated increased consumption time for soft solid (P = .002), chewable (P = .005), and hard solid foods (P = .034) compared to healthy controls. In addition, endoscopic reference scores positively correlated with consumption time (r = 0.53; P = .008) and the number of chews (r = 0.45; P = .027) for chewable foods as well as with the number of chews (r = 0.44; P = .043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time also correlated with increased eosinophil counts (r = 0.42; P = .050) and decreased esophageal distensibility (r = -0.82; P < .0001).

Though these findings open promising avenues for the noninvasive assessment and personalized management of EoE, further research with larger, longitudinal studies is essential to validate these behaviors as reliable clinical biomarkers. Increasing the sample size would enhance the study's power and broaden the generalizability of its findings to a wider pediatric EoE population. The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to assess how eating behaviors change over time with treatment or disease progression.

This study underscores the potential of eating behaviors as clinical markers for pediatric patients with EoE, enabling early identification through increased chewing and consumption times, especially with harder textures. Such markers could prompt diagnostic evaluations in settings where endoscopy and biopsy are gold standards for diagnosing EoE. Moreover, eating patterns could assist in monitoring disease activity and progression, offering a noninvasive means of assessing disease status and response to therapy, thus allowing for more frequent assessments of disease status without the need for invasive procedures. Understanding these behaviors allows healthcare providers to tailor dietary advice and interventions, potentially enhancing treatment compliance and improving the quality of life for pediatric patients with EoE.

An important comorbidity of PsA is vascular inflammation leading to accelerated atherosclerosis, and higher risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Previously, vascular imaging modalities have demonstrated vascular inflammation in PsA. In a cross-sectional study that included 75 patients with active PsA and 40 control individuals without PsA, Kleinrensink and colleagues demonstrated that vascular inflammation of the whole aorta was significantly increased in patients with PsA vs control individuals. Of note, the association remained significant after adjusting for gender, age, body mass index, mean arterial pressure, and aortic calcification, but it was not associated with disease-related parameters. Further studies to determine the contributions of PsA per se and its comorbidities to vascular inflammation are required. Nevertheless, the management of PsA should include close monitoring and aggressive treatment of risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Psychotic disorders are known to be associated with psoriasis, but their association with PsA is less well known. Using French health administrative data, Brenaut and colleagues showed that the prevalence of psychotic disorders was higher in individuals with psoriasis but surprisingly lower in individuals with PsA, compared with the general population. Moreover, a co-diagnosis of psoriasis/PsA and psychotic disorders was associated with an increased mortality rate and at a lower age.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have a remarkable efficacy in the treatment of the musculoskeletal manifestations of PsA. Observational studies are important to evaluate effectiveness in real-world settings. In a study that included 123 patients with PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry who were treated with tofacitinib, Mease and colleagues observed that a quarter of patients achieved a state of low disease activity, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA at 6 ± 3 months of follow-up. A substantial proportion of patients also reported the resolution of dactylitis (29.4%) and enthesitis (42.9%). Although these results are remarkable compared with what was seen with older therapies, one must note that only a quarter of patients achieved remission; more effective regimens for improving outcomes in PsA are required.

The safety of newer therapies is always of concern. It is reassuring that a meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials that included 5038 patients with PsA who received either risankizumab (an anti-interleukin-23 antibody) or placebo by Su and colleagues demonstrated that the incidences of serious adverse events and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the risankizumab and placebo groups. Given the excellent safety profile of some of the newer therapies for PsA, trials with combinations of newer targeted therapies in treatment-resistant PsA should be conducted.

An important comorbidity of PsA is vascular inflammation leading to accelerated atherosclerosis, and higher risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Previously, vascular imaging modalities have demonstrated vascular inflammation in PsA. In a cross-sectional study that included 75 patients with active PsA and 40 control individuals without PsA, Kleinrensink and colleagues demonstrated that vascular inflammation of the whole aorta was significantly increased in patients with PsA vs control individuals. Of note, the association remained significant after adjusting for gender, age, body mass index, mean arterial pressure, and aortic calcification, but it was not associated with disease-related parameters. Further studies to determine the contributions of PsA per se and its comorbidities to vascular inflammation are required. Nevertheless, the management of PsA should include close monitoring and aggressive treatment of risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Psychotic disorders are known to be associated with psoriasis, but their association with PsA is less well known. Using French health administrative data, Brenaut and colleagues showed that the prevalence of psychotic disorders was higher in individuals with psoriasis but surprisingly lower in individuals with PsA, compared with the general population. Moreover, a co-diagnosis of psoriasis/PsA and psychotic disorders was associated with an increased mortality rate and at a lower age.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have a remarkable efficacy in the treatment of the musculoskeletal manifestations of PsA. Observational studies are important to evaluate effectiveness in real-world settings. In a study that included 123 patients with PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry who were treated with tofacitinib, Mease and colleagues observed that a quarter of patients achieved a state of low disease activity, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA at 6 ± 3 months of follow-up. A substantial proportion of patients also reported the resolution of dactylitis (29.4%) and enthesitis (42.9%). Although these results are remarkable compared with what was seen with older therapies, one must note that only a quarter of patients achieved remission; more effective regimens for improving outcomes in PsA are required.

The safety of newer therapies is always of concern. It is reassuring that a meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials that included 5038 patients with PsA who received either risankizumab (an anti-interleukin-23 antibody) or placebo by Su and colleagues demonstrated that the incidences of serious adverse events and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the risankizumab and placebo groups. Given the excellent safety profile of some of the newer therapies for PsA, trials with combinations of newer targeted therapies in treatment-resistant PsA should be conducted.

An important comorbidity of PsA is vascular inflammation leading to accelerated atherosclerosis, and higher risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Previously, vascular imaging modalities have demonstrated vascular inflammation in PsA. In a cross-sectional study that included 75 patients with active PsA and 40 control individuals without PsA, Kleinrensink and colleagues demonstrated that vascular inflammation of the whole aorta was significantly increased in patients with PsA vs control individuals. Of note, the association remained significant after adjusting for gender, age, body mass index, mean arterial pressure, and aortic calcification, but it was not associated with disease-related parameters. Further studies to determine the contributions of PsA per se and its comorbidities to vascular inflammation are required. Nevertheless, the management of PsA should include close monitoring and aggressive treatment of risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Psychotic disorders are known to be associated with psoriasis, but their association with PsA is less well known. Using French health administrative data, Brenaut and colleagues showed that the prevalence of psychotic disorders was higher in individuals with psoriasis but surprisingly lower in individuals with PsA, compared with the general population. Moreover, a co-diagnosis of psoriasis/PsA and psychotic disorders was associated with an increased mortality rate and at a lower age.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have a remarkable efficacy in the treatment of the musculoskeletal manifestations of PsA. Observational studies are important to evaluate effectiveness in real-world settings. In a study that included 123 patients with PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry who were treated with tofacitinib, Mease and colleagues observed that a quarter of patients achieved a state of low disease activity, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA at 6 ± 3 months of follow-up. A substantial proportion of patients also reported the resolution of dactylitis (29.4%) and enthesitis (42.9%). Although these results are remarkable compared with what was seen with older therapies, one must note that only a quarter of patients achieved remission; more effective regimens for improving outcomes in PsA are required.

The safety of newer therapies is always of concern. It is reassuring that a meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials that included 5038 patients with PsA who received either risankizumab (an anti-interleukin-23 antibody) or placebo by Su and colleagues demonstrated that the incidences of serious adverse events and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the risankizumab and placebo groups. Given the excellent safety profile of some of the newer therapies for PsA, trials with combinations of newer targeted therapies in treatment-resistant PsA should be conducted.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial established the role of chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab in the first-line setting for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients unselected for PD-L1 status in this trial who received platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy with placebo had a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months.^[3] Strategies to improve upon efficacy and tolerability are desired in this space, and various trials have evaluated "switch maintenance" that involves receipt of an intensive induction regimen followed by a switch to an alternative/more tolerable regimen after response is achieved.^[4] The phase II DORA trial randomized 45 patients with advanced TNBC and ongoing stable disease or complete or partial response from first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy to a maintenance regimen of olaparib (300 mg orally twice daily) with or without durvalumab (1500 mg on day 1 and every 4 weeks) (Tan et al). At a median follow-up of 9.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI 2.6-6.1) with olaparib and 6.1 months (95% CI 3.7-10.1) with the combination; both were significantly longer than the historical control of continued platinum-based therapy (P = .0023 and P < .0001, respectively). Durable disease control appeared more pronounced in patients with complete or partial response to prior platinum therapy, and no new safety signals were observed. Future efforts to study this approach include the phase 2/3 KEYLYNK-009 trial, which is evaluating olaparib plus pembrolizumab maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab for TNBC.^[5]

TNBC is a heterogenous subtype, characterized by aggressive biology, and it benefits from chemotherapy and immunotherapy treatment approaches. Presently, the management of early-stage TNBC often involves neoadjuvant systemic therapy; however, a proportion of patients receive treatment in the postoperative setting, highlighting the relevance of time to initiation of adjuvant therapy as well.^[6] Various prior studies have showed that delayed administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for EBC can lead to adverse survival outcomes. Furthermore, this effect is subtype-dependent, with more aggressive tumors (luminal B, triple-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-positive) exhibiting inferior outcomes with delayed chemotherapy.^[7] A retrospective cohort study that included 245 patients with early TNBC who received adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery evaluated the impact of time to initiation of adjuvant therapy in this population (Hatzipanagiotou et al). Superior survival outcomes were observed for the group receiving systemic therapy 22-28 days after surgery (median overall survival 10.2 years) compared with those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy at later time points (29-35 days, 36-42 days, and >6 weeks after surgery; median overall survival 8.3 years, 7.8 years, and 6.9 years, respectively). Patients receiving chemotherapy 22-28 days after surgery had significantly better survival than those receiving chemotherapy 29-35 days (P = .043) and >6 weeks (P = 0.033) postoperatively. This study emphasizes the importance of timely administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for early TNBC, and efforts aimed to identify potential challenges and propose solutions to optimize outcomes in this space are valuable.

Additional References

1. Gnant M, Frantal S, Pfeiler G, et al, for the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Long-term outcomes of adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer. NEJM Evid. 2022;1:EVIDoa2200162. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2200162 Source
2. Fassio A, Idolazzi L, Rossini M, et al. The obesity paradox and osteoporosis. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity. 2018;23:293-30 doi: 10.1007/s40519-018-0505-2 Source
3. Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al, for the KEYNOTE-355 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1817-1828. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32531-9 Source
4. Bachelot T, Filleron T, Bieche I, et al. Durvalumab compared to maintenance chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The randomized phase II SAFIR02-BREAST IMMUNO trial. Nat Med. 2021;27:250-255. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01189-2 Source
5. Saji S, Cussac AL, Andre F, et al. 68TiP KEYLYNK-009: a phase II/III, open-label, randomized study of pembrolizumab (pembro) + olaparib (ola) vs pembro + chemotherapy after induction with first-line (1L) pembro + chemo in patients (pts) with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC (abstract). Ann Oncol. 2020;31(Suppl 6):S1268. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.088 Source
6. Ortmann O, Blohmer JU, Sibert NT, et al for 55 breast cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society. Current clinical practice and outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Analysis of individual data from 94,638 patients treated in 55 breast cancer centers. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149:1195-1209. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-03938-x Source
7. Yu KD, Fan L, Qiu LX, et al. Influence of delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer survival is subtype-dependent. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46549-46556. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10551 Source

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial established the role of chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab in the first-line setting for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients unselected for PD-L1 status in this trial who received platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy with placebo had a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months.^[3] Strategies to improve upon efficacy and tolerability are desired in this space, and various trials have evaluated "switch maintenance" that involves receipt of an intensive induction regimen followed by a switch to an alternative/more tolerable regimen after response is achieved.^[4] The phase II DORA trial randomized 45 patients with advanced TNBC and ongoing stable disease or complete or partial response from first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy to a maintenance regimen of olaparib (300 mg orally twice daily) with or without durvalumab (1500 mg on day 1 and every 4 weeks) (Tan et al). At a median follow-up of 9.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI 2.6-6.1) with olaparib and 6.1 months (95% CI 3.7-10.1) with the combination; both were significantly longer than the historical control of continued platinum-based therapy (P = .0023 and P < .0001, respectively). Durable disease control appeared more pronounced in patients with complete or partial response to prior platinum therapy, and no new safety signals were observed. Future efforts to study this approach include the phase 2/3 KEYLYNK-009 trial, which is evaluating olaparib plus pembrolizumab maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab for TNBC.^[5]

TNBC is a heterogenous subtype, characterized by aggressive biology, and it benefits from chemotherapy and immunotherapy treatment approaches. Presently, the management of early-stage TNBC often involves neoadjuvant systemic therapy; however, a proportion of patients receive treatment in the postoperative setting, highlighting the relevance of time to initiation of adjuvant therapy as well.^[6] Various prior studies have showed that delayed administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for EBC can lead to adverse survival outcomes. Furthermore, this effect is subtype-dependent, with more aggressive tumors (luminal B, triple-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-positive) exhibiting inferior outcomes with delayed chemotherapy.^[7] A retrospective cohort study that included 245 patients with early TNBC who received adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery evaluated the impact of time to initiation of adjuvant therapy in this population (Hatzipanagiotou et al). Superior survival outcomes were observed for the group receiving systemic therapy 22-28 days after surgery (median overall survival 10.2 years) compared with those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy at later time points (29-35 days, 36-42 days, and >6 weeks after surgery; median overall survival 8.3 years, 7.8 years, and 6.9 years, respectively). Patients receiving chemotherapy 22-28 days after surgery had significantly better survival than those receiving chemotherapy 29-35 days (P = .043) and >6 weeks (P = 0.033) postoperatively. This study emphasizes the importance of timely administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for early TNBC, and efforts aimed to identify potential challenges and propose solutions to optimize outcomes in this space are valuable.

Additional References

1. Gnant M, Frantal S, Pfeiler G, et al, for the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Long-term outcomes of adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer. NEJM Evid. 2022;1:EVIDoa2200162. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2200162 Source
2. Fassio A, Idolazzi L, Rossini M, et al. The obesity paradox and osteoporosis. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity. 2018;23:293-30 doi: 10.1007/s40519-018-0505-2 Source
3. Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al, for the KEYNOTE-355 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1817-1828. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32531-9 Source
4. Bachelot T, Filleron T, Bieche I, et al. Durvalumab compared to maintenance chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The randomized phase II SAFIR02-BREAST IMMUNO trial. Nat Med. 2021;27:250-255. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01189-2 Source
5. Saji S, Cussac AL, Andre F, et al. 68TiP KEYLYNK-009: a phase II/III, open-label, randomized study of pembrolizumab (pembro) + olaparib (ola) vs pembro + chemotherapy after induction with first-line (1L) pembro + chemo in patients (pts) with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC (abstract). Ann Oncol. 2020;31(Suppl 6):S1268. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.088 Source
6. Ortmann O, Blohmer JU, Sibert NT, et al for 55 breast cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society. Current clinical practice and outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Analysis of individual data from 94,638 patients treated in 55 breast cancer centers. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149:1195-1209. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-03938-x Source
7. Yu KD, Fan L, Qiu LX, et al. Influence of delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer survival is subtype-dependent. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46549-46556. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10551 Source

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial established the role of chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab in the first-line setting for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients unselected for PD-L1 status in this trial who received platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy with placebo had a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months.^[3] Strategies to improve upon efficacy and tolerability are desired in this space, and various trials have evaluated "switch maintenance" that involves receipt of an intensive induction regimen followed by a switch to an alternative/more tolerable regimen after response is achieved.^[4] The phase II DORA trial randomized 45 patients with advanced TNBC and ongoing stable disease or complete or partial response from first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy to a maintenance regimen of olaparib (300 mg orally twice daily) with or without durvalumab (1500 mg on day 1 and every 4 weeks) (Tan et al). At a median follow-up of 9.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI 2.6-6.1) with olaparib and 6.1 months (95% CI 3.7-10.1) with the combination; both were significantly longer than the historical control of continued platinum-based therapy (P = .0023 and P < .0001, respectively). Durable disease control appeared more pronounced in patients with complete or partial response to prior platinum therapy, and no new safety signals were observed. Future efforts to study this approach include the phase 2/3 KEYLYNK-009 trial, which is evaluating olaparib plus pembrolizumab maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab for TNBC.^[5]

TNBC is a heterogenous subtype, characterized by aggressive biology, and it benefits from chemotherapy and immunotherapy treatment approaches. Presently, the management of early-stage TNBC often involves neoadjuvant systemic therapy; however, a proportion of patients receive treatment in the postoperative setting, highlighting the relevance of time to initiation of adjuvant therapy as well.^[6] Various prior studies have showed that delayed administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for EBC can lead to adverse survival outcomes. Furthermore, this effect is subtype-dependent, with more aggressive tumors (luminal B, triple-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-positive) exhibiting inferior outcomes with delayed chemotherapy.^[7] A retrospective cohort study that included 245 patients with early TNBC who received adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery evaluated the impact of time to initiation of adjuvant therapy in this population (Hatzipanagiotou et al). Superior survival outcomes were observed for the group receiving systemic therapy 22-28 days after surgery (median overall survival 10.2 years) compared with those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy at later time points (29-35 days, 36-42 days, and >6 weeks after surgery; median overall survival 8.3 years, 7.8 years, and 6.9 years, respectively). Patients receiving chemotherapy 22-28 days after surgery had significantly better survival than those receiving chemotherapy 29-35 days (P = .043) and >6 weeks (P = 0.033) postoperatively. This study emphasizes the importance of timely administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for early TNBC, and efforts aimed to identify potential challenges and propose solutions to optimize outcomes in this space are valuable.

Additional References

1. Gnant M, Frantal S, Pfeiler G, et al, for the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Long-term outcomes of adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer. NEJM Evid. 2022;1:EVIDoa2200162. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2200162 Source
2. Fassio A, Idolazzi L, Rossini M, et al. The obesity paradox and osteoporosis. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity. 2018;23:293-30 doi: 10.1007/s40519-018-0505-2 Source
3. Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al, for the KEYNOTE-355 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1817-1828. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32531-9 Source
4. Bachelot T, Filleron T, Bieche I, et al. Durvalumab compared to maintenance chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The randomized phase II SAFIR02-BREAST IMMUNO trial. Nat Med. 2021;27:250-255. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01189-2 Source
5. Saji S, Cussac AL, Andre F, et al. 68TiP KEYLYNK-009: a phase II/III, open-label, randomized study of pembrolizumab (pembro) + olaparib (ola) vs pembro + chemotherapy after induction with first-line (1L) pembro + chemo in patients (pts) with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC (abstract). Ann Oncol. 2020;31(Suppl 6):S1268. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.088 Source
6. Ortmann O, Blohmer JU, Sibert NT, et al for 55 breast cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society. Current clinical practice and outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Analysis of individual data from 94,638 patients treated in 55 breast cancer centers. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149:1195-1209. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-03938-x Source
7. Yu KD, Fan L, Qiu LX, et al. Influence of delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer survival is subtype-dependent. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46549-46556. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10551 Source

When skin diseases affect the palm or sole, they can have a disproportionately large negative effect on patients' lives. Hand and foot dermatitis can be disabling. Simpson and colleagues find that dupilumab is an effective treatment for AD of the hands and feet. Having safe and effective treatment for hand and foot dermatitis will be life-changing for many of our patients.

Patients often do very well with biologic treatment. When they do, they often wonder, Do I need to continue taking the medication? Lasheras-Pérez and colleagues found that the great majority of patients doing well taking dupilumab for AD could stretch out their dosing interval. I suspect a lot of our patients are doing this already. I used to worry that stretching out the dosing interval might lead to antidrug antibodies and loss of activity. Such loss of activity doesn't appear common. Because we also have multiple alternative treatments for severe AD, I think it may be quite reasonable for patients to try spreading out their doses after their disease has been well controlled for a good long time.

Superficial skin infections aren't rare in children, particularly children with AD. Paller and colleagues' study is informative about the safety of dupilumab in children. The drug, which blocks a pathway of the immune system, was associated with fewer infections. This is good news. The reduction in infections could be through restoring "immune balance" (whatever that means) or by improving skin barrier function. Perhaps the low rate of infection explains why dupilumab is not considered immunosuppressive.

I love studies of drug survival because I think that knowing the percentage of patients who stay with drug treatment is a good measure of overall safety and efficacy. Pezzolo and colleagues found — perhaps not surprisingly given the extraordinary efficacy of upadacitinib for AD — that almost no one discontinued the drug over 1.5 years due to lack of efficacy. There were patients who discontinued due to adverse events (and additional patients lost to follow-up who perhaps also discontinued the drug), but 80% of patients were still in the study at the end of 1.5 years. Three patients who weren't vaccinated for shingles developed shingles; encouraging patients to get the shingles vaccine may be a prudent measure when starting patients taking upadacitinib. 
 

When skin diseases affect the palm or sole, they can have a disproportionately large negative effect on patients' lives. Hand and foot dermatitis can be disabling. Simpson and colleagues find that dupilumab is an effective treatment for AD of the hands and feet. Having safe and effective treatment for hand and foot dermatitis will be life-changing for many of our patients.

Patients often do very well with biologic treatment. When they do, they often wonder, Do I need to continue taking the medication? Lasheras-Pérez and colleagues found that the great majority of patients doing well taking dupilumab for AD could stretch out their dosing interval. I suspect a lot of our patients are doing this already. I used to worry that stretching out the dosing interval might lead to antidrug antibodies and loss of activity. Such loss of activity doesn't appear common. Because we also have multiple alternative treatments for severe AD, I think it may be quite reasonable for patients to try spreading out their doses after their disease has been well controlled for a good long time.

Superficial skin infections aren't rare in children, particularly children with AD. Paller and colleagues' study is informative about the safety of dupilumab in children. The drug, which blocks a pathway of the immune system, was associated with fewer infections. This is good news. The reduction in infections could be through restoring "immune balance" (whatever that means) or by improving skin barrier function. Perhaps the low rate of infection explains why dupilumab is not considered immunosuppressive.

I love studies of drug survival because I think that knowing the percentage of patients who stay with drug treatment is a good measure of overall safety and efficacy. Pezzolo and colleagues found — perhaps not surprisingly given the extraordinary efficacy of upadacitinib for AD — that almost no one discontinued the drug over 1.5 years due to lack of efficacy. There were patients who discontinued due to adverse events (and additional patients lost to follow-up who perhaps also discontinued the drug), but 80% of patients were still in the study at the end of 1.5 years. Three patients who weren't vaccinated for shingles developed shingles; encouraging patients to get the shingles vaccine may be a prudent measure when starting patients taking upadacitinib. 
 

When skin diseases affect the palm or sole, they can have a disproportionately large negative effect on patients' lives. Hand and foot dermatitis can be disabling. Simpson and colleagues find that dupilumab is an effective treatment for AD of the hands and feet. Having safe and effective treatment for hand and foot dermatitis will be life-changing for many of our patients.

Patients often do very well with biologic treatment. When they do, they often wonder, Do I need to continue taking the medication? Lasheras-Pérez and colleagues found that the great majority of patients doing well taking dupilumab for AD could stretch out their dosing interval. I suspect a lot of our patients are doing this already. I used to worry that stretching out the dosing interval might lead to antidrug antibodies and loss of activity. Such loss of activity doesn't appear common. Because we also have multiple alternative treatments for severe AD, I think it may be quite reasonable for patients to try spreading out their doses after their disease has been well controlled for a good long time.

Superficial skin infections aren't rare in children, particularly children with AD. Paller and colleagues' study is informative about the safety of dupilumab in children. The drug, which blocks a pathway of the immune system, was associated with fewer infections. This is good news. The reduction in infections could be through restoring "immune balance" (whatever that means) or by improving skin barrier function. Perhaps the low rate of infection explains why dupilumab is not considered immunosuppressive.

I love studies of drug survival because I think that knowing the percentage of patients who stay with drug treatment is a good measure of overall safety and efficacy. Pezzolo and colleagues found — perhaps not surprisingly given the extraordinary efficacy of upadacitinib for AD — that almost no one discontinued the drug over 1.5 years due to lack of efficacy. There were patients who discontinued due to adverse events (and additional patients lost to follow-up who perhaps also discontinued the drug), but 80% of patients were still in the study at the end of 1.5 years. Three patients who weren't vaccinated for shingles developed shingles; encouraging patients to get the shingles vaccine may be a prudent measure when starting patients taking upadacitinib. 
 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

To the Editor:

Reported adverse effects following the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) include pyrexia, myalgia, and fatigue.¹ We report the case of a patient who developed herpes zoster and subsequent varicella encephalitis within 8 days of receiving the second dose of the RZV.

A 75-year-old man presented to the emergency department with burning pain and pruritus involving the left hip and calf 2 days after receiving the second dose of the RZV. He had a history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and was being clinically monitored. He received the first dose of the RZV without complication 3 months prior. In the emergency department, he was diagnosed with “nerve pain,” given acetaminophen, and discharged home; however, he continued to have worsening pain 8 days later followed by a vesicular eruption that wrapped around the left leg and was concentrated on the inner thigh/groin area in a dermatomal distribution. His primary care physician diagnosed him with herpes zoster and prescribed valacyclovir 1000 mg every 8 hours for 7 days. Two days later, the patient developed weakness and confusion and returned to the emergency department. Upon admission, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance angiography of the brain was normal. A lumbar puncture confirmed varicella encephalitis via a polymerase chain reaction assay. He was treated with intravenous acyclovir and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. His course was further complicated by a subarachnoid hemorrhage and normal pressure hydrocephalus. He did not require a shunt but continues to have memory impairment, weakness, and cognitive impairment. He is steadily improving with rehabilitative services.

The RZV is an inactivated vaccine composed of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV) glycoprotein E antigen and an adjuvant, AS01_B, that boosts both innate and adaptive immunity.² It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for prevention of herpes zoster in adults aged 50 years or older. It requires 2 separate injections administered 2 to 6 months apart. Its efficacy for the prevention of cutaneous herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia is 97% and 80% to 91%, respectively. It was developed to improve on the existing zoster vaccine live, which contains a live attenuated virus, with efficacy ranging from 38% to 70%.³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially recommended the RZV for immunocompetent individuals or those taking low-dose immunosuppressant medications as well those who have recovered from an immunocompromising illness. In immunocompetent patients, reported adverse effects include injection site pain and redness, headache, myalgia, fatigue, shivering, fever, and gastrointestinal tract symptoms; however, when the vaccine first came out, many of the studies excluded patients with CLL.⁴ Our patient’s herpes zoster and varicella encephalitis occurred following administration of the second dose of the RZV. Herpes zoster occurs from declining VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity. Given that the vaccine contains inactive virus, it is unlikely that our patient’s infection was the direct result of dissemination of the virus contained within the vaccine. The RZV specifically generates T-cell responses to the glycoprotein E subunit of VZV, which is thought to be responsible for the high levels of VZV-specific memory T cells with the RZV compared to the zoster vaccine live.⁵ However, this response does not occur until after the second dose of RZV. Although our patient already had 1 dose of RZV, it was unlikely that he had a substantial number of glycoprotein E and VZV-specific memory T cells to combat virus reactivation. Additionally, his CLL, though mild, may have resulted in an aberrant T-cell response in the presence of already low VZV-specific lymphocytes, allowing for reactivation and dissemination of the virus. Since then, there has been more of an emphasis on looking at the immunogenicity elicited by the vaccine in patients with CLL­—both those who are treatment naive and those treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Both groups of patients have demonstrated reduced immunogenicity in response to RZV, leaving the opportunity for viral reactivation in this patient population.^6,7

The safety of the RZV has now been demonstrated in patients with CLL.⁷ However, even after RZV vaccination, patients with CLL are still at risk for herpes zoster reactivation and may have an aberrant response due to immune cell dysregulation. Our case demonstrates the need to increase monitoring of CLL patients for signs of viral reactivation and shift our focus to providing antiviral therapy quickly after symptom occurrence.

To the Editor:

Reported adverse effects following the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) include pyrexia, myalgia, and fatigue.¹ We report the case of a patient who developed herpes zoster and subsequent varicella encephalitis within 8 days of receiving the second dose of the RZV.

A 75-year-old man presented to the emergency department with burning pain and pruritus involving the left hip and calf 2 days after receiving the second dose of the RZV. He had a history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and was being clinically monitored. He received the first dose of the RZV without complication 3 months prior. In the emergency department, he was diagnosed with “nerve pain,” given acetaminophen, and discharged home; however, he continued to have worsening pain 8 days later followed by a vesicular eruption that wrapped around the left leg and was concentrated on the inner thigh/groin area in a dermatomal distribution. His primary care physician diagnosed him with herpes zoster and prescribed valacyclovir 1000 mg every 8 hours for 7 days. Two days later, the patient developed weakness and confusion and returned to the emergency department. Upon admission, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance angiography of the brain was normal. A lumbar puncture confirmed varicella encephalitis via a polymerase chain reaction assay. He was treated with intravenous acyclovir and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. His course was further complicated by a subarachnoid hemorrhage and normal pressure hydrocephalus. He did not require a shunt but continues to have memory impairment, weakness, and cognitive impairment. He is steadily improving with rehabilitative services.

The RZV is an inactivated vaccine composed of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV) glycoprotein E antigen and an adjuvant, AS01_B, that boosts both innate and adaptive immunity.² It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for prevention of herpes zoster in adults aged 50 years or older. It requires 2 separate injections administered 2 to 6 months apart. Its efficacy for the prevention of cutaneous herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia is 97% and 80% to 91%, respectively. It was developed to improve on the existing zoster vaccine live, which contains a live attenuated virus, with efficacy ranging from 38% to 70%.³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially recommended the RZV for immunocompetent individuals or those taking low-dose immunosuppressant medications as well those who have recovered from an immunocompromising illness. In immunocompetent patients, reported adverse effects include injection site pain and redness, headache, myalgia, fatigue, shivering, fever, and gastrointestinal tract symptoms; however, when the vaccine first came out, many of the studies excluded patients with CLL.⁴ Our patient’s herpes zoster and varicella encephalitis occurred following administration of the second dose of the RZV. Herpes zoster occurs from declining VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity. Given that the vaccine contains inactive virus, it is unlikely that our patient’s infection was the direct result of dissemination of the virus contained within the vaccine. The RZV specifically generates T-cell responses to the glycoprotein E subunit of VZV, which is thought to be responsible for the high levels of VZV-specific memory T cells with the RZV compared to the zoster vaccine live.⁵ However, this response does not occur until after the second dose of RZV. Although our patient already had 1 dose of RZV, it was unlikely that he had a substantial number of glycoprotein E and VZV-specific memory T cells to combat virus reactivation. Additionally, his CLL, though mild, may have resulted in an aberrant T-cell response in the presence of already low VZV-specific lymphocytes, allowing for reactivation and dissemination of the virus. Since then, there has been more of an emphasis on looking at the immunogenicity elicited by the vaccine in patients with CLL­—both those who are treatment naive and those treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Both groups of patients have demonstrated reduced immunogenicity in response to RZV, leaving the opportunity for viral reactivation in this patient population.^6,7

The safety of the RZV has now been demonstrated in patients with CLL.⁷ However, even after RZV vaccination, patients with CLL are still at risk for herpes zoster reactivation and may have an aberrant response due to immune cell dysregulation. Our case demonstrates the need to increase monitoring of CLL patients for signs of viral reactivation and shift our focus to providing antiviral therapy quickly after symptom occurrence.

To the Editor:

Reported adverse effects following the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) include pyrexia, myalgia, and fatigue.¹ We report the case of a patient who developed herpes zoster and subsequent varicella encephalitis within 8 days of receiving the second dose of the RZV.

A 75-year-old man presented to the emergency department with burning pain and pruritus involving the left hip and calf 2 days after receiving the second dose of the RZV. He had a history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and was being clinically monitored. He received the first dose of the RZV without complication 3 months prior. In the emergency department, he was diagnosed with “nerve pain,” given acetaminophen, and discharged home; however, he continued to have worsening pain 8 days later followed by a vesicular eruption that wrapped around the left leg and was concentrated on the inner thigh/groin area in a dermatomal distribution. His primary care physician diagnosed him with herpes zoster and prescribed valacyclovir 1000 mg every 8 hours for 7 days. Two days later, the patient developed weakness and confusion and returned to the emergency department. Upon admission, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance angiography of the brain was normal. A lumbar puncture confirmed varicella encephalitis via a polymerase chain reaction assay. He was treated with intravenous acyclovir and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. His course was further complicated by a subarachnoid hemorrhage and normal pressure hydrocephalus. He did not require a shunt but continues to have memory impairment, weakness, and cognitive impairment. He is steadily improving with rehabilitative services.

The RZV is an inactivated vaccine composed of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV) glycoprotein E antigen and an adjuvant, AS01_B, that boosts both innate and adaptive immunity.² It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for prevention of herpes zoster in adults aged 50 years or older. It requires 2 separate injections administered 2 to 6 months apart. Its efficacy for the prevention of cutaneous herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia is 97% and 80% to 91%, respectively. It was developed to improve on the existing zoster vaccine live, which contains a live attenuated virus, with efficacy ranging from 38% to 70%.³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially recommended the RZV for immunocompetent individuals or those taking low-dose immunosuppressant medications as well those who have recovered from an immunocompromising illness. In immunocompetent patients, reported adverse effects include injection site pain and redness, headache, myalgia, fatigue, shivering, fever, and gastrointestinal tract symptoms; however, when the vaccine first came out, many of the studies excluded patients with CLL.⁴ Our patient’s herpes zoster and varicella encephalitis occurred following administration of the second dose of the RZV. Herpes zoster occurs from declining VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity. Given that the vaccine contains inactive virus, it is unlikely that our patient’s infection was the direct result of dissemination of the virus contained within the vaccine. The RZV specifically generates T-cell responses to the glycoprotein E subunit of VZV, which is thought to be responsible for the high levels of VZV-specific memory T cells with the RZV compared to the zoster vaccine live.⁵ However, this response does not occur until after the second dose of RZV. Although our patient already had 1 dose of RZV, it was unlikely that he had a substantial number of glycoprotein E and VZV-specific memory T cells to combat virus reactivation. Additionally, his CLL, though mild, may have resulted in an aberrant T-cell response in the presence of already low VZV-specific lymphocytes, allowing for reactivation and dissemination of the virus. Since then, there has been more of an emphasis on looking at the immunogenicity elicited by the vaccine in patients with CLL­—both those who are treatment naive and those treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Both groups of patients have demonstrated reduced immunogenicity in response to RZV, leaving the opportunity for viral reactivation in this patient population.^6,7

The safety of the RZV has now been demonstrated in patients with CLL.⁷ However, even after RZV vaccination, patients with CLL are still at risk for herpes zoster reactivation and may have an aberrant response due to immune cell dysregulation. Our case demonstrates the need to increase monitoring of CLL patients for signs of viral reactivation and shift our focus to providing antiviral therapy quickly after symptom occurrence.

To the Editor:

Necrotizing myositis (NM) is an exceedingly rare necrotizing soft-tissue infection (NSTI) that is characterized by skeletal muscle involvement. β -Hemolytic streptococci, such as Streptococcus pyogenes , are the most common causative organisms. The overall prevalence and incidence of NM is unknown. A review of the literature by Adams et al ² identified only 21 cases between 1900 and 1985.

Timely treatment of this infection leads to improved outcomes, but diagnosis can be challenging due to the ambiguous presentation of NM and lack of specific cutaneous changes.³ Clinical manifestations including bullae, blisters, vesicles, and petechiae become more prominent as infection progresses.⁴ If NM is suspected due to cutaneous manifestations, it is imperative that the underlying cause be identified; for example, NM must be distinguished from the overlapping presentation of pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Because NM has nearly 100% mortality without prompt surgical intervention, early identification is critical.⁵ Herein, we report a case of NM that illustrates the correlation of clinical, histological, and imaging findings required to diagnose this potentially fatal infection.

An 80-year-old man presented to the emergency department with worsening pain, edema, and spreading redness of the right wrist over the last 5 weeks. He had a history of atopic dermatitis that was refractory to topical steroids and methotrexate; he was dependent on an oral steroid (prednisone 30 mg/d) for symptom control. The patient reported minor trauma to the area after performing home renovations. He received numerous rounds of oral antibiotics as an outpatient for presumed cellulitis and reported he was “getting better” but that the signs and symptoms of the condition grew worse after outpatient arthrocentesis. Dermatology was consulted to evaluate for a necrotizing neutrophilic dermatosis such as PG.

At the current presentation, the patient was tachycardic and afebrile (temperature, 98.2 °F [36.8 °C]). Physical examination revealed large, exquisitely tender, ill-defined necrotic ulceration of the right wrist with purulent debris and diffuse edema (Figure 1). Sequential evaluation at 6-hour intervals revealed notably increasing purulence, edema, and tenderness. Interconnected sinus tracts that extended to the fascial plane were observed.

Laboratory workup was notable for a markedly elevated C-reactive protein level of 18.9 mg/dL (reference range, 0–0.8 mg/dL) and an elevated white blood cell count of 19.92×10⁹/L (reference range, 4.5–11.0×10⁹/L). Blood and tissue cultures were positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to biopsy demonstrated findings consistent with extensive subcutaneous and intramuscular areas of loculation and foci of gas (Figure 2). These findings were consistent with intramuscular involvement. A punch biopsy revealed a necrotic epidermis filled with neutrophilic pustules and a dense dermal infiltrate of neutrophilic inflammation consistent with infection (Figure 3).

Emergency surgery was performed with debridement of necrotic tissue and muscle. Postoperatively, he became more clinically stable after being placed on cefazolin through a peripherally inserted central catheter. He underwent 4 additional washouts over the ensuing month, as well as tendon reconstructions, a radial forearm flap, and reverse radial forearm flap reconstruction of the forearm. At the time of publication, there has been no recurrence. The patient’s atopic dermatitis is well controlled on dupilumab and topical fluocinonide alone, with a recent IgA level of 1 g/L and a body surface area measurement of 2%. Dupilumab was started 3 months after surgery.

Necrotizing myositis is a rare, rapidly progressive infection involving muscle that can manifest as superficial cutaneous involvement. The clinical manifestation of NM is harder to recognize than other NSTIs such as necrotizing fasciitis, likely due to the initial prodromal phase of NM, which consists of nonspecific constitutional symptoms.³ Systemic findings such as tachycardia, fever, hypotension, and shock occur in only 10% to 40% of NM patients.^4,5

In our patient, clues of NM included fulfillment of criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome at admission and a presumed source of infection; taken together, these findings should lead to a diagnosis of sepsis until otherwise proven. The patient also reported pain that was not proportional to the skin findings, which suggested an NSTI. His lack of constitutional symptoms may have been due to the effects of prednisone, which was changed to dupilumab during hospitalization.

The clinical and histological findings of NM are nonspecific. Clinical findings include skin discoloration with bullae, blisters, vesicles, or petechiae.⁴ Our case adds to the descriptive morphology by including marked edema with ulceration, progressive purulence, and interconnected sinuses tracking to the fascial plane. Histologic findings can include confluent necrosis extending from the epidermis to the underlying muscle with dense neutrophilic inflammation. Notably, these findings can mirror necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses in the absence of an infectious cause. Failure to recognize simple systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in NM patients due to slow treatment response or incorrect treatment can can lead to loss of a limb or death.

Workup reveals overlap with necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses including PG, which is the prototypical neutrophilic dermatosis. Morphologically, PG presents as an ulcer with a purple and undermined border, often having developed from an initial papule, vesicle, or pustule. A neutrophilic infiltrate of the ulcer edge is the major criterion required to diagnose PG⁶; minor criteria include a positive pathergy test, history of inflammatory arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease, and exclusion of infection.⁶ When compared directly to an NSTI such as NM, the most important variable that sets PG apart is the absence of bacterial growth on blood and tissue cultures.⁷

Imaging studies can aid in the clinical diagnosis of NM and help distinguish the disease from PG. Computed tomography and MRI may demonstrate hallmarks of extensive necrotizing infection, such as gas formation and consequent fascial swelling, thickening and edema of involved muscle, and subfascial fluid collection.^3,4 Distinct from NM, imaging findings in PG are more subtle, suggesting cellulitic inflammation with edema.⁸ A defining radiographic feature of NM can be foci of gas within muscle or fascia, though absence of this finding does not exclude NM.^1,4

In conclusion, NM is a rare intramuscular infection that can be difficult to diagnose due to its nonspecific presentation and lack of constitutional symptoms. Dermatologists should maintain a high level of suspicion for NM in the setting of rapidly progressive clinical findings; accurate diagnosis requires a multimodal approach with complete correlation of clinical, histological, and imaging findings. Computed tomography and MRI can heighten the approach, even when necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses and NM have similar clinical and histological appearances. Once a diagnosis of NM is established, prompt surgical and medical intervention improves the prognosis.

To the Editor:

Necrotizing myositis (NM) is an exceedingly rare necrotizing soft-tissue infection (NSTI) that is characterized by skeletal muscle involvement. β -Hemolytic streptococci, such as Streptococcus pyogenes , are the most common causative organisms. The overall prevalence and incidence of NM is unknown. A review of the literature by Adams et al ² identified only 21 cases between 1900 and 1985.

Timely treatment of this infection leads to improved outcomes, but diagnosis can be challenging due to the ambiguous presentation of NM and lack of specific cutaneous changes.³ Clinical manifestations including bullae, blisters, vesicles, and petechiae become more prominent as infection progresses.⁴ If NM is suspected due to cutaneous manifestations, it is imperative that the underlying cause be identified; for example, NM must be distinguished from the overlapping presentation of pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Because NM has nearly 100% mortality without prompt surgical intervention, early identification is critical.⁵ Herein, we report a case of NM that illustrates the correlation of clinical, histological, and imaging findings required to diagnose this potentially fatal infection.

An 80-year-old man presented to the emergency department with worsening pain, edema, and spreading redness of the right wrist over the last 5 weeks. He had a history of atopic dermatitis that was refractory to topical steroids and methotrexate; he was dependent on an oral steroid (prednisone 30 mg/d) for symptom control. The patient reported minor trauma to the area after performing home renovations. He received numerous rounds of oral antibiotics as an outpatient for presumed cellulitis and reported he was “getting better” but that the signs and symptoms of the condition grew worse after outpatient arthrocentesis. Dermatology was consulted to evaluate for a necrotizing neutrophilic dermatosis such as PG.

At the current presentation, the patient was tachycardic and afebrile (temperature, 98.2 °F [36.8 °C]). Physical examination revealed large, exquisitely tender, ill-defined necrotic ulceration of the right wrist with purulent debris and diffuse edema (Figure 1). Sequential evaluation at 6-hour intervals revealed notably increasing purulence, edema, and tenderness. Interconnected sinus tracts that extended to the fascial plane were observed.

Laboratory workup was notable for a markedly elevated C-reactive protein level of 18.9 mg/dL (reference range, 0–0.8 mg/dL) and an elevated white blood cell count of 19.92×10⁹/L (reference range, 4.5–11.0×10⁹/L). Blood and tissue cultures were positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to biopsy demonstrated findings consistent with extensive subcutaneous and intramuscular areas of loculation and foci of gas (Figure 2). These findings were consistent with intramuscular involvement. A punch biopsy revealed a necrotic epidermis filled with neutrophilic pustules and a dense dermal infiltrate of neutrophilic inflammation consistent with infection (Figure 3).

Emergency surgery was performed with debridement of necrotic tissue and muscle. Postoperatively, he became more clinically stable after being placed on cefazolin through a peripherally inserted central catheter. He underwent 4 additional washouts over the ensuing month, as well as tendon reconstructions, a radial forearm flap, and reverse radial forearm flap reconstruction of the forearm. At the time of publication, there has been no recurrence. The patient’s atopic dermatitis is well controlled on dupilumab and topical fluocinonide alone, with a recent IgA level of 1 g/L and a body surface area measurement of 2%. Dupilumab was started 3 months after surgery.

Necrotizing myositis is a rare, rapidly progressive infection involving muscle that can manifest as superficial cutaneous involvement. The clinical manifestation of NM is harder to recognize than other NSTIs such as necrotizing fasciitis, likely due to the initial prodromal phase of NM, which consists of nonspecific constitutional symptoms.³ Systemic findings such as tachycardia, fever, hypotension, and shock occur in only 10% to 40% of NM patients.^4,5

In our patient, clues of NM included fulfillment of criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome at admission and a presumed source of infection; taken together, these findings should lead to a diagnosis of sepsis until otherwise proven. The patient also reported pain that was not proportional to the skin findings, which suggested an NSTI. His lack of constitutional symptoms may have been due to the effects of prednisone, which was changed to dupilumab during hospitalization.

The clinical and histological findings of NM are nonspecific. Clinical findings include skin discoloration with bullae, blisters, vesicles, or petechiae.⁴ Our case adds to the descriptive morphology by including marked edema with ulceration, progressive purulence, and interconnected sinuses tracking to the fascial plane. Histologic findings can include confluent necrosis extending from the epidermis to the underlying muscle with dense neutrophilic inflammation. Notably, these findings can mirror necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses in the absence of an infectious cause. Failure to recognize simple systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in NM patients due to slow treatment response or incorrect treatment can can lead to loss of a limb or death.

Workup reveals overlap with necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses including PG, which is the prototypical neutrophilic dermatosis. Morphologically, PG presents as an ulcer with a purple and undermined border, often having developed from an initial papule, vesicle, or pustule. A neutrophilic infiltrate of the ulcer edge is the major criterion required to diagnose PG⁶; minor criteria include a positive pathergy test, history of inflammatory arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease, and exclusion of infection.⁶ When compared directly to an NSTI such as NM, the most important variable that sets PG apart is the absence of bacterial growth on blood and tissue cultures.⁷

Imaging studies can aid in the clinical diagnosis of NM and help distinguish the disease from PG. Computed tomography and MRI may demonstrate hallmarks of extensive necrotizing infection, such as gas formation and consequent fascial swelling, thickening and edema of involved muscle, and subfascial fluid collection.^3,4 Distinct from NM, imaging findings in PG are more subtle, suggesting cellulitic inflammation with edema.⁸ A defining radiographic feature of NM can be foci of gas within muscle or fascia, though absence of this finding does not exclude NM.^1,4

In conclusion, NM is a rare intramuscular infection that can be difficult to diagnose due to its nonspecific presentation and lack of constitutional symptoms. Dermatologists should maintain a high level of suspicion for NM in the setting of rapidly progressive clinical findings; accurate diagnosis requires a multimodal approach with complete correlation of clinical, histological, and imaging findings. Computed tomography and MRI can heighten the approach, even when necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses and NM have similar clinical and histological appearances. Once a diagnosis of NM is established, prompt surgical and medical intervention improves the prognosis.

To the Editor:

Necrotizing myositis (NM) is an exceedingly rare necrotizing soft-tissue infection (NSTI) that is characterized by skeletal muscle involvement. β -Hemolytic streptococci, such as Streptococcus pyogenes , are the most common causative organisms. The overall prevalence and incidence of NM is unknown. A review of the literature by Adams et al ² identified only 21 cases between 1900 and 1985.

Timely treatment of this infection leads to improved outcomes, but diagnosis can be challenging due to the ambiguous presentation of NM and lack of specific cutaneous changes.³ Clinical manifestations including bullae, blisters, vesicles, and petechiae become more prominent as infection progresses.⁴ If NM is suspected due to cutaneous manifestations, it is imperative that the underlying cause be identified; for example, NM must be distinguished from the overlapping presentation of pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Because NM has nearly 100% mortality without prompt surgical intervention, early identification is critical.⁵ Herein, we report a case of NM that illustrates the correlation of clinical, histological, and imaging findings required to diagnose this potentially fatal infection.

An 80-year-old man presented to the emergency department with worsening pain, edema, and spreading redness of the right wrist over the last 5 weeks. He had a history of atopic dermatitis that was refractory to topical steroids and methotrexate; he was dependent on an oral steroid (prednisone 30 mg/d) for symptom control. The patient reported minor trauma to the area after performing home renovations. He received numerous rounds of oral antibiotics as an outpatient for presumed cellulitis and reported he was “getting better” but that the signs and symptoms of the condition grew worse after outpatient arthrocentesis. Dermatology was consulted to evaluate for a necrotizing neutrophilic dermatosis such as PG.

At the current presentation, the patient was tachycardic and afebrile (temperature, 98.2 °F [36.8 °C]). Physical examination revealed large, exquisitely tender, ill-defined necrotic ulceration of the right wrist with purulent debris and diffuse edema (Figure 1). Sequential evaluation at 6-hour intervals revealed notably increasing purulence, edema, and tenderness. Interconnected sinus tracts that extended to the fascial plane were observed.

Laboratory workup was notable for a markedly elevated C-reactive protein level of 18.9 mg/dL (reference range, 0–0.8 mg/dL) and an elevated white blood cell count of 19.92×10⁹/L (reference range, 4.5–11.0×10⁹/L). Blood and tissue cultures were positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to biopsy demonstrated findings consistent with extensive subcutaneous and intramuscular areas of loculation and foci of gas (Figure 2). These findings were consistent with intramuscular involvement. A punch biopsy revealed a necrotic epidermis filled with neutrophilic pustules and a dense dermal infiltrate of neutrophilic inflammation consistent with infection (Figure 3).

Emergency surgery was performed with debridement of necrotic tissue and muscle. Postoperatively, he became more clinically stable after being placed on cefazolin through a peripherally inserted central catheter. He underwent 4 additional washouts over the ensuing month, as well as tendon reconstructions, a radial forearm flap, and reverse radial forearm flap reconstruction of the forearm. At the time of publication, there has been no recurrence. The patient’s atopic dermatitis is well controlled on dupilumab and topical fluocinonide alone, with a recent IgA level of 1 g/L and a body surface area measurement of 2%. Dupilumab was started 3 months after surgery.

Necrotizing myositis is a rare, rapidly progressive infection involving muscle that can manifest as superficial cutaneous involvement. The clinical manifestation of NM is harder to recognize than other NSTIs such as necrotizing fasciitis, likely due to the initial prodromal phase of NM, which consists of nonspecific constitutional symptoms.³ Systemic findings such as tachycardia, fever, hypotension, and shock occur in only 10% to 40% of NM patients.^4,5

In our patient, clues of NM included fulfillment of criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome at admission and a presumed source of infection; taken together, these findings should lead to a diagnosis of sepsis until otherwise proven. The patient also reported pain that was not proportional to the skin findings, which suggested an NSTI. His lack of constitutional symptoms may have been due to the effects of prednisone, which was changed to dupilumab during hospitalization.

The clinical and histological findings of NM are nonspecific. Clinical findings include skin discoloration with bullae, blisters, vesicles, or petechiae.⁴ Our case adds to the descriptive morphology by including marked edema with ulceration, progressive purulence, and interconnected sinuses tracking to the fascial plane. Histologic findings can include confluent necrosis extending from the epidermis to the underlying muscle with dense neutrophilic inflammation. Notably, these findings can mirror necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses in the absence of an infectious cause. Failure to recognize simple systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in NM patients due to slow treatment response or incorrect treatment can can lead to loss of a limb or death.

Workup reveals overlap with necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses including PG, which is the prototypical neutrophilic dermatosis. Morphologically, PG presents as an ulcer with a purple and undermined border, often having developed from an initial papule, vesicle, or pustule. A neutrophilic infiltrate of the ulcer edge is the major criterion required to diagnose PG⁶; minor criteria include a positive pathergy test, history of inflammatory arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease, and exclusion of infection.⁶ When compared directly to an NSTI such as NM, the most important variable that sets PG apart is the absence of bacterial growth on blood and tissue cultures.⁷

Imaging studies can aid in the clinical diagnosis of NM and help distinguish the disease from PG. Computed tomography and MRI may demonstrate hallmarks of extensive necrotizing infection, such as gas formation and consequent fascial swelling, thickening and edema of involved muscle, and subfascial fluid collection.^3,4 Distinct from NM, imaging findings in PG are more subtle, suggesting cellulitic inflammation with edema.⁸ A defining radiographic feature of NM can be foci of gas within muscle or fascia, though absence of this finding does not exclude NM.^1,4

In conclusion, NM is a rare intramuscular infection that can be difficult to diagnose due to its nonspecific presentation and lack of constitutional symptoms. Dermatologists should maintain a high level of suspicion for NM in the setting of rapidly progressive clinical findings; accurate diagnosis requires a multimodal approach with complete correlation of clinical, histological, and imaging findings. Computed tomography and MRI can heighten the approach, even when necrotizing neutrophilic dermatoses and NM have similar clinical and histological appearances. Once a diagnosis of NM is established, prompt surgical and medical intervention improves the prognosis.

Cutaneous reactions associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine have been reported worldwide since December 2020. Local injection site reactions (<1%) such as erythema, swelling, delayed local reactions (1%–10%), morbilliform rash, urticarial reactions, pityriasis rosea, Rowell syndrome, and lichen planus have been reported following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.¹ Cutaneous reactions reported in association with the Sinovac-Coronavac COVID-19 vaccine include swelling, redness, itching, discoloration, induration (1%–10%), urticaria, petechial rash, and exacerbation of psoriasis at the local injection site (<1%).²

We describe 7 patients from Turkey who presented with various dermatologic problems 5 to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination, highlighting the possibility of early and late cutaneous reactions related to the vaccine (Table).

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 44-year-old woman was admitted to the dermatology clinic with painful lesions on the trunk of 3 days’ duration. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped erythematous vesicles showing dermatomal spread in the right thoracolumbar (dermatome T10) region. The patient reported that she had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine (doses 1 and 2) and 2 doses of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (doses 3 and 4); the rash had developed 28 days after she received the 4th dose. Her medical history was unremarkable. The lesions regressed after 1 week of treatment with oral valacyclovir 1000 mg 3 times daily, but she developed postherpetic neuralgia 1 week after starting treatment, which resolved after 8 weeks.

Patient 2—A 68-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of painful sores on the upper lip of 1 day’s duration. She had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, and atopy and was currently taking prednisone and etanercept. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous base on the upper lip. A diagnosis of herpes labialis was made. The patient reported that she had received a third dose of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine 10 days prior to the appearance of the lesions. Her symptoms resolved completely within 2 weeks of treatment with topical acyclovir.

Patient 3—A 64-year-old woman was admitted to the hospital with pain, redness, and watery sores on and around the left eyelid of 2 days’ duration. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the erythematous surface of the left eyelid and periorbital area showed partial crusts, clustered vesicles, erythema, and edema. Additionally, the conjunctiva was purulent and erythematous. The patient’s medical history was notable for allergic asthma, hypertension, anxiety, and depression. For this reason, the patient was prescribed an angiotensin receptor blocker and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. She noted that a similar rash had developed around the left eye 6 years prior that was diagnosed as herpes zoster (HZ). She also reported that she had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac COVID-19 vaccine followed by 1 dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which she had received 2 weeks before the rash developed. The patient was treated at the eye clinic and was found to have ocular involvement. Ophthalmology was consulted and a diagnosis of herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) was made. Systemic valacyclovir treatment was initiated, resulting in clinical improvement within 3 weeks.

Patient 4—A 75-year-old man was admitted to the hospital with chest and back pain and widespread muscle pain of several days’ duration. His medical history was remarkable for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression, and coronary artery bypass surgery. A medication history revealed treatment with a β-blocker, acetylsalicylic acid, a calcium channel blocker, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous background in dermatome T5 on the right chest and back. A diagnosis of HZ was made. The patient reported that he had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine followed by 1 dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. He was treated with valacyclovir for 1 week, and his symptoms resolved entirely within 3 weeks.

Patient 5—A 50-year-old woman presented to the hospital for evaluation of painful sores on the back, chest, groin, and abdomen of 10 days’ duration. The lesions initially had developed 7 days after receiving the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine; she previously had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine. The patient had a history of untreated psoriasis. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous background in the T2–L2 dermatomes on the left side of the trunk. A diagnosis of HZ was made. The lesions resolved after 1 week of treatment with systemic valacyclovir; however, she subsequently developed postherpetic neuralgia, hypoesthesia, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in the affected regions.

Patient 6—A 37-year-old woman presented to the hospital with redness, swelling, and itching all over the body of 3 days’ duration. The patient noted that the rash would subside and reappear throughout the day. Her medical history was unremarkable, except for COVID-19 infection 6 months prior. She had received a second dose of the BioNTech vaccine 20 days prior to development of symptoms. Dermatologic examination revealed widespread erythematous urticarial plaques. A diagnosis of acute urticaria was made. The patient recovered completely after 1 week of treatment with a systemic steroid and 3 weeks of antihistamine treatment.

Patient 7—A 63-year-old woman presented to the hospital with widespread itching and rash that appeared 5 days after the first dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The patient reported that the rash resolved spontaneously within a few hours but then reappeared. Her medical history revealed that she was taking tamoxifen for breast cancer and that she previously had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine. Dermatologic examination revealed erythematous urticarial plaques on the trunk and arms. A diagnosis of urticaria was made, and her symptoms resolved after 6 weeks of antihistamine treatment.

Comment

Skin lesions associated with COVID-19 infection have been reported worldwide^3,4 as well as dermatologic reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. In one case from Turkey, HZ infection was reported in a 68-year-old man 5 days after he received a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.⁵ In another case, HZ infection developed in a 78-year-old man 5 days after COVID-19 vaccination.⁶ Numerous cases of HZ infection developing within 1 to 26 days of COVID-19 vaccination have been reported worldwide.^7-9

In a study conducted in the United States, 40 skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine were investigated; of these cases, 87.5% (35/40) were reported as varicella-zoster virus, and 12.5% (5/40) were reported as herpes simplex reactivation; 54% (19/35) and 80% (4/5) of these cases, respectively, were associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹⁰ The average age of patients who developed a skin reaction was 46 years, and 70% (28/40) were women. The time to onset of the reaction was 2 to 13 days after vaccination, and symptoms were reported to improve within 7 days on average.¹⁰

Another study from Spain examined 405 vaccine-related skin reactions, 40.2% of which were related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Among them, 80.2% occurred in women; 13.8% of cases were diagnosed as varicella-zoster virus or HZ virus reactivation, and 14.6% were urticaria. Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment.¹¹ One study reported 414 skin reactions from the COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020 to February 2021; of these cases, 83% occurred after the Moderna vaccine, which is not available in Turkey, and 17% occurred after the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹²A systematic review of 91 patients who developed HZ infection after COVID-19 vaccination reported that 10% (9/91) of cases were receiving immunosuppressive therapy and 13% (12/91) had an autoimmune disease.⁷ In our case series, it is known that at least 2 of the patients (patients 2 and 5), including 1 patient with rheumatoid arthritis (patient 2) who was on immunosuppressive treatment, had autoimmune disorders. However, reports in the literature indicate that most patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases remain stable after vaccination.¹³

Herpes zoster ophthalmicus is a rare form of HZ caused by involvement of the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve that manifests as vesicular lesions and retinitis, uveitis, keratitis, conjunctivitis, and pain on an erythematous background. Two cases of women who developed HZO infection after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination were reported in the literature.¹⁴ Although patient 3 in our case series had a history of HZO 6 years prior, the possibility of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggering HZO should be taken into consideration.

Although cutaneous reactions after the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine were observed in only 1 of 7 patients in our case series, skin reactions after Sinovac-Coronavac (an inactivated viral vaccine) have been reported in the literature. In one study, after a total of 35,229 injections, the incidence of cutaneous adverse events due to Sinovac-Coronavac was reported to be 0.94% and 0.70% after the first and second doses, respectively.¹⁵ Therefore, further study results are needed to directly attribute the reactions to COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusion

Our case series highlights that clinicians should be vigilant in diagnosing cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination early to prevent potential complications. Early recognition of reactions is crucial, and the prognosis can be improved with appropriate treatment. Despite the potential dermatologic adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, the most effective way to protect against serious COVID-19 infection is to continue to be vaccinated.

Cutaneous reactions associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine have been reported worldwide since December 2020. Local injection site reactions (<1%) such as erythema, swelling, delayed local reactions (1%–10%), morbilliform rash, urticarial reactions, pityriasis rosea, Rowell syndrome, and lichen planus have been reported following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.¹ Cutaneous reactions reported in association with the Sinovac-Coronavac COVID-19 vaccine include swelling, redness, itching, discoloration, induration (1%–10%), urticaria, petechial rash, and exacerbation of psoriasis at the local injection site (<1%).²

We describe 7 patients from Turkey who presented with various dermatologic problems 5 to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination, highlighting the possibility of early and late cutaneous reactions related to the vaccine (Table).

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 44-year-old woman was admitted to the dermatology clinic with painful lesions on the trunk of 3 days’ duration. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped erythematous vesicles showing dermatomal spread in the right thoracolumbar (dermatome T10) region. The patient reported that she had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine (doses 1 and 2) and 2 doses of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (doses 3 and 4); the rash had developed 28 days after she received the 4th dose. Her medical history was unremarkable. The lesions regressed after 1 week of treatment with oral valacyclovir 1000 mg 3 times daily, but she developed postherpetic neuralgia 1 week after starting treatment, which resolved after 8 weeks.

Patient 2—A 68-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of painful sores on the upper lip of 1 day’s duration. She had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, and atopy and was currently taking prednisone and etanercept. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous base on the upper lip. A diagnosis of herpes labialis was made. The patient reported that she had received a third dose of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine 10 days prior to the appearance of the lesions. Her symptoms resolved completely within 2 weeks of treatment with topical acyclovir.

Patient 3—A 64-year-old woman was admitted to the hospital with pain, redness, and watery sores on and around the left eyelid of 2 days’ duration. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the erythematous surface of the left eyelid and periorbital area showed partial crusts, clustered vesicles, erythema, and edema. Additionally, the conjunctiva was purulent and erythematous. The patient’s medical history was notable for allergic asthma, hypertension, anxiety, and depression. For this reason, the patient was prescribed an angiotensin receptor blocker and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. She noted that a similar rash had developed around the left eye 6 years prior that was diagnosed as herpes zoster (HZ). She also reported that she had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac COVID-19 vaccine followed by 1 dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which she had received 2 weeks before the rash developed. The patient was treated at the eye clinic and was found to have ocular involvement. Ophthalmology was consulted and a diagnosis of herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) was made. Systemic valacyclovir treatment was initiated, resulting in clinical improvement within 3 weeks.

Patient 4—A 75-year-old man was admitted to the hospital with chest and back pain and widespread muscle pain of several days’ duration. His medical history was remarkable for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression, and coronary artery bypass surgery. A medication history revealed treatment with a β-blocker, acetylsalicylic acid, a calcium channel blocker, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous background in dermatome T5 on the right chest and back. A diagnosis of HZ was made. The patient reported that he had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine followed by 1 dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. He was treated with valacyclovir for 1 week, and his symptoms resolved entirely within 3 weeks.

Patient 5—A 50-year-old woman presented to the hospital for evaluation of painful sores on the back, chest, groin, and abdomen of 10 days’ duration. The lesions initially had developed 7 days after receiving the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine; she previously had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine. The patient had a history of untreated psoriasis. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous background in the T2–L2 dermatomes on the left side of the trunk. A diagnosis of HZ was made. The lesions resolved after 1 week of treatment with systemic valacyclovir; however, she subsequently developed postherpetic neuralgia, hypoesthesia, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in the affected regions.

Patient 6—A 37-year-old woman presented to the hospital with redness, swelling, and itching all over the body of 3 days’ duration. The patient noted that the rash would subside and reappear throughout the day. Her medical history was unremarkable, except for COVID-19 infection 6 months prior. She had received a second dose of the BioNTech vaccine 20 days prior to development of symptoms. Dermatologic examination revealed widespread erythematous urticarial plaques. A diagnosis of acute urticaria was made. The patient recovered completely after 1 week of treatment with a systemic steroid and 3 weeks of antihistamine treatment.

Patient 7—A 63-year-old woman presented to the hospital with widespread itching and rash that appeared 5 days after the first dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The patient reported that the rash resolved spontaneously within a few hours but then reappeared. Her medical history revealed that she was taking tamoxifen for breast cancer and that she previously had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine. Dermatologic examination revealed erythematous urticarial plaques on the trunk and arms. A diagnosis of urticaria was made, and her symptoms resolved after 6 weeks of antihistamine treatment.

Comment

Skin lesions associated with COVID-19 infection have been reported worldwide^3,4 as well as dermatologic reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. In one case from Turkey, HZ infection was reported in a 68-year-old man 5 days after he received a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.⁵ In another case, HZ infection developed in a 78-year-old man 5 days after COVID-19 vaccination.⁶ Numerous cases of HZ infection developing within 1 to 26 days of COVID-19 vaccination have been reported worldwide.^7-9

In a study conducted in the United States, 40 skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine were investigated; of these cases, 87.5% (35/40) were reported as varicella-zoster virus, and 12.5% (5/40) were reported as herpes simplex reactivation; 54% (19/35) and 80% (4/5) of these cases, respectively, were associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹⁰ The average age of patients who developed a skin reaction was 46 years, and 70% (28/40) were women. The time to onset of the reaction was 2 to 13 days after vaccination, and symptoms were reported to improve within 7 days on average.¹⁰

Another study from Spain examined 405 vaccine-related skin reactions, 40.2% of which were related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Among them, 80.2% occurred in women; 13.8% of cases were diagnosed as varicella-zoster virus or HZ virus reactivation, and 14.6% were urticaria. Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment.¹¹ One study reported 414 skin reactions from the COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020 to February 2021; of these cases, 83% occurred after the Moderna vaccine, which is not available in Turkey, and 17% occurred after the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹²A systematic review of 91 patients who developed HZ infection after COVID-19 vaccination reported that 10% (9/91) of cases were receiving immunosuppressive therapy and 13% (12/91) had an autoimmune disease.⁷ In our case series, it is known that at least 2 of the patients (patients 2 and 5), including 1 patient with rheumatoid arthritis (patient 2) who was on immunosuppressive treatment, had autoimmune disorders. However, reports in the literature indicate that most patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases remain stable after vaccination.¹³

Herpes zoster ophthalmicus is a rare form of HZ caused by involvement of the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve that manifests as vesicular lesions and retinitis, uveitis, keratitis, conjunctivitis, and pain on an erythematous background. Two cases of women who developed HZO infection after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination were reported in the literature.¹⁴ Although patient 3 in our case series had a history of HZO 6 years prior, the possibility of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggering HZO should be taken into consideration.

Although cutaneous reactions after the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine were observed in only 1 of 7 patients in our case series, skin reactions after Sinovac-Coronavac (an inactivated viral vaccine) have been reported in the literature. In one study, after a total of 35,229 injections, the incidence of cutaneous adverse events due to Sinovac-Coronavac was reported to be 0.94% and 0.70% after the first and second doses, respectively.¹⁵ Therefore, further study results are needed to directly attribute the reactions to COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusion

Our case series highlights that clinicians should be vigilant in diagnosing cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination early to prevent potential complications. Early recognition of reactions is crucial, and the prognosis can be improved with appropriate treatment. Despite the potential dermatologic adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, the most effective way to protect against serious COVID-19 infection is to continue to be vaccinated.

Cutaneous reactions associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine have been reported worldwide since December 2020. Local injection site reactions (<1%) such as erythema, swelling, delayed local reactions (1%–10%), morbilliform rash, urticarial reactions, pityriasis rosea, Rowell syndrome, and lichen planus have been reported following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.¹ Cutaneous reactions reported in association with the Sinovac-Coronavac COVID-19 vaccine include swelling, redness, itching, discoloration, induration (1%–10%), urticaria, petechial rash, and exacerbation of psoriasis at the local injection site (<1%).²

We describe 7 patients from Turkey who presented with various dermatologic problems 5 to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination, highlighting the possibility of early and late cutaneous reactions related to the vaccine (Table).

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 44-year-old woman was admitted to the dermatology clinic with painful lesions on the trunk of 3 days’ duration. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped erythematous vesicles showing dermatomal spread in the right thoracolumbar (dermatome T10) region. The patient reported that she had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine (doses 1 and 2) and 2 doses of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (doses 3 and 4); the rash had developed 28 days after she received the 4th dose. Her medical history was unremarkable. The lesions regressed after 1 week of treatment with oral valacyclovir 1000 mg 3 times daily, but she developed postherpetic neuralgia 1 week after starting treatment, which resolved after 8 weeks.

Patient 2—A 68-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of painful sores on the upper lip of 1 day’s duration. She had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, and atopy and was currently taking prednisone and etanercept. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous base on the upper lip. A diagnosis of herpes labialis was made. The patient reported that she had received a third dose of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine 10 days prior to the appearance of the lesions. Her symptoms resolved completely within 2 weeks of treatment with topical acyclovir.

Patient 3—A 64-year-old woman was admitted to the hospital with pain, redness, and watery sores on and around the left eyelid of 2 days’ duration. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the erythematous surface of the left eyelid and periorbital area showed partial crusts, clustered vesicles, erythema, and edema. Additionally, the conjunctiva was purulent and erythematous. The patient’s medical history was notable for allergic asthma, hypertension, anxiety, and depression. For this reason, the patient was prescribed an angiotensin receptor blocker and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. She noted that a similar rash had developed around the left eye 6 years prior that was diagnosed as herpes zoster (HZ). She also reported that she had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac COVID-19 vaccine followed by 1 dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which she had received 2 weeks before the rash developed. The patient was treated at the eye clinic and was found to have ocular involvement. Ophthalmology was consulted and a diagnosis of herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) was made. Systemic valacyclovir treatment was initiated, resulting in clinical improvement within 3 weeks.

Patient 4—A 75-year-old man was admitted to the hospital with chest and back pain and widespread muscle pain of several days’ duration. His medical history was remarkable for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression, and coronary artery bypass surgery. A medication history revealed treatment with a β-blocker, acetylsalicylic acid, a calcium channel blocker, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous background in dermatome T5 on the right chest and back. A diagnosis of HZ was made. The patient reported that he had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine followed by 1 dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. He was treated with valacyclovir for 1 week, and his symptoms resolved entirely within 3 weeks.

Patient 5—A 50-year-old woman presented to the hospital for evaluation of painful sores on the back, chest, groin, and abdomen of 10 days’ duration. The lesions initially had developed 7 days after receiving the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine; she previously had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine. The patient had a history of untreated psoriasis. Dermatologic examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous background in the T2–L2 dermatomes on the left side of the trunk. A diagnosis of HZ was made. The lesions resolved after 1 week of treatment with systemic valacyclovir; however, she subsequently developed postherpetic neuralgia, hypoesthesia, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in the affected regions.

Patient 6—A 37-year-old woman presented to the hospital with redness, swelling, and itching all over the body of 3 days’ duration. The patient noted that the rash would subside and reappear throughout the day. Her medical history was unremarkable, except for COVID-19 infection 6 months prior. She had received a second dose of the BioNTech vaccine 20 days prior to development of symptoms. Dermatologic examination revealed widespread erythematous urticarial plaques. A diagnosis of acute urticaria was made. The patient recovered completely after 1 week of treatment with a systemic steroid and 3 weeks of antihistamine treatment.

Patient 7—A 63-year-old woman presented to the hospital with widespread itching and rash that appeared 5 days after the first dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The patient reported that the rash resolved spontaneously within a few hours but then reappeared. Her medical history revealed that she was taking tamoxifen for breast cancer and that she previously had received 2 doses of the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine. Dermatologic examination revealed erythematous urticarial plaques on the trunk and arms. A diagnosis of urticaria was made, and her symptoms resolved after 6 weeks of antihistamine treatment.

Comment

Skin lesions associated with COVID-19 infection have been reported worldwide^3,4 as well as dermatologic reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. In one case from Turkey, HZ infection was reported in a 68-year-old man 5 days after he received a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.⁵ In another case, HZ infection developed in a 78-year-old man 5 days after COVID-19 vaccination.⁶ Numerous cases of HZ infection developing within 1 to 26 days of COVID-19 vaccination have been reported worldwide.^7-9

In a study conducted in the United States, 40 skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine were investigated; of these cases, 87.5% (35/40) were reported as varicella-zoster virus, and 12.5% (5/40) were reported as herpes simplex reactivation; 54% (19/35) and 80% (4/5) of these cases, respectively, were associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹⁰ The average age of patients who developed a skin reaction was 46 years, and 70% (28/40) were women. The time to onset of the reaction was 2 to 13 days after vaccination, and symptoms were reported to improve within 7 days on average.¹⁰

Another study from Spain examined 405 vaccine-related skin reactions, 40.2% of which were related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Among them, 80.2% occurred in women; 13.8% of cases were diagnosed as varicella-zoster virus or HZ virus reactivation, and 14.6% were urticaria. Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment.¹¹ One study reported 414 skin reactions from the COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020 to February 2021; of these cases, 83% occurred after the Moderna vaccine, which is not available in Turkey, and 17% occurred after the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹²A systematic review of 91 patients who developed HZ infection after COVID-19 vaccination reported that 10% (9/91) of cases were receiving immunosuppressive therapy and 13% (12/91) had an autoimmune disease.⁷ In our case series, it is known that at least 2 of the patients (patients 2 and 5), including 1 patient with rheumatoid arthritis (patient 2) who was on immunosuppressive treatment, had autoimmune disorders. However, reports in the literature indicate that most patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases remain stable after vaccination.¹³

Herpes zoster ophthalmicus is a rare form of HZ caused by involvement of the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve that manifests as vesicular lesions and retinitis, uveitis, keratitis, conjunctivitis, and pain on an erythematous background. Two cases of women who developed HZO infection after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination were reported in the literature.¹⁴ Although patient 3 in our case series had a history of HZO 6 years prior, the possibility of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggering HZO should be taken into consideration.

Although cutaneous reactions after the Sinovac-Coronavac vaccine were observed in only 1 of 7 patients in our case series, skin reactions after Sinovac-Coronavac (an inactivated viral vaccine) have been reported in the literature. In one study, after a total of 35,229 injections, the incidence of cutaneous adverse events due to Sinovac-Coronavac was reported to be 0.94% and 0.70% after the first and second doses, respectively.¹⁵ Therefore, further study results are needed to directly attribute the reactions to COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusion

Our case series highlights that clinicians should be vigilant in diagnosing cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination early to prevent potential complications. Early recognition of reactions is crucial, and the prognosis can be improved with appropriate treatment. Despite the potential dermatologic adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, the most effective way to protect against serious COVID-19 infection is to continue to be vaccinated.