Vivian Y. Shi, MD

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

To the Editor:

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for actinic keratosis (AK). It also commonly is administered off label for basal cell carcinoma, Bowen disease, photoaging, and acne vulgaris and is being investigated for other applications.^1,2 In the context of treating AK, the mechanism employed in PDT most commonly involves the application of exogenous aminolevulinic acid (ALA), which is metabolized to the endogenous photosensitizer protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) in skin cells by enzymes in the heme biosynthetic pathway.³ The preferential uptake of ALA and conversion to PpIX is due to the altered and increased permeability of abnormal keratin layers of aging, sun-damaged cells, and skin tumors. Selectivity of ALA also occurs due to the preferential intracellular accumulation of PpIX in proliferating, relatively iron–deficient, precancerous and cancerous cells. The therapeutic effect is achieved with light exposure to blue light wavelength at 417 nm and corresponds to the excitation peak of PpIX,⁴ which activates PpIX and forms reactive oxygen species in the presence of oxygen that ultimately cause cell necrosis and apoptosis.⁵ Because it takes approximately 24 hours for PpIX to be completely metabolized from the skin, patients are counseled to avoid sun or artificial light exposure in the first 24 hours post-PDT, regardless of the indication, to avoid a severe phototoxic reaction.^3,6,7 Although it is normal and desirable for patients to experience some form of a phototoxic reaction, which may include erythema, edema, crusting, vesiculation, or erosion in most patients, these types of reactions most often are secondary to the intended exposure and incidental natural or artificial light exposures.⁶ We report a case of a severe phototoxic reaction in which a patient experienced painful erythema and purulence on the left side of the chin after being within an arm’s length of a flame in a fireplace following PDT treatment.

A 59-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for his second of 3 PDT sessions to treat AKs on the face. He had a history of a basal cell carcinoma on the left nasolabial fold that previously was treated with Mohs micrographic surgery and melanoma on the left ear that was previously treated with excision. The patient received the initial PDT session 1 month prior and experienced a mild reaction with minimal redness and peeling that resolved in 4 to 5 days. For the second treatment, per standard protocol at our clinic, ALA was applied to the face, after which the patient incubated for 1 hour prior to blue light exposure (mean [SD] peak output of 417 [5] nm for 1000 seconds and 10 J/cm²).

After blue light exposure, broad-spectrum sunscreen (sun protection factor 47) was applied to our patient’s face, and he wore a wide-brimmed hat upon leaving the clinic and walking to his car. Similar to the first PDT session 1 month prior, he experienced minimal pain immediately after treatment. Once home and approximately 4 to 5 hours after PDT, he tended to a fire using his left hand and leaned into the fireplace with the left side of his face, which was within an arm’s length of the flames. Although his skin did not come in direct contact with the flames, the brief 2- to 3-minute exposure to the flame’s light and heat produced an immediate intense burning pain that the patient likened to the pain of blue light exposure. Within 24 hours, he developed a severe inflammatory reaction that included erythema, edema, desquamation, and pustules on the left side of the chin and cheek that produced a purulent discharge (Figure). The purulence resolved the next day; however, the other clinical manifestations persisted for 1 week. Despite the discomfort and symptoms, our patient did not seek medical attention and instead managed his symptoms conservatively with cold compresses. Although he noticed an overall subjective improvement in the appearance of his face after this second treatment, he received a third treatment with PDT approximately 1 month later, which resulted in a response that was similar to his first visit.

Photodynamic therapy is an increasingly accepted treatment modality for a plethora of benign and malignant dermatologic conditions. Although blue and red light are the most common light sources utilized with PDT because their wavelengths (404–420 nm and 635 nm, respectively) correspond to the excitation peaks of photosensitizers, alternative light sources increasingly are being explored. There is increasing interest in utilizing infrared (IR) light sources (700–1,000,000 nm) to penetrate deeper into the skin in the treatment of precancerous and cancerous lesions. Exposure to IR radiation is known to raise skin temperature via inside-out dermal water absorption and is thought to be useful in PDT-ALA by promoting ALA penetration and its conversion to PpIX.⁸ In a randomized controlled trial by Giehl et al,⁹ visible light plus water-filtered IR-A light was shown to produce considerably less pain in ALA-PDT compared to placebo, though efficacy was not statistically affected. There are burgeoning trials examining the role of IR in treating dermatologic conditions such as acne, but research is still needed on ALA-PDT activated by IR radiation to target AKs.

Although the PDT side-effect profile of phototoxicity, dyspigmentation, and hypersensitivity is well documented, phototoxicity secondary to flame exposure is rare. In our patient, the synergistic effect of light and heat produced an exuberant phototoxic reaction. As the applications for PDT continue to broaden, this case may represent the importance of addressing additional precautions, such as avoiding open flames in the house or while camping, in the PDT aftercare instructions to maximize patient safety.

To the Editor:

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for actinic keratosis (AK). It also commonly is administered off label for basal cell carcinoma, Bowen disease, photoaging, and acne vulgaris and is being investigated for other applications.^1,2 In the context of treating AK, the mechanism employed in PDT most commonly involves the application of exogenous aminolevulinic acid (ALA), which is metabolized to the endogenous photosensitizer protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) in skin cells by enzymes in the heme biosynthetic pathway.³ The preferential uptake of ALA and conversion to PpIX is due to the altered and increased permeability of abnormal keratin layers of aging, sun-damaged cells, and skin tumors. Selectivity of ALA also occurs due to the preferential intracellular accumulation of PpIX in proliferating, relatively iron–deficient, precancerous and cancerous cells. The therapeutic effect is achieved with light exposure to blue light wavelength at 417 nm and corresponds to the excitation peak of PpIX,⁴ which activates PpIX and forms reactive oxygen species in the presence of oxygen that ultimately cause cell necrosis and apoptosis.⁵ Because it takes approximately 24 hours for PpIX to be completely metabolized from the skin, patients are counseled to avoid sun or artificial light exposure in the first 24 hours post-PDT, regardless of the indication, to avoid a severe phototoxic reaction.^3,6,7 Although it is normal and desirable for patients to experience some form of a phototoxic reaction, which may include erythema, edema, crusting, vesiculation, or erosion in most patients, these types of reactions most often are secondary to the intended exposure and incidental natural or artificial light exposures.⁶ We report a case of a severe phototoxic reaction in which a patient experienced painful erythema and purulence on the left side of the chin after being within an arm’s length of a flame in a fireplace following PDT treatment.

A 59-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for his second of 3 PDT sessions to treat AKs on the face. He had a history of a basal cell carcinoma on the left nasolabial fold that previously was treated with Mohs micrographic surgery and melanoma on the left ear that was previously treated with excision. The patient received the initial PDT session 1 month prior and experienced a mild reaction with minimal redness and peeling that resolved in 4 to 5 days. For the second treatment, per standard protocol at our clinic, ALA was applied to the face, after which the patient incubated for 1 hour prior to blue light exposure (mean [SD] peak output of 417 [5] nm for 1000 seconds and 10 J/cm²).

After blue light exposure, broad-spectrum sunscreen (sun protection factor 47) was applied to our patient’s face, and he wore a wide-brimmed hat upon leaving the clinic and walking to his car. Similar to the first PDT session 1 month prior, he experienced minimal pain immediately after treatment. Once home and approximately 4 to 5 hours after PDT, he tended to a fire using his left hand and leaned into the fireplace with the left side of his face, which was within an arm’s length of the flames. Although his skin did not come in direct contact with the flames, the brief 2- to 3-minute exposure to the flame’s light and heat produced an immediate intense burning pain that the patient likened to the pain of blue light exposure. Within 24 hours, he developed a severe inflammatory reaction that included erythema, edema, desquamation, and pustules on the left side of the chin and cheek that produced a purulent discharge (Figure). The purulence resolved the next day; however, the other clinical manifestations persisted for 1 week. Despite the discomfort and symptoms, our patient did not seek medical attention and instead managed his symptoms conservatively with cold compresses. Although he noticed an overall subjective improvement in the appearance of his face after this second treatment, he received a third treatment with PDT approximately 1 month later, which resulted in a response that was similar to his first visit.

Photodynamic therapy is an increasingly accepted treatment modality for a plethora of benign and malignant dermatologic conditions. Although blue and red light are the most common light sources utilized with PDT because their wavelengths (404–420 nm and 635 nm, respectively) correspond to the excitation peaks of photosensitizers, alternative light sources increasingly are being explored. There is increasing interest in utilizing infrared (IR) light sources (700–1,000,000 nm) to penetrate deeper into the skin in the treatment of precancerous and cancerous lesions. Exposure to IR radiation is known to raise skin temperature via inside-out dermal water absorption and is thought to be useful in PDT-ALA by promoting ALA penetration and its conversion to PpIX.⁸ In a randomized controlled trial by Giehl et al,⁹ visible light plus water-filtered IR-A light was shown to produce considerably less pain in ALA-PDT compared to placebo, though efficacy was not statistically affected. There are burgeoning trials examining the role of IR in treating dermatologic conditions such as acne, but research is still needed on ALA-PDT activated by IR radiation to target AKs.

Although the PDT side-effect profile of phototoxicity, dyspigmentation, and hypersensitivity is well documented, phototoxicity secondary to flame exposure is rare. In our patient, the synergistic effect of light and heat produced an exuberant phototoxic reaction. As the applications for PDT continue to broaden, this case may represent the importance of addressing additional precautions, such as avoiding open flames in the house or while camping, in the PDT aftercare instructions to maximize patient safety.

To the Editor:

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for actinic keratosis (AK). It also commonly is administered off label for basal cell carcinoma, Bowen disease, photoaging, and acne vulgaris and is being investigated for other applications.^1,2 In the context of treating AK, the mechanism employed in PDT most commonly involves the application of exogenous aminolevulinic acid (ALA), which is metabolized to the endogenous photosensitizer protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) in skin cells by enzymes in the heme biosynthetic pathway.³ The preferential uptake of ALA and conversion to PpIX is due to the altered and increased permeability of abnormal keratin layers of aging, sun-damaged cells, and skin tumors. Selectivity of ALA also occurs due to the preferential intracellular accumulation of PpIX in proliferating, relatively iron–deficient, precancerous and cancerous cells. The therapeutic effect is achieved with light exposure to blue light wavelength at 417 nm and corresponds to the excitation peak of PpIX,⁴ which activates PpIX and forms reactive oxygen species in the presence of oxygen that ultimately cause cell necrosis and apoptosis.⁵ Because it takes approximately 24 hours for PpIX to be completely metabolized from the skin, patients are counseled to avoid sun or artificial light exposure in the first 24 hours post-PDT, regardless of the indication, to avoid a severe phototoxic reaction.^3,6,7 Although it is normal and desirable for patients to experience some form of a phototoxic reaction, which may include erythema, edema, crusting, vesiculation, or erosion in most patients, these types of reactions most often are secondary to the intended exposure and incidental natural or artificial light exposures.⁶ We report a case of a severe phototoxic reaction in which a patient experienced painful erythema and purulence on the left side of the chin after being within an arm’s length of a flame in a fireplace following PDT treatment.

A 59-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for his second of 3 PDT sessions to treat AKs on the face. He had a history of a basal cell carcinoma on the left nasolabial fold that previously was treated with Mohs micrographic surgery and melanoma on the left ear that was previously treated with excision. The patient received the initial PDT session 1 month prior and experienced a mild reaction with minimal redness and peeling that resolved in 4 to 5 days. For the second treatment, per standard protocol at our clinic, ALA was applied to the face, after which the patient incubated for 1 hour prior to blue light exposure (mean [SD] peak output of 417 [5] nm for 1000 seconds and 10 J/cm²).

After blue light exposure, broad-spectrum sunscreen (sun protection factor 47) was applied to our patient’s face, and he wore a wide-brimmed hat upon leaving the clinic and walking to his car. Similar to the first PDT session 1 month prior, he experienced minimal pain immediately after treatment. Once home and approximately 4 to 5 hours after PDT, he tended to a fire using his left hand and leaned into the fireplace with the left side of his face, which was within an arm’s length of the flames. Although his skin did not come in direct contact with the flames, the brief 2- to 3-minute exposure to the flame’s light and heat produced an immediate intense burning pain that the patient likened to the pain of blue light exposure. Within 24 hours, he developed a severe inflammatory reaction that included erythema, edema, desquamation, and pustules on the left side of the chin and cheek that produced a purulent discharge (Figure). The purulence resolved the next day; however, the other clinical manifestations persisted for 1 week. Despite the discomfort and symptoms, our patient did not seek medical attention and instead managed his symptoms conservatively with cold compresses. Although he noticed an overall subjective improvement in the appearance of his face after this second treatment, he received a third treatment with PDT approximately 1 month later, which resulted in a response that was similar to his first visit.

Photodynamic therapy is an increasingly accepted treatment modality for a plethora of benign and malignant dermatologic conditions. Although blue and red light are the most common light sources utilized with PDT because their wavelengths (404–420 nm and 635 nm, respectively) correspond to the excitation peaks of photosensitizers, alternative light sources increasingly are being explored. There is increasing interest in utilizing infrared (IR) light sources (700–1,000,000 nm) to penetrate deeper into the skin in the treatment of precancerous and cancerous lesions. Exposure to IR radiation is known to raise skin temperature via inside-out dermal water absorption and is thought to be useful in PDT-ALA by promoting ALA penetration and its conversion to PpIX.⁸ In a randomized controlled trial by Giehl et al,⁹ visible light plus water-filtered IR-A light was shown to produce considerably less pain in ALA-PDT compared to placebo, though efficacy was not statistically affected. There are burgeoning trials examining the role of IR in treating dermatologic conditions such as acne, but research is still needed on ALA-PDT activated by IR radiation to target AKs.

Although the PDT side-effect profile of phototoxicity, dyspigmentation, and hypersensitivity is well documented, phototoxicity secondary to flame exposure is rare. In our patient, the synergistic effect of light and heat produced an exuberant phototoxic reaction. As the applications for PDT continue to broaden, this case may represent the importance of addressing additional precautions, such as avoiding open flames in the house or while camping, in the PDT aftercare instructions to maximize patient safety.