Matthew LaCour, MD

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

Primitive human habits have withstood the test of time but can pose health risks. Exploring a nasal cavity with a finger might have first occurred shortly after whichever species first developed a nasal opening and a digit able to reach it. Humans have been keen on continuing the long-standing yet taboo habit of nose-picking (rhinotillexis).

Even though nose-picking is stigmatized, anonymous surveys show that almost all adolescents and adults do it.¹ People are typically unaware of the risks of regular rhinotillexis. Studies exploring the intranasal human microbiome have elicited asymptomatic yet potential disease-causing microbes, including the notorious bacterium Staphylococcus aureus. As many as 30% of humans are asymptomatically permanently colonized with S aureus in their anterior nares.² These natural reservoirs can be the source of opportunistic infection that increases morbidity, mortality, and overall health care costs.

With the rise of antimicrobial resistance, especially methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA), a more direct approach might be necessary to curb nasally sourced cutaneous infection. Since dermatology patients deal with a wide array of skin barrier defects that put them at risk for S aureus–related infection, a medical provider’s understanding about the role of nasal colonization and transmission is important. Addressing the awkward question of “Do you pick your nose?” and providing education on the topic might be uncomfortable, but it might be necessary for dermatology patients at risk for S aureus–related cutaneous disease.

Staphylococcus aureus colonizes the anterior nares of 20% to 80% of humans; nasal colonization can begin during the first days of life.² The anterior nares are noted as the main reservoir of chronic carriage of S aureus, but carriage can occur at various body sites, including the rectum, vagina, gastrointestinal tract, and axilla, as well as other cutaneous sites. Hands are noted as the main vector of S aureus transmission from source to nose; a positive correlation between nose-picking habits and nasal carriage of S aureus has been noted.²

The percentage of S aureus–colonized humans who harbor MRSA is unknown, but it is a topic of concern with the rise of MRSA-related infection. Multisite MRSA carriage increases the risk for nasal MRSA colonization, and nasal MRSA has been noted to be more difficult to decolonize than nonresistant strains. Health care workers carrying S aureus can trigger a potential hospital outbreak of MRSA. Studies have shown that bacterial transmission is increased 40-fold when the nasal host is co-infected by rhinovirus.² Health care workers can be a source of MRSA during outbreaks, but they have not been shown to be more likely to carry MRSA than the general population.² Understanding which patients might be at risk for S aureus–associated disease in dermatology can lead clinicians to consider decolonization strategies.

Nasal colonization has been noted more frequently in patients with predisposing risk factors, including human immunodeficiency virus infection, obesity, diabetes mellitus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, HLA-DR3 phenotype, skin and soft-tissue infections, atopic dermatitis, impetigo, and recurrent furunculosis.²Staphylococcus aureus is the most frequently noted pathogen in diabetic foot infection. A study found that 36% of sampled diabetic foot-infection patients also had S aureus isolated from both nares and the foot wound, with 65% of isolated strains being identical.² Although there are clear data on decolonization of patients prior to heart and orthopedic surgery, more data are needed to determine the benefit of screening and treating nasal carriers in populations with diabetic foot ulcers.

Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization also has been shown in approximately 60% of patients with recurrent furunculosis and impetigo.² Although it is clear that there is a correlation between S aureus–related skin infection and nasal colonization, it is unclear what role nose-picking might have in perpetuating these complications.

There are multiple approaches to S aureus decolonization, including intranasal mupirocin, chlorhexidine body wipes, bleach baths, and even oral antibiotics (eg, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin). The Infectious Diseases Society of America has published guidelines for treating recurrent MRSA infection, including 5 to 10 days of intranasal mupirocin plus either body decolonization with a daily chlorhexidine wash for 5 to 14 days or a 15-minute dilute bleach bath twice weekly for 3 months.^3,4

There are ample meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding S aureus decolonization and management in patients undergoing dialysis or surgery but limited data when it comes to this topic in dermatology. Those limited studies do show a benefit to decolonization in several diseases, including atopic dermatitis, hand dermatitis, recurrent skin and soft-tissue infections, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and surgical infection following Mohs micrographic surgery.⁴ Typically, it also is necessary to treat those who might come in contact with the patient or caregiver; in theory, treating contacts helps reduce the chance that the patient will become recolonized shortly afterward, but the data are limited regarding long-term colonization status following treatment. Contact surfaces, especially cell phones, are noted to be a contributing factor to nares colonization; therefore, it also may be necessary to educate patients on surface-cleaning techniques.⁵ Because there are multiple sources of S aureus that patients can come in contact with after decolonization attempts, a nose-picking habit might play a vital role in recolonization.

Due to rising bacterial resistance to mupirocin and chlorhexidine decolonization strategies, there is a growing need for more effective, long-term decolonization strategies.⁴ These strategies must address patients’ environmental exposure and nasal-touching habits. Overcoming the habit of nose-picking might aid S aureus decolonization strategies and thus aid in preventing future antimicrobial resistance.

But are at-risk patients receiving sufficient screening and education on the dangers of a nose-picking habit? Effective strategies to assess these practices and recommend the discontinuation of the habit could have positive effects in maintaining long-term decolonization. Potential euphemistic ways to approach this somewhat taboo topic include questions that elicit information on whether the patient ever touches the inside of his/her nose, washes his/her hands before and after touching the inside of the nose, knows about transfer of bacteria from hand to nose, or understands what decolonization is doing for them. The patient might be inclined to deny such activity, but education on nasal hygiene should be provided regardless, especially in pediatric patients.

Staphylococcus aureus might be a normal human nasal inhabitant, but it can cause a range of problems for dermatologic disease. Although pharmacotherapeutic decolonization strategies can have a positive effect on dermatologic disease, growing antibiotic resistance calls for health care providers to assess patients’ nose picking-habits and educate them on effective ways to prevent finger-to-nose practices.

Primitive human habits have withstood the test of time but can pose health risks. Exploring a nasal cavity with a finger might have first occurred shortly after whichever species first developed a nasal opening and a digit able to reach it. Humans have been keen on continuing the long-standing yet taboo habit of nose-picking (rhinotillexis).

Even though nose-picking is stigmatized, anonymous surveys show that almost all adolescents and adults do it.¹ People are typically unaware of the risks of regular rhinotillexis. Studies exploring the intranasal human microbiome have elicited asymptomatic yet potential disease-causing microbes, including the notorious bacterium Staphylococcus aureus. As many as 30% of humans are asymptomatically permanently colonized with S aureus in their anterior nares.² These natural reservoirs can be the source of opportunistic infection that increases morbidity, mortality, and overall health care costs.

With the rise of antimicrobial resistance, especially methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA), a more direct approach might be necessary to curb nasally sourced cutaneous infection. Since dermatology patients deal with a wide array of skin barrier defects that put them at risk for S aureus–related infection, a medical provider’s understanding about the role of nasal colonization and transmission is important. Addressing the awkward question of “Do you pick your nose?” and providing education on the topic might be uncomfortable, but it might be necessary for dermatology patients at risk for S aureus–related cutaneous disease.

Staphylococcus aureus colonizes the anterior nares of 20% to 80% of humans; nasal colonization can begin during the first days of life.² The anterior nares are noted as the main reservoir of chronic carriage of S aureus, but carriage can occur at various body sites, including the rectum, vagina, gastrointestinal tract, and axilla, as well as other cutaneous sites. Hands are noted as the main vector of S aureus transmission from source to nose; a positive correlation between nose-picking habits and nasal carriage of S aureus has been noted.²

The percentage of S aureus–colonized humans who harbor MRSA is unknown, but it is a topic of concern with the rise of MRSA-related infection. Multisite MRSA carriage increases the risk for nasal MRSA colonization, and nasal MRSA has been noted to be more difficult to decolonize than nonresistant strains. Health care workers carrying S aureus can trigger a potential hospital outbreak of MRSA. Studies have shown that bacterial transmission is increased 40-fold when the nasal host is co-infected by rhinovirus.² Health care workers can be a source of MRSA during outbreaks, but they have not been shown to be more likely to carry MRSA than the general population.² Understanding which patients might be at risk for S aureus–associated disease in dermatology can lead clinicians to consider decolonization strategies.

Nasal colonization has been noted more frequently in patients with predisposing risk factors, including human immunodeficiency virus infection, obesity, diabetes mellitus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, HLA-DR3 phenotype, skin and soft-tissue infections, atopic dermatitis, impetigo, and recurrent furunculosis.²Staphylococcus aureus is the most frequently noted pathogen in diabetic foot infection. A study found that 36% of sampled diabetic foot-infection patients also had S aureus isolated from both nares and the foot wound, with 65% of isolated strains being identical.² Although there are clear data on decolonization of patients prior to heart and orthopedic surgery, more data are needed to determine the benefit of screening and treating nasal carriers in populations with diabetic foot ulcers.

Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization also has been shown in approximately 60% of patients with recurrent furunculosis and impetigo.² Although it is clear that there is a correlation between S aureus–related skin infection and nasal colonization, it is unclear what role nose-picking might have in perpetuating these complications.

There are multiple approaches to S aureus decolonization, including intranasal mupirocin, chlorhexidine body wipes, bleach baths, and even oral antibiotics (eg, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin). The Infectious Diseases Society of America has published guidelines for treating recurrent MRSA infection, including 5 to 10 days of intranasal mupirocin plus either body decolonization with a daily chlorhexidine wash for 5 to 14 days or a 15-minute dilute bleach bath twice weekly for 3 months.^3,4

There are ample meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding S aureus decolonization and management in patients undergoing dialysis or surgery but limited data when it comes to this topic in dermatology. Those limited studies do show a benefit to decolonization in several diseases, including atopic dermatitis, hand dermatitis, recurrent skin and soft-tissue infections, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and surgical infection following Mohs micrographic surgery.⁴ Typically, it also is necessary to treat those who might come in contact with the patient or caregiver; in theory, treating contacts helps reduce the chance that the patient will become recolonized shortly afterward, but the data are limited regarding long-term colonization status following treatment. Contact surfaces, especially cell phones, are noted to be a contributing factor to nares colonization; therefore, it also may be necessary to educate patients on surface-cleaning techniques.⁵ Because there are multiple sources of S aureus that patients can come in contact with after decolonization attempts, a nose-picking habit might play a vital role in recolonization.

Due to rising bacterial resistance to mupirocin and chlorhexidine decolonization strategies, there is a growing need for more effective, long-term decolonization strategies.⁴ These strategies must address patients’ environmental exposure and nasal-touching habits. Overcoming the habit of nose-picking might aid S aureus decolonization strategies and thus aid in preventing future antimicrobial resistance.

But are at-risk patients receiving sufficient screening and education on the dangers of a nose-picking habit? Effective strategies to assess these practices and recommend the discontinuation of the habit could have positive effects in maintaining long-term decolonization. Potential euphemistic ways to approach this somewhat taboo topic include questions that elicit information on whether the patient ever touches the inside of his/her nose, washes his/her hands before and after touching the inside of the nose, knows about transfer of bacteria from hand to nose, or understands what decolonization is doing for them. The patient might be inclined to deny such activity, but education on nasal hygiene should be provided regardless, especially in pediatric patients.

Staphylococcus aureus might be a normal human nasal inhabitant, but it can cause a range of problems for dermatologic disease. Although pharmacotherapeutic decolonization strategies can have a positive effect on dermatologic disease, growing antibiotic resistance calls for health care providers to assess patients’ nose picking-habits and educate them on effective ways to prevent finger-to-nose practices.

Primitive human habits have withstood the test of time but can pose health risks. Exploring a nasal cavity with a finger might have first occurred shortly after whichever species first developed a nasal opening and a digit able to reach it. Humans have been keen on continuing the long-standing yet taboo habit of nose-picking (rhinotillexis).

Even though nose-picking is stigmatized, anonymous surveys show that almost all adolescents and adults do it.¹ People are typically unaware of the risks of regular rhinotillexis. Studies exploring the intranasal human microbiome have elicited asymptomatic yet potential disease-causing microbes, including the notorious bacterium Staphylococcus aureus. As many as 30% of humans are asymptomatically permanently colonized with S aureus in their anterior nares.² These natural reservoirs can be the source of opportunistic infection that increases morbidity, mortality, and overall health care costs.

With the rise of antimicrobial resistance, especially methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA), a more direct approach might be necessary to curb nasally sourced cutaneous infection. Since dermatology patients deal with a wide array of skin barrier defects that put them at risk for S aureus–related infection, a medical provider’s understanding about the role of nasal colonization and transmission is important. Addressing the awkward question of “Do you pick your nose?” and providing education on the topic might be uncomfortable, but it might be necessary for dermatology patients at risk for S aureus–related cutaneous disease.

Staphylococcus aureus colonizes the anterior nares of 20% to 80% of humans; nasal colonization can begin during the first days of life.² The anterior nares are noted as the main reservoir of chronic carriage of S aureus, but carriage can occur at various body sites, including the rectum, vagina, gastrointestinal tract, and axilla, as well as other cutaneous sites. Hands are noted as the main vector of S aureus transmission from source to nose; a positive correlation between nose-picking habits and nasal carriage of S aureus has been noted.²

The percentage of S aureus–colonized humans who harbor MRSA is unknown, but it is a topic of concern with the rise of MRSA-related infection. Multisite MRSA carriage increases the risk for nasal MRSA colonization, and nasal MRSA has been noted to be more difficult to decolonize than nonresistant strains. Health care workers carrying S aureus can trigger a potential hospital outbreak of MRSA. Studies have shown that bacterial transmission is increased 40-fold when the nasal host is co-infected by rhinovirus.² Health care workers can be a source of MRSA during outbreaks, but they have not been shown to be more likely to carry MRSA than the general population.² Understanding which patients might be at risk for S aureus–associated disease in dermatology can lead clinicians to consider decolonization strategies.

Nasal colonization has been noted more frequently in patients with predisposing risk factors, including human immunodeficiency virus infection, obesity, diabetes mellitus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, HLA-DR3 phenotype, skin and soft-tissue infections, atopic dermatitis, impetigo, and recurrent furunculosis.²Staphylococcus aureus is the most frequently noted pathogen in diabetic foot infection. A study found that 36% of sampled diabetic foot-infection patients also had S aureus isolated from both nares and the foot wound, with 65% of isolated strains being identical.² Although there are clear data on decolonization of patients prior to heart and orthopedic surgery, more data are needed to determine the benefit of screening and treating nasal carriers in populations with diabetic foot ulcers.

Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization also has been shown in approximately 60% of patients with recurrent furunculosis and impetigo.² Although it is clear that there is a correlation between S aureus–related skin infection and nasal colonization, it is unclear what role nose-picking might have in perpetuating these complications.

There are multiple approaches to S aureus decolonization, including intranasal mupirocin, chlorhexidine body wipes, bleach baths, and even oral antibiotics (eg, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin). The Infectious Diseases Society of America has published guidelines for treating recurrent MRSA infection, including 5 to 10 days of intranasal mupirocin plus either body decolonization with a daily chlorhexidine wash for 5 to 14 days or a 15-minute dilute bleach bath twice weekly for 3 months.^3,4

There are ample meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding S aureus decolonization and management in patients undergoing dialysis or surgery but limited data when it comes to this topic in dermatology. Those limited studies do show a benefit to decolonization in several diseases, including atopic dermatitis, hand dermatitis, recurrent skin and soft-tissue infections, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and surgical infection following Mohs micrographic surgery.⁴ Typically, it also is necessary to treat those who might come in contact with the patient or caregiver; in theory, treating contacts helps reduce the chance that the patient will become recolonized shortly afterward, but the data are limited regarding long-term colonization status following treatment. Contact surfaces, especially cell phones, are noted to be a contributing factor to nares colonization; therefore, it also may be necessary to educate patients on surface-cleaning techniques.⁵ Because there are multiple sources of S aureus that patients can come in contact with after decolonization attempts, a nose-picking habit might play a vital role in recolonization.

Due to rising bacterial resistance to mupirocin and chlorhexidine decolonization strategies, there is a growing need for more effective, long-term decolonization strategies.⁴ These strategies must address patients’ environmental exposure and nasal-touching habits. Overcoming the habit of nose-picking might aid S aureus decolonization strategies and thus aid in preventing future antimicrobial resistance.

But are at-risk patients receiving sufficient screening and education on the dangers of a nose-picking habit? Effective strategies to assess these practices and recommend the discontinuation of the habit could have positive effects in maintaining long-term decolonization. Potential euphemistic ways to approach this somewhat taboo topic include questions that elicit information on whether the patient ever touches the inside of his/her nose, washes his/her hands before and after touching the inside of the nose, knows about transfer of bacteria from hand to nose, or understands what decolonization is doing for them. The patient might be inclined to deny such activity, but education on nasal hygiene should be provided regardless, especially in pediatric patients.

Staphylococcus aureus might be a normal human nasal inhabitant, but it can cause a range of problems for dermatologic disease. Although pharmacotherapeutic decolonization strategies can have a positive effect on dermatologic disease, growing antibiotic resistance calls for health care providers to assess patients’ nose picking-habits and educate them on effective ways to prevent finger-to-nose practices.