MDedge Dermatology

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

HONOLULU – A new option for treating scabies, topical spinosad marks a significant development in the scabies treatment landscape, Anthony J. Mancini, MD, said during a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE!

In April 2021, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating scabies infestations in adult and pediatric patients 4 years of age and older – a first-in-class drug and the first new scabicide approved in 31 years. It was also approved for treating head lice in adults and children aged 6 months of age and older.

Dr. Anthony J. Mancini

“Scabies has been described as the worst itch one can experience,” said Dr. Mancini, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “It’s a hallmark of the disease, it can persist for weeks, it’s most intense at night, and patients report various sensations. It’s believed to be a both type I and type IV hypersensitivity reaction.”

The microscopic scabies mite burrows into the upper layer of the skin where it lives and lays its eggs. Besides intense itching, the classic presentation consists of a skin rash composed of inflammatory papules, linear burrows and crusted papules (especially on the hands, feet, and groin), and at times, larger red nodules. “Scabies nodules can persist for many months,” he said.

The Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 cited scabies as having the greatest burden of disease in tropical regions, especially among children, adolescents, and the elderly. The greatest burden of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) occurred in East and Southeast Asia, Oceana, and tropical South America, but in North America, there was a 24% increase in the DALY rate between 1990 and 2015.

In addition, the World Health Organization designated scabies as a neglected tropical disease in 2017 and included it in its 10-year road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021-2030 with goals of promoting disease awareness and encouraging research and achieving global control.

Dr. Anthony Mancini

“In our country, we typically see scabies treated successfully without complications, but there can be complications, especially in underdeveloped areas, like Staph aureus and Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infections,” which can be fatal, said Dr. Mancini, who is also head of pediatric dermatology at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Permethrin 5% cream is typically offered as first-line topical therapy in the United States for the treatment of scabies. However, in vitro studies and small investigator-initiated in vivo studies have reported that efficacy appears to be decreasing. In one of the trials, Italian researchers enrolled 155 patients who were treated with permethrin 5% for 8 hours for 2 consecutive days and repeated the treatment 5 days later (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35[12]:e889-91). Following the course of permethrin, only 34 responded, 96 failed treatment, and 25 were lost to follow-up.

“The study authors concluded that mite resistance to permethrin 5% seems to be increasing, following a path like other ectoparasite resistance,” said Dr. Mancini, who was not involved with the study. “We may even be seeing more ivermectin resistance in some geographic locations, as well.”

According to new scabicide efficacy criteria established by the FDA in 2016, complete cure is now defined as meeting both clinical and confirmatory criteria. A clinical cure means that all signs and symptoms of scabies have completely resolved, including burrows, inflammatory/noninflammatory lesions, and pruritus. A confirmatory cure means there is an absence of mites, eggs, scybala (feces), and burrows via microscopy or dermoscopy.

Dr. Anthony J. Mancini

Enter spinosad, which is derived from a naturally occurring soil microorganism known as Saccharopolyspora spinosa and is composed of two active molecules: spinosyn A and spinosyn D. According to Dr. Mancini, spinosad’s mechanism of action is unique from other medications used to treat ectoparasites. It activates nicotinic and GABA-gated sodium channels, leads to sodium influx in the insect nerves, hyperexcitation, then paralysis and death. Cross-resistance to other insecticides has not been reported, he added, and there is no known evidence of resistance to its active compound.

Approval of the drug was based on data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials involving 551 index cases and household contacts. In the intent-to-treat population, with the two trials combined, complete cure was achieved in 78.1% of the spinosad-treated group, compared with 39.6% in the vehicle group (P < .0001), clinical cure was achieved in 79.6% of the spinosad group, compared with 41.2% in the vehicle group (P < .001), and microscopic cure occurred in 85.9% of the spinosad group, compared with 52.6% in the vehicle group (P < .001).

Of the 306 participants in the study, the only adverse events reported by more than one patient each included abdominal pain, back pain, cough, headache, neck pain, and decreased weight in two patients each (0.8%), which investigators believed were not attributable to the study drug. Adverse events that investigators considered to be potentially related to the study drug included burning sensation in two participants (0.7%) and dry skin in another (0.3%). In clinical trials reported in the prescribing information, adverse events occurring in greater than 1% of subjects included application-site irritation (3% spinosad vs. 0% vehicle) and dry skin (2% spinosad vs. 0% vehicle).

“Spinosad met the FDA’s new stringent criteria, with all signs and symptoms of scabies completely resolved and confirmed via microscopy or dermoscopy,” said Dr. Mancini, who was not involved in the trials. “The patented formulation drives the active compound to the stratum corneum, where mites live and breed. It’s a single full-body application, without any resistance observed to date. This is an exciting newer option for treating our scabies patients.”

In an interview at the meeting, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that, while he has no clinical experience with spinosad for scabies, he welcomes a new option for the condition. “The fact that it has a different mechanism of action than permethrin is a good thing,” he said.

Dr. Mancini disclosed that he is a consultant or an adviser for ParaPRO, the manufacturer of spinosad, and Cassiopea, Castle Creek, Novan, Novartis, and Verrica. He was not involved in clinical trials of spinosad. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he receives consulting fees from Dexcel.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

HONOLULU – A new option for treating scabies, topical spinosad marks a significant development in the scabies treatment landscape, Anthony J. Mancini, MD, said during a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE!

In April 2021, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating scabies infestations in adult and pediatric patients 4 years of age and older – a first-in-class drug and the first new scabicide approved in 31 years. It was also approved for treating head lice in adults and children aged 6 months of age and older.

Dr. Anthony J. Mancini

“Scabies has been described as the worst itch one can experience,” said Dr. Mancini, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “It’s a hallmark of the disease, it can persist for weeks, it’s most intense at night, and patients report various sensations. It’s believed to be a both type I and type IV hypersensitivity reaction.”

The microscopic scabies mite burrows into the upper layer of the skin where it lives and lays its eggs. Besides intense itching, the classic presentation consists of a skin rash composed of inflammatory papules, linear burrows and crusted papules (especially on the hands, feet, and groin), and at times, larger red nodules. “Scabies nodules can persist for many months,” he said.

The Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 cited scabies as having the greatest burden of disease in tropical regions, especially among children, adolescents, and the elderly. The greatest burden of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) occurred in East and Southeast Asia, Oceana, and tropical South America, but in North America, there was a 24% increase in the DALY rate between 1990 and 2015.

In addition, the World Health Organization designated scabies as a neglected tropical disease in 2017 and included it in its 10-year road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021-2030 with goals of promoting disease awareness and encouraging research and achieving global control.

Dr. Anthony Mancini

“In our country, we typically see scabies treated successfully without complications, but there can be complications, especially in underdeveloped areas, like Staph aureus and Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infections,” which can be fatal, said Dr. Mancini, who is also head of pediatric dermatology at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Permethrin 5% cream is typically offered as first-line topical therapy in the United States for the treatment of scabies. However, in vitro studies and small investigator-initiated in vivo studies have reported that efficacy appears to be decreasing. In one of the trials, Italian researchers enrolled 155 patients who were treated with permethrin 5% for 8 hours for 2 consecutive days and repeated the treatment 5 days later (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35[12]:e889-91). Following the course of permethrin, only 34 responded, 96 failed treatment, and 25 were lost to follow-up.

“The study authors concluded that mite resistance to permethrin 5% seems to be increasing, following a path like other ectoparasite resistance,” said Dr. Mancini, who was not involved with the study. “We may even be seeing more ivermectin resistance in some geographic locations, as well.”

According to new scabicide efficacy criteria established by the FDA in 2016, complete cure is now defined as meeting both clinical and confirmatory criteria. A clinical cure means that all signs and symptoms of scabies have completely resolved, including burrows, inflammatory/noninflammatory lesions, and pruritus. A confirmatory cure means there is an absence of mites, eggs, scybala (feces), and burrows via microscopy or dermoscopy.

Dr. Anthony J. Mancini

Enter spinosad, which is derived from a naturally occurring soil microorganism known as Saccharopolyspora spinosa and is composed of two active molecules: spinosyn A and spinosyn D. According to Dr. Mancini, spinosad’s mechanism of action is unique from other medications used to treat ectoparasites. It activates nicotinic and GABA-gated sodium channels, leads to sodium influx in the insect nerves, hyperexcitation, then paralysis and death. Cross-resistance to other insecticides has not been reported, he added, and there is no known evidence of resistance to its active compound.

Approval of the drug was based on data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials involving 551 index cases and household contacts. In the intent-to-treat population, with the two trials combined, complete cure was achieved in 78.1% of the spinosad-treated group, compared with 39.6% in the vehicle group (P < .0001), clinical cure was achieved in 79.6% of the spinosad group, compared with 41.2% in the vehicle group (P < .001), and microscopic cure occurred in 85.9% of the spinosad group, compared with 52.6% in the vehicle group (P < .001).

Of the 306 participants in the study, the only adverse events reported by more than one patient each included abdominal pain, back pain, cough, headache, neck pain, and decreased weight in two patients each (0.8%), which investigators believed were not attributable to the study drug. Adverse events that investigators considered to be potentially related to the study drug included burning sensation in two participants (0.7%) and dry skin in another (0.3%). In clinical trials reported in the prescribing information, adverse events occurring in greater than 1% of subjects included application-site irritation (3% spinosad vs. 0% vehicle) and dry skin (2% spinosad vs. 0% vehicle).

“Spinosad met the FDA’s new stringent criteria, with all signs and symptoms of scabies completely resolved and confirmed via microscopy or dermoscopy,” said Dr. Mancini, who was not involved in the trials. “The patented formulation drives the active compound to the stratum corneum, where mites live and breed. It’s a single full-body application, without any resistance observed to date. This is an exciting newer option for treating our scabies patients.”

In an interview at the meeting, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that, while he has no clinical experience with spinosad for scabies, he welcomes a new option for the condition. “The fact that it has a different mechanism of action than permethrin is a good thing,” he said.

Dr. Mancini disclosed that he is a consultant or an adviser for ParaPRO, the manufacturer of spinosad, and Cassiopea, Castle Creek, Novan, Novartis, and Verrica. He was not involved in clinical trials of spinosad. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he receives consulting fees from Dexcel.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

HONOLULU – A new option for treating scabies, topical spinosad marks a significant development in the scabies treatment landscape, Anthony J. Mancini, MD, said during a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE!

In April 2021, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating scabies infestations in adult and pediatric patients 4 years of age and older – a first-in-class drug and the first new scabicide approved in 31 years. It was also approved for treating head lice in adults and children aged 6 months of age and older.

Dr. Anthony J. Mancini

“Scabies has been described as the worst itch one can experience,” said Dr. Mancini, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “It’s a hallmark of the disease, it can persist for weeks, it’s most intense at night, and patients report various sensations. It’s believed to be a both type I and type IV hypersensitivity reaction.”

The microscopic scabies mite burrows into the upper layer of the skin where it lives and lays its eggs. Besides intense itching, the classic presentation consists of a skin rash composed of inflammatory papules, linear burrows and crusted papules (especially on the hands, feet, and groin), and at times, larger red nodules. “Scabies nodules can persist for many months,” he said.

The Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 cited scabies as having the greatest burden of disease in tropical regions, especially among children, adolescents, and the elderly. The greatest burden of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) occurred in East and Southeast Asia, Oceana, and tropical South America, but in North America, there was a 24% increase in the DALY rate between 1990 and 2015.

In addition, the World Health Organization designated scabies as a neglected tropical disease in 2017 and included it in its 10-year road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021-2030 with goals of promoting disease awareness and encouraging research and achieving global control.

Dr. Anthony Mancini

“In our country, we typically see scabies treated successfully without complications, but there can be complications, especially in underdeveloped areas, like Staph aureus and Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infections,” which can be fatal, said Dr. Mancini, who is also head of pediatric dermatology at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Permethrin 5% cream is typically offered as first-line topical therapy in the United States for the treatment of scabies. However, in vitro studies and small investigator-initiated in vivo studies have reported that efficacy appears to be decreasing. In one of the trials, Italian researchers enrolled 155 patients who were treated with permethrin 5% for 8 hours for 2 consecutive days and repeated the treatment 5 days later (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35[12]:e889-91). Following the course of permethrin, only 34 responded, 96 failed treatment, and 25 were lost to follow-up.

“The study authors concluded that mite resistance to permethrin 5% seems to be increasing, following a path like other ectoparasite resistance,” said Dr. Mancini, who was not involved with the study. “We may even be seeing more ivermectin resistance in some geographic locations, as well.”

According to new scabicide efficacy criteria established by the FDA in 2016, complete cure is now defined as meeting both clinical and confirmatory criteria. A clinical cure means that all signs and symptoms of scabies have completely resolved, including burrows, inflammatory/noninflammatory lesions, and pruritus. A confirmatory cure means there is an absence of mites, eggs, scybala (feces), and burrows via microscopy or dermoscopy.

Dr. Anthony J. Mancini

Enter spinosad, which is derived from a naturally occurring soil microorganism known as Saccharopolyspora spinosa and is composed of two active molecules: spinosyn A and spinosyn D. According to Dr. Mancini, spinosad’s mechanism of action is unique from other medications used to treat ectoparasites. It activates nicotinic and GABA-gated sodium channels, leads to sodium influx in the insect nerves, hyperexcitation, then paralysis and death. Cross-resistance to other insecticides has not been reported, he added, and there is no known evidence of resistance to its active compound.

Approval of the drug was based on data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials involving 551 index cases and household contacts. In the intent-to-treat population, with the two trials combined, complete cure was achieved in 78.1% of the spinosad-treated group, compared with 39.6% in the vehicle group (P < .0001), clinical cure was achieved in 79.6% of the spinosad group, compared with 41.2% in the vehicle group (P < .001), and microscopic cure occurred in 85.9% of the spinosad group, compared with 52.6% in the vehicle group (P < .001).

Of the 306 participants in the study, the only adverse events reported by more than one patient each included abdominal pain, back pain, cough, headache, neck pain, and decreased weight in two patients each (0.8%), which investigators believed were not attributable to the study drug. Adverse events that investigators considered to be potentially related to the study drug included burning sensation in two participants (0.7%) and dry skin in another (0.3%). In clinical trials reported in the prescribing information, adverse events occurring in greater than 1% of subjects included application-site irritation (3% spinosad vs. 0% vehicle) and dry skin (2% spinosad vs. 0% vehicle).

“Spinosad met the FDA’s new stringent criteria, with all signs and symptoms of scabies completely resolved and confirmed via microscopy or dermoscopy,” said Dr. Mancini, who was not involved in the trials. “The patented formulation drives the active compound to the stratum corneum, where mites live and breed. It’s a single full-body application, without any resistance observed to date. This is an exciting newer option for treating our scabies patients.”

In an interview at the meeting, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that, while he has no clinical experience with spinosad for scabies, he welcomes a new option for the condition. “The fact that it has a different mechanism of action than permethrin is a good thing,” he said.

Dr. Mancini disclosed that he is a consultant or an adviser for ParaPRO, the manufacturer of spinosad, and Cassiopea, Castle Creek, Novan, Novartis, and Verrica. He was not involved in clinical trials of spinosad. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he receives consulting fees from Dexcel.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The Diagnosis: Darier Disease

A clinical diagnosis of Darier disease was made from the skin findings of pruritic, malodorous, keratotic papules in a seborrheic distribution and pathognomonic nail dystrophy, along with a family history that demonstrated autosomal-dominant inheritance. The ulcerations were suspected to be caused by a superimposed herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in the form of eczema herpeticum. The clinical diagnosis was later confirmed via punch biopsy. Pathology results demonstrated focal acantholytic dyskeratosis, which was consistent with Darier disease given the focal nature and lack of acanthosis. The patient’s father and sister also were confirmed to have Darier disease by an outside dermatologist.

Darier disease is a rare keratinizing autosomaldominant genodermatosis that occurs due to a mutation in the ATP2A2 gene, which encodes a sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase pump that decreases cell adhesion between keratinocytes, leading to epidermal acantholysis and dyskeratosis and ultimately a disrupted skin barrier.^1,2 Darier disease often presents in childhood and adolescence with papules in a seborrheic distribution on the central chest and back (Figure, A); the intertriginous folds also may be involved. Darier disease can manifest with palmoplantar pits (Figure, B), a cobblestonelike texture of the oral mucosa, acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf, and nail findings with alternating red and white longitudinal streaks in the nail bed resembling a candy cane along with characteristic V nicking deformities of the nails themselves (Figure, C). Chronic flares may occur throughout one’s lifetime, with patients experiencing more symptoms in the summer months due to heat, sweat, and UV light exposure, as well as infections that irritate the skin and worsen dyskeratosis. Studies have revealed an association between Darier disease and neuropsychiatric conditions, including major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.^3,4

The skin barrier is compromised in patients with Darier disease, thereby making secondary infection more likely to occur. Polymerase chain reaction swabs of our patient’s purulent ulcerations were positive for HSV type 1, further strengthening a diagnosis of secondary eczema herpeticum, which occurs when patients have widespread HSV superinfecting pre-existing skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis, Darier disease, and Hailey-Hailey disease.^5-7 The lesions are characterized by a monomorphic eruption of umbilicated vesicles on an erythematous base. Lesions can progress to punched-out ulcers and erosions with hemorrhagic crusts that coalesce, forming scalloped borders, similar to our patient’s presentation.⁸

Hailey-Hailey disease, a genodermatosis that alters calcium signaling with an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern, was unlikely in our patient due to the presence of nail abnormalities and palmar pits that are characteristic of Darier disease. From a purely histopathologic standpoint, Grover disease was considered with skin biopsy demonstrating acantholytic dyskeratosis but was not compatible with the clinical context. Furthermore, trials of antibiotics with group A Streptococcus and Staphylococcus aureus coverage failed in our patient, and she lacked systemic symptoms that would be supportive of a cellulitis diagnosis. The punched-out lesions suggested that an isolated exacerbation of atopic dermatitis was not sufficient to explain all of the clinical findings.

Eczema herpeticum must be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with underlying Darier disease and widespread ulcerations. Our patient had more recent punched-out ulcerations in the intertriginous regions, with other areas showing later stages of confluent ulcers with scalloped borders. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of eczema herpeticum combined with severe Darier disease can lead to increased risk for hospitalization and rarely fatality.^8,9

Our patient was started on intravenous acyclovir until the lesions crusted and then was transitioned to a suppressive dose of oral valacyclovir given the widespread distribution. The Darier disease itself was managed with topical steroids and a zinc oxide barrier, serving as protectants to pathogens through microscopic breaks in the skin. Our patient also had a mild case of candidal intertrigo that was exacerbated by obesity and managed with topical ketoconazole. Gabapentin, hydromorphone, and acetaminophen were used for pain. She was discharged 10 days after admission with substantial improvement of both the HSV lesions and the irritation from her Darier disease. At follow-up visits 20 days later and again 6 months after discharge, she had been feeling well without any HSV flares.

The eczema herpeticum likely arose from our patient’s chronic skin barrier impairment attributed to Darier disease, leading to the cutaneous inoculation of HSV. Our patient and her family members had never been evaluated by a dermatologist until late in life during this hospitalization. Medication compliance with a suppressive dose of oral valacyclovir and topical steroids is vital to prevent flares of both eczema herpeticum and Darier disease, respectively. This case highlights the importance of dermatology consultation for complex cutaneous findings, as delayed diagnosis and treatment can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.

The Diagnosis: Darier Disease

A clinical diagnosis of Darier disease was made from the skin findings of pruritic, malodorous, keratotic papules in a seborrheic distribution and pathognomonic nail dystrophy, along with a family history that demonstrated autosomal-dominant inheritance. The ulcerations were suspected to be caused by a superimposed herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in the form of eczema herpeticum. The clinical diagnosis was later confirmed via punch biopsy. Pathology results demonstrated focal acantholytic dyskeratosis, which was consistent with Darier disease given the focal nature and lack of acanthosis. The patient’s father and sister also were confirmed to have Darier disease by an outside dermatologist.

Darier disease is a rare keratinizing autosomaldominant genodermatosis that occurs due to a mutation in the ATP2A2 gene, which encodes a sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase pump that decreases cell adhesion between keratinocytes, leading to epidermal acantholysis and dyskeratosis and ultimately a disrupted skin barrier.^1,2 Darier disease often presents in childhood and adolescence with papules in a seborrheic distribution on the central chest and back (Figure, A); the intertriginous folds also may be involved. Darier disease can manifest with palmoplantar pits (Figure, B), a cobblestonelike texture of the oral mucosa, acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf, and nail findings with alternating red and white longitudinal streaks in the nail bed resembling a candy cane along with characteristic V nicking deformities of the nails themselves (Figure, C). Chronic flares may occur throughout one’s lifetime, with patients experiencing more symptoms in the summer months due to heat, sweat, and UV light exposure, as well as infections that irritate the skin and worsen dyskeratosis. Studies have revealed an association between Darier disease and neuropsychiatric conditions, including major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.^3,4

The skin barrier is compromised in patients with Darier disease, thereby making secondary infection more likely to occur. Polymerase chain reaction swabs of our patient’s purulent ulcerations were positive for HSV type 1, further strengthening a diagnosis of secondary eczema herpeticum, which occurs when patients have widespread HSV superinfecting pre-existing skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis, Darier disease, and Hailey-Hailey disease.^5-7 The lesions are characterized by a monomorphic eruption of umbilicated vesicles on an erythematous base. Lesions can progress to punched-out ulcers and erosions with hemorrhagic crusts that coalesce, forming scalloped borders, similar to our patient’s presentation.⁸

Hailey-Hailey disease, a genodermatosis that alters calcium signaling with an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern, was unlikely in our patient due to the presence of nail abnormalities and palmar pits that are characteristic of Darier disease. From a purely histopathologic standpoint, Grover disease was considered with skin biopsy demonstrating acantholytic dyskeratosis but was not compatible with the clinical context. Furthermore, trials of antibiotics with group A Streptococcus and Staphylococcus aureus coverage failed in our patient, and she lacked systemic symptoms that would be supportive of a cellulitis diagnosis. The punched-out lesions suggested that an isolated exacerbation of atopic dermatitis was not sufficient to explain all of the clinical findings.

Eczema herpeticum must be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with underlying Darier disease and widespread ulcerations. Our patient had more recent punched-out ulcerations in the intertriginous regions, with other areas showing later stages of confluent ulcers with scalloped borders. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of eczema herpeticum combined with severe Darier disease can lead to increased risk for hospitalization and rarely fatality.^8,9

Our patient was started on intravenous acyclovir until the lesions crusted and then was transitioned to a suppressive dose of oral valacyclovir given the widespread distribution. The Darier disease itself was managed with topical steroids and a zinc oxide barrier, serving as protectants to pathogens through microscopic breaks in the skin. Our patient also had a mild case of candidal intertrigo that was exacerbated by obesity and managed with topical ketoconazole. Gabapentin, hydromorphone, and acetaminophen were used for pain. She was discharged 10 days after admission with substantial improvement of both the HSV lesions and the irritation from her Darier disease. At follow-up visits 20 days later and again 6 months after discharge, she had been feeling well without any HSV flares.

The eczema herpeticum likely arose from our patient’s chronic skin barrier impairment attributed to Darier disease, leading to the cutaneous inoculation of HSV. Our patient and her family members had never been evaluated by a dermatologist until late in life during this hospitalization. Medication compliance with a suppressive dose of oral valacyclovir and topical steroids is vital to prevent flares of both eczema herpeticum and Darier disease, respectively. This case highlights the importance of dermatology consultation for complex cutaneous findings, as delayed diagnosis and treatment can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.

The Diagnosis: Darier Disease

A clinical diagnosis of Darier disease was made from the skin findings of pruritic, malodorous, keratotic papules in a seborrheic distribution and pathognomonic nail dystrophy, along with a family history that demonstrated autosomal-dominant inheritance. The ulcerations were suspected to be caused by a superimposed herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in the form of eczema herpeticum. The clinical diagnosis was later confirmed via punch biopsy. Pathology results demonstrated focal acantholytic dyskeratosis, which was consistent with Darier disease given the focal nature and lack of acanthosis. The patient’s father and sister also were confirmed to have Darier disease by an outside dermatologist.

Darier disease is a rare keratinizing autosomaldominant genodermatosis that occurs due to a mutation in the ATP2A2 gene, which encodes a sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase pump that decreases cell adhesion between keratinocytes, leading to epidermal acantholysis and dyskeratosis and ultimately a disrupted skin barrier.^1,2 Darier disease often presents in childhood and adolescence with papules in a seborrheic distribution on the central chest and back (Figure, A); the intertriginous folds also may be involved. Darier disease can manifest with palmoplantar pits (Figure, B), a cobblestonelike texture of the oral mucosa, acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf, and nail findings with alternating red and white longitudinal streaks in the nail bed resembling a candy cane along with characteristic V nicking deformities of the nails themselves (Figure, C). Chronic flares may occur throughout one’s lifetime, with patients experiencing more symptoms in the summer months due to heat, sweat, and UV light exposure, as well as infections that irritate the skin and worsen dyskeratosis. Studies have revealed an association between Darier disease and neuropsychiatric conditions, including major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.^3,4

The skin barrier is compromised in patients with Darier disease, thereby making secondary infection more likely to occur. Polymerase chain reaction swabs of our patient’s purulent ulcerations were positive for HSV type 1, further strengthening a diagnosis of secondary eczema herpeticum, which occurs when patients have widespread HSV superinfecting pre-existing skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis, Darier disease, and Hailey-Hailey disease.^5-7 The lesions are characterized by a monomorphic eruption of umbilicated vesicles on an erythematous base. Lesions can progress to punched-out ulcers and erosions with hemorrhagic crusts that coalesce, forming scalloped borders, similar to our patient’s presentation.⁸

Hailey-Hailey disease, a genodermatosis that alters calcium signaling with an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern, was unlikely in our patient due to the presence of nail abnormalities and palmar pits that are characteristic of Darier disease. From a purely histopathologic standpoint, Grover disease was considered with skin biopsy demonstrating acantholytic dyskeratosis but was not compatible with the clinical context. Furthermore, trials of antibiotics with group A Streptococcus and Staphylococcus aureus coverage failed in our patient, and she lacked systemic symptoms that would be supportive of a cellulitis diagnosis. The punched-out lesions suggested that an isolated exacerbation of atopic dermatitis was not sufficient to explain all of the clinical findings.

Eczema herpeticum must be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with underlying Darier disease and widespread ulcerations. Our patient had more recent punched-out ulcerations in the intertriginous regions, with other areas showing later stages of confluent ulcers with scalloped borders. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of eczema herpeticum combined with severe Darier disease can lead to increased risk for hospitalization and rarely fatality.^8,9

Our patient was started on intravenous acyclovir until the lesions crusted and then was transitioned to a suppressive dose of oral valacyclovir given the widespread distribution. The Darier disease itself was managed with topical steroids and a zinc oxide barrier, serving as protectants to pathogens through microscopic breaks in the skin. Our patient also had a mild case of candidal intertrigo that was exacerbated by obesity and managed with topical ketoconazole. Gabapentin, hydromorphone, and acetaminophen were used for pain. She was discharged 10 days after admission with substantial improvement of both the HSV lesions and the irritation from her Darier disease. At follow-up visits 20 days later and again 6 months after discharge, she had been feeling well without any HSV flares.

The eczema herpeticum likely arose from our patient’s chronic skin barrier impairment attributed to Darier disease, leading to the cutaneous inoculation of HSV. Our patient and her family members had never been evaluated by a dermatologist until late in life during this hospitalization. Medication compliance with a suppressive dose of oral valacyclovir and topical steroids is vital to prevent flares of both eczema herpeticum and Darier disease, respectively. This case highlights the importance of dermatology consultation for complex cutaneous findings, as delayed diagnosis and treatment can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly develop skin lesions linked to their condition, but until now few researchers looked at how common they are.

Almost one-third of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease develop skin lesions – such as psoriasis, eczema, and erythema nodosum – related to their condition, according to the prospective, single-center study.

“Skin lesions in IBD patients are much more prevalent than it is generally accepted. The lesions may be related to the pathogenesis of IBD, but it is very important to know that the modern biological therapies may also cause skin lesions,” said senior study author Laimas Jonaitis, MD, PhD, professor in the department of gastroenterology at Lithuanian University of Health Sciences in Kaunas.

“If the gastroenterologist is experienced and has enough competence, he or she may establish the diagnosis, but in all other cases it is wise and advisable to refer the patient to the dermatologist,” Dr. Jonaitis said. A referral should include the history and full treatment for IBD.

The results were presented as a poster at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, held in Copenhagen and virtually.

Dr. Jonaitis and colleagues conducted a literature analysis to determine the prevalence of extra-abdominal manifestations of IBD. The lack of published data prompted them to survey 152 consecutive patients with IBD receiving outpatient treatment at their institution. The patients completed questionnaires from January to October 2022 about any cutaneous lesions.

The mean age of patients was 42 years, and 58% were men. A majority, 72%, had ulcerative colitis, and 28% had Crohn’s disease.

Prevalence of skin lesions

A total of 43% of participants reported skin lesions, but only 30% of patients had lesions considered related to IBD or IBD therapy due to their emergence after the patient’s IBD diagnosis.

By IBD diagnosis, 29% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 33% of patients with Crohn’s disease had lesions related to their condition. The difference in skin lesion prevalence between the two groups was not significant (P > .05), the researchers noted.

The team further investigated the types of skin lesions deemed to be associated with IBD or IBD therapy.

Overall, they found psoriasis in nine patients, eczema in nine, erythema nodosum in six, pyoderma gangrenosum in five, allergic rash in four, and vitiligo in two. They found acne, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, and hemorrhagic vasculitis in one patient each.

Specifically, among patients with ulcerative colitis, skin lesions were reported in 8 of 27 with left-sided colitis, 2 of 15 with ulcerative colitis proctitis, and 22 of 67 patients with pancolitis. The difference between the groups of proctitis and pancolitis was significant (P = .03).

Within the group with Crohn’s disease, skin lesions were reported in 3 of 15 patients with ileitis, 4 of 10 with colitis, and 7 of 17 with ileocolitis. The difference among these groups was not significant (P > .05).

The most common skin lesions observed in Crohn’s disease were erythema nodosum and eczema, and in ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and eczema, the researchers reported.

They also noted that the cutaneous lesions were significantly more prevalent in extensive ulcerative colitis compared with distal disease.

Skin lesions add to patient misery

“Skin lesions are considered a burden to patients with IBD and add to their suffering,” said Sara Mesilhy, MBBS, a gastroenterologist with the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom, who was not affiliated with the research.

The severity and location of the disease appears to play a role because researchers found extensive ulcerative colitis may carry a higher risk for the development of skin lesions, Dr. Mesilhy noted.

The first step when facing skin lesions is to control the disease activity via the best treatment option, Dr. Mesilhy suggested.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Jonaitis and Dr. Mesilhy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly develop skin lesions linked to their condition, but until now few researchers looked at how common they are.

Almost one-third of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease develop skin lesions – such as psoriasis, eczema, and erythema nodosum – related to their condition, according to the prospective, single-center study.

“Skin lesions in IBD patients are much more prevalent than it is generally accepted. The lesions may be related to the pathogenesis of IBD, but it is very important to know that the modern biological therapies may also cause skin lesions,” said senior study author Laimas Jonaitis, MD, PhD, professor in the department of gastroenterology at Lithuanian University of Health Sciences in Kaunas.

“If the gastroenterologist is experienced and has enough competence, he or she may establish the diagnosis, but in all other cases it is wise and advisable to refer the patient to the dermatologist,” Dr. Jonaitis said. A referral should include the history and full treatment for IBD.

The results were presented as a poster at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, held in Copenhagen and virtually.

Dr. Jonaitis and colleagues conducted a literature analysis to determine the prevalence of extra-abdominal manifestations of IBD. The lack of published data prompted them to survey 152 consecutive patients with IBD receiving outpatient treatment at their institution. The patients completed questionnaires from January to October 2022 about any cutaneous lesions.

The mean age of patients was 42 years, and 58% were men. A majority, 72%, had ulcerative colitis, and 28% had Crohn’s disease.

Prevalence of skin lesions

A total of 43% of participants reported skin lesions, but only 30% of patients had lesions considered related to IBD or IBD therapy due to their emergence after the patient’s IBD diagnosis.

By IBD diagnosis, 29% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 33% of patients with Crohn’s disease had lesions related to their condition. The difference in skin lesion prevalence between the two groups was not significant (P > .05), the researchers noted.

The team further investigated the types of skin lesions deemed to be associated with IBD or IBD therapy.

Overall, they found psoriasis in nine patients, eczema in nine, erythema nodosum in six, pyoderma gangrenosum in five, allergic rash in four, and vitiligo in two. They found acne, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, and hemorrhagic vasculitis in one patient each.

Specifically, among patients with ulcerative colitis, skin lesions were reported in 8 of 27 with left-sided colitis, 2 of 15 with ulcerative colitis proctitis, and 22 of 67 patients with pancolitis. The difference between the groups of proctitis and pancolitis was significant (P = .03).

Within the group with Crohn’s disease, skin lesions were reported in 3 of 15 patients with ileitis, 4 of 10 with colitis, and 7 of 17 with ileocolitis. The difference among these groups was not significant (P > .05).

The most common skin lesions observed in Crohn’s disease were erythema nodosum and eczema, and in ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and eczema, the researchers reported.

They also noted that the cutaneous lesions were significantly more prevalent in extensive ulcerative colitis compared with distal disease.

Skin lesions add to patient misery

“Skin lesions are considered a burden to patients with IBD and add to their suffering,” said Sara Mesilhy, MBBS, a gastroenterologist with the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom, who was not affiliated with the research.

The severity and location of the disease appears to play a role because researchers found extensive ulcerative colitis may carry a higher risk for the development of skin lesions, Dr. Mesilhy noted.

The first step when facing skin lesions is to control the disease activity via the best treatment option, Dr. Mesilhy suggested.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Jonaitis and Dr. Mesilhy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly develop skin lesions linked to their condition, but until now few researchers looked at how common they are.

Almost one-third of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease develop skin lesions – such as psoriasis, eczema, and erythema nodosum – related to their condition, according to the prospective, single-center study.

“Skin lesions in IBD patients are much more prevalent than it is generally accepted. The lesions may be related to the pathogenesis of IBD, but it is very important to know that the modern biological therapies may also cause skin lesions,” said senior study author Laimas Jonaitis, MD, PhD, professor in the department of gastroenterology at Lithuanian University of Health Sciences in Kaunas.

“If the gastroenterologist is experienced and has enough competence, he or she may establish the diagnosis, but in all other cases it is wise and advisable to refer the patient to the dermatologist,” Dr. Jonaitis said. A referral should include the history and full treatment for IBD.

The results were presented as a poster at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, held in Copenhagen and virtually.

Dr. Jonaitis and colleagues conducted a literature analysis to determine the prevalence of extra-abdominal manifestations of IBD. The lack of published data prompted them to survey 152 consecutive patients with IBD receiving outpatient treatment at their institution. The patients completed questionnaires from January to October 2022 about any cutaneous lesions.

The mean age of patients was 42 years, and 58% were men. A majority, 72%, had ulcerative colitis, and 28% had Crohn’s disease.

Prevalence of skin lesions

A total of 43% of participants reported skin lesions, but only 30% of patients had lesions considered related to IBD or IBD therapy due to their emergence after the patient’s IBD diagnosis.

By IBD diagnosis, 29% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 33% of patients with Crohn’s disease had lesions related to their condition. The difference in skin lesion prevalence between the two groups was not significant (P > .05), the researchers noted.

The team further investigated the types of skin lesions deemed to be associated with IBD or IBD therapy.

Overall, they found psoriasis in nine patients, eczema in nine, erythema nodosum in six, pyoderma gangrenosum in five, allergic rash in four, and vitiligo in two. They found acne, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, and hemorrhagic vasculitis in one patient each.

Specifically, among patients with ulcerative colitis, skin lesions were reported in 8 of 27 with left-sided colitis, 2 of 15 with ulcerative colitis proctitis, and 22 of 67 patients with pancolitis. The difference between the groups of proctitis and pancolitis was significant (P = .03).

Within the group with Crohn’s disease, skin lesions were reported in 3 of 15 patients with ileitis, 4 of 10 with colitis, and 7 of 17 with ileocolitis. The difference among these groups was not significant (P > .05).

The most common skin lesions observed in Crohn’s disease were erythema nodosum and eczema, and in ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and eczema, the researchers reported.

They also noted that the cutaneous lesions were significantly more prevalent in extensive ulcerative colitis compared with distal disease.

Skin lesions add to patient misery

“Skin lesions are considered a burden to patients with IBD and add to their suffering,” said Sara Mesilhy, MBBS, a gastroenterologist with the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom, who was not affiliated with the research.

The severity and location of the disease appears to play a role because researchers found extensive ulcerative colitis may carry a higher risk for the development of skin lesions, Dr. Mesilhy noted.

The first step when facing skin lesions is to control the disease activity via the best treatment option, Dr. Mesilhy suggested.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Jonaitis and Dr. Mesilhy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the potential for patients to experience anaphylactic reactions after a negative skin test with any allergenic extract used to diagnose food allergies.

The FDA is requiring that an anaphylaxis warning after false-negative food allergen skin test results be added to the labels of these products in light of reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a March 3 statement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The action follows the recognition of an increase in adverse event reports of false-negative test results with specific lots of “ALK-Abello’s Allergenic Extract-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) – For Diagnostic Use Only.” Some of these reports “were associated with life-threatening anaphylaxis from subsequent exposure to peanut,” according to the statement. “FDA determined that the risk of anaphylaxis following false-negative food allergen skin test results is applicable to all allergenic extracts for the diagnosis of food allergies,” the statement notes.

To date, four lots of allergenic extracts have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, in November and December 2022, and should not be used.

Although some allergenic extracts are standardized, those used in the diagnosis of food allergy currently licensed by the FDA for use in the United States are nonstandardized, so potency may vary by lot.

The FDA advises health care professionals to consider confirming a negative skin test with serologic testing for peanut-specific IgE or conducting a medically supervised oral food challenge in patients, “based on the patient’s clinical history and the index of suspicion.”

The FDA also urges patients to discuss negative food allergen skin test results with their health care providers to determine the possible need for additional testing and to review the symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.

Any adverse events or side effects associated with allergenic products should be reported to the FDA via the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the potential for patients to experience anaphylactic reactions after a negative skin test with any allergenic extract used to diagnose food allergies.

The FDA is requiring that an anaphylaxis warning after false-negative food allergen skin test results be added to the labels of these products in light of reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a March 3 statement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The action follows the recognition of an increase in adverse event reports of false-negative test results with specific lots of “ALK-Abello’s Allergenic Extract-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) – For Diagnostic Use Only.” Some of these reports “were associated with life-threatening anaphylaxis from subsequent exposure to peanut,” according to the statement. “FDA determined that the risk of anaphylaxis following false-negative food allergen skin test results is applicable to all allergenic extracts for the diagnosis of food allergies,” the statement notes.

To date, four lots of allergenic extracts have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, in November and December 2022, and should not be used.

Although some allergenic extracts are standardized, those used in the diagnosis of food allergy currently licensed by the FDA for use in the United States are nonstandardized, so potency may vary by lot.

The FDA advises health care professionals to consider confirming a negative skin test with serologic testing for peanut-specific IgE or conducting a medically supervised oral food challenge in patients, “based on the patient’s clinical history and the index of suspicion.”

The FDA also urges patients to discuss negative food allergen skin test results with their health care providers to determine the possible need for additional testing and to review the symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.

Any adverse events or side effects associated with allergenic products should be reported to the FDA via the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning about the potential for patients to experience anaphylactic reactions after a negative skin test with any allergenic extract used to diagnose food allergies.

The FDA is requiring that an anaphylaxis warning after false-negative food allergen skin test results be added to the labels of these products in light of reports to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a March 3 statement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The action follows the recognition of an increase in adverse event reports of false-negative test results with specific lots of “ALK-Abello’s Allergenic Extract-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) – For Diagnostic Use Only.” Some of these reports “were associated with life-threatening anaphylaxis from subsequent exposure to peanut,” according to the statement. “FDA determined that the risk of anaphylaxis following false-negative food allergen skin test results is applicable to all allergenic extracts for the diagnosis of food allergies,” the statement notes.

To date, four lots of allergenic extracts have been voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, in November and December 2022, and should not be used.

Although some allergenic extracts are standardized, those used in the diagnosis of food allergy currently licensed by the FDA for use in the United States are nonstandardized, so potency may vary by lot.

The FDA advises health care professionals to consider confirming a negative skin test with serologic testing for peanut-specific IgE or conducting a medically supervised oral food challenge in patients, “based on the patient’s clinical history and the index of suspicion.”

The FDA also urges patients to discuss negative food allergen skin test results with their health care providers to determine the possible need for additional testing and to review the symptoms of a severe allergic reaction.

Any adverse events or side effects associated with allergenic products should be reported to the FDA via the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

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

To the Editor:

Cyclosporine is an immunomodulatory medication that impacts T-lymphocyte function through calcineurin inhibition and suppression of IL-2 expression. Oral cyclosporine at low doses (1–3 mg/kg/d) is one of the more common systemic treatment options for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At these doses it has been shown to have therapeutic benefit in several skin conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria,¹ psoriasis,² and atopic dermatitis.³ When used at higher doses for conditions such as glomerulonephritis or transplantation, adverse effects may be notable, and close monitoring of drug metabolism as well as end-organ function is required. In contrast, severe adverse effects are uncommon with the lower doses of cyclosporine used for cutaneous conditions, and monitoring serum drug levels is not routinely practiced.⁴

A 58-year-old man was referred to clinic with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to maximal topical therapy prescribed by an outside physician. He was started on cyclosporine as an anticipated bridge to dupilumab biologic therapy. He had no history of hypertension, renal disease, or hepatic insufficiency prior to starting therapy. He demonstrated notable clinical improvement at a cyclosporine dosage of 300 mg/d (equating to 3.7 mg/kg/d). Three months after initiation of therapy, the patient presented to a local emergency department with new-onset seizurelike activity, confusion, and agitation. He was normotensive with clinical concern for status epilepticus. An initial laboratory assessment included a complete blood cell count, serum electrolyte panel, and urine toxicology screen, which were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the head showed confluent white-matter hypodensities in the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed innumerable peripherally distributed foci of microhemorrhage and vasogenic edema within the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes (Figure).

He was intubated and sedated with admission to the medical intensive care unit, where a random cyclosporine level drawn approximately 9 hours after the prior dose was noted to be 263 ng/mL. Although target therapeutic levels for cyclosporine vary based on indication, toxic supratherapeutic levels generally are considered to be greater than 400 ng/mL.⁵ He had no evidence of acute kidney injury, uremia, or hypertension throughout hospitalization. An electroencephalogram showed left parieto-occipital periodic epileptiform discharges with generalized slowing. Cyclosporine was discontinued, and he was started on levetiracetam. His clinical and neuroimaging findings improved over the course of the 1-week hospitalization without any further intervention. Four weeks after hospitalization, he had full neurologic, electroencephalogram, and imaging recovery. Based on the presenting symptoms, transient neuroimaging findings, and full recovery with discontinuation of cyclosporine, the patient was diagnosed with cyclosporine-induced posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

The diagnosis of PRES requires evidence of acute neurologic symptoms and radiographic findings of cortical/subcortical white-matter changes on computed tomography or MRI consistent with edema. The pathophysiology is not fully understood but appears to be related to vasogenic edema, primarily impacting the posterior aspect of the brain. There have been many reported offending agents, and symptoms typically resolve following cessation of these medications. Cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES have been reported, but most occurred at higher doses within weeks of medication initiation. Two cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES treated with cutaneous dosing have been reported; neither patient was taking it for atopic dermatitis.⁶

Cyclosporine-induced PRES remains a pathophysiologic conundrum. However, there is evidence to support direct endothelial damage causing cellular apoptosis in the brain of mouse models that is medication specific and not necessarily related to the dosages used.⁷ Our case highlights a rare but important adverse event associated with even low-dose cyclosporine use that should be considered in patients currently taking cyclosporine who present with acute neurologic changes.

To the Editor:

Cyclosporine is an immunomodulatory medication that impacts T-lymphocyte function through calcineurin inhibition and suppression of IL-2 expression. Oral cyclosporine at low doses (1–3 mg/kg/d) is one of the more common systemic treatment options for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At these doses it has been shown to have therapeutic benefit in several skin conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria,¹ psoriasis,² and atopic dermatitis.³ When used at higher doses for conditions such as glomerulonephritis or transplantation, adverse effects may be notable, and close monitoring of drug metabolism as well as end-organ function is required. In contrast, severe adverse effects are uncommon with the lower doses of cyclosporine used for cutaneous conditions, and monitoring serum drug levels is not routinely practiced.⁴

A 58-year-old man was referred to clinic with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to maximal topical therapy prescribed by an outside physician. He was started on cyclosporine as an anticipated bridge to dupilumab biologic therapy. He had no history of hypertension, renal disease, or hepatic insufficiency prior to starting therapy. He demonstrated notable clinical improvement at a cyclosporine dosage of 300 mg/d (equating to 3.7 mg/kg/d). Three months after initiation of therapy, the patient presented to a local emergency department with new-onset seizurelike activity, confusion, and agitation. He was normotensive with clinical concern for status epilepticus. An initial laboratory assessment included a complete blood cell count, serum electrolyte panel, and urine toxicology screen, which were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the head showed confluent white-matter hypodensities in the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed innumerable peripherally distributed foci of microhemorrhage and vasogenic edema within the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes (Figure).

He was intubated and sedated with admission to the medical intensive care unit, where a random cyclosporine level drawn approximately 9 hours after the prior dose was noted to be 263 ng/mL. Although target therapeutic levels for cyclosporine vary based on indication, toxic supratherapeutic levels generally are considered to be greater than 400 ng/mL.⁵ He had no evidence of acute kidney injury, uremia, or hypertension throughout hospitalization. An electroencephalogram showed left parieto-occipital periodic epileptiform discharges with generalized slowing. Cyclosporine was discontinued, and he was started on levetiracetam. His clinical and neuroimaging findings improved over the course of the 1-week hospitalization without any further intervention. Four weeks after hospitalization, he had full neurologic, electroencephalogram, and imaging recovery. Based on the presenting symptoms, transient neuroimaging findings, and full recovery with discontinuation of cyclosporine, the patient was diagnosed with cyclosporine-induced posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

The diagnosis of PRES requires evidence of acute neurologic symptoms and radiographic findings of cortical/subcortical white-matter changes on computed tomography or MRI consistent with edema. The pathophysiology is not fully understood but appears to be related to vasogenic edema, primarily impacting the posterior aspect of the brain. There have been many reported offending agents, and symptoms typically resolve following cessation of these medications. Cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES have been reported, but most occurred at higher doses within weeks of medication initiation. Two cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES treated with cutaneous dosing have been reported; neither patient was taking it for atopic dermatitis.⁶

Cyclosporine-induced PRES remains a pathophysiologic conundrum. However, there is evidence to support direct endothelial damage causing cellular apoptosis in the brain of mouse models that is medication specific and not necessarily related to the dosages used.⁷ Our case highlights a rare but important adverse event associated with even low-dose cyclosporine use that should be considered in patients currently taking cyclosporine who present with acute neurologic changes.

To the Editor:

Cyclosporine is an immunomodulatory medication that impacts T-lymphocyte function through calcineurin inhibition and suppression of IL-2 expression. Oral cyclosporine at low doses (1–3 mg/kg/d) is one of the more common systemic treatment options for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At these doses it has been shown to have therapeutic benefit in several skin conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria,¹ psoriasis,² and atopic dermatitis.³ When used at higher doses for conditions such as glomerulonephritis or transplantation, adverse effects may be notable, and close monitoring of drug metabolism as well as end-organ function is required. In contrast, severe adverse effects are uncommon with the lower doses of cyclosporine used for cutaneous conditions, and monitoring serum drug levels is not routinely practiced.⁴

A 58-year-old man was referred to clinic with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to maximal topical therapy prescribed by an outside physician. He was started on cyclosporine as an anticipated bridge to dupilumab biologic therapy. He had no history of hypertension, renal disease, or hepatic insufficiency prior to starting therapy. He demonstrated notable clinical improvement at a cyclosporine dosage of 300 mg/d (equating to 3.7 mg/kg/d). Three months after initiation of therapy, the patient presented to a local emergency department with new-onset seizurelike activity, confusion, and agitation. He was normotensive with clinical concern for status epilepticus. An initial laboratory assessment included a complete blood cell count, serum electrolyte panel, and urine toxicology screen, which were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the head showed confluent white-matter hypodensities in the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed innumerable peripherally distributed foci of microhemorrhage and vasogenic edema within the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes (Figure).

He was intubated and sedated with admission to the medical intensive care unit, where a random cyclosporine level drawn approximately 9 hours after the prior dose was noted to be 263 ng/mL. Although target therapeutic levels for cyclosporine vary based on indication, toxic supratherapeutic levels generally are considered to be greater than 400 ng/mL.⁵ He had no evidence of acute kidney injury, uremia, or hypertension throughout hospitalization. An electroencephalogram showed left parieto-occipital periodic epileptiform discharges with generalized slowing. Cyclosporine was discontinued, and he was started on levetiracetam. His clinical and neuroimaging findings improved over the course of the 1-week hospitalization without any further intervention. Four weeks after hospitalization, he had full neurologic, electroencephalogram, and imaging recovery. Based on the presenting symptoms, transient neuroimaging findings, and full recovery with discontinuation of cyclosporine, the patient was diagnosed with cyclosporine-induced posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

The diagnosis of PRES requires evidence of acute neurologic symptoms and radiographic findings of cortical/subcortical white-matter changes on computed tomography or MRI consistent with edema. The pathophysiology is not fully understood but appears to be related to vasogenic edema, primarily impacting the posterior aspect of the brain. There have been many reported offending agents, and symptoms typically resolve following cessation of these medications. Cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES have been reported, but most occurred at higher doses within weeks of medication initiation. Two cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES treated with cutaneous dosing have been reported; neither patient was taking it for atopic dermatitis.⁶

Cyclosporine-induced PRES remains a pathophysiologic conundrum. However, there is evidence to support direct endothelial damage causing cellular apoptosis in the brain of mouse models that is medication specific and not necessarily related to the dosages used.⁷ Our case highlights a rare but important adverse event associated with even low-dose cyclosporine use that should be considered in patients currently taking cyclosporine who present with acute neurologic changes.

To the Editor:

The recent global mpox (monkeypox) outbreak that started in May 2022 has distinctive risk factors, clinical features, and patient attributes that can portend dissemination of infection. We report a case of Kaposi varicelliform eruption (KVE) over a peeling sunburn after mpox infection. Dermatologists should recognize cutaneous risk factors for dissemination of mpox.

A 35-year-old man who was otherwise healthy presented with a papulopustular eruption that began on the shoulders in an area that had been sunburned 24 to 48 hours earlier. He experienced fever (temperature, 38.6 °C)[101.5 °F]), chills, malaise, and the appearance of a painful penile ulcer. He reported a recent male sexual partner a week prior to the eruption during travel to eastern Asia and a subsequent male partner in the United States 5 days prior to eruption. Physical examination revealed a peeling sunburn with sharp clothing demarcation. Locations with the most notable desquamation—the superior shoulders, dorsal arms, upper chest, and ventral thighs—positively correlated with the highest density of scattered, discrete, erythematous-based pustules and pink papules, some with crusted umbilication (Figures 1 and 2). Lesions spared sun-protected locations except a punctate painful ulcer on the buccal mucosa and a tender well-demarcated ulcer with elevated borders on the ventral penile shaft. HIV antigen/antibody testing was negative; syphilis antibody testing was positive due to a prior infection 1 year earlier with titers down to 1:1. A penile ulcer swab did not detect herpes simplex virus types 1/2 DNA. Pharyngeal, penile, and rectal swabs were negative for chlamydia or gonorrhea DNA. A polymerase chain reaction assay of a pustule was positive for orthopoxvirus, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed Monkeypox virus. On day 12, a penile ulcer biopsy was nonspecific with dense mixed inflammation; immunohistochemical stains for Treponema pallidum and herpes simplex virus types 1/2 were negative. Consideration was given to starting antiviral treatment with tecovirimat, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for smallpox caused by variola virus, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expanded access protocol, but the patient’s symptoms and lesions cleared quickly without intervention. The patient’s recent sexual contact in the United States later tested positive for mpox. Given that the density of our patient’s mpox lesions positively correlated with areas of peeling sunburn with rapid spread during the period of desquamation, he was diagnosed with KVE due to mpox in the setting of a peeling sunburn.

To the Editor:

The recent global mpox (monkeypox) outbreak that started in May 2022 has distinctive risk factors, clinical features, and patient attributes that can portend dissemination of infection. We report a case of Kaposi varicelliform eruption (KVE) over a peeling sunburn after mpox infection. Dermatologists should recognize cutaneous risk factors for dissemination of mpox.

A 35-year-old man who was otherwise healthy presented with a papulopustular eruption that began on the shoulders in an area that had been sunburned 24 to 48 hours earlier. He experienced fever (temperature, 38.6 °C)[101.5 °F]), chills, malaise, and the appearance of a painful penile ulcer. He reported a recent male sexual partner a week prior to the eruption during travel to eastern Asia and a subsequent male partner in the United States 5 days prior to eruption. Physical examination revealed a peeling sunburn with sharp clothing demarcation. Locations with the most notable desquamation—the superior shoulders, dorsal arms, upper chest, and ventral thighs—positively correlated with the highest density of scattered, discrete, erythematous-based pustules and pink papules, some with crusted umbilication (Figures 1 and 2). Lesions spared sun-protected locations except a punctate painful ulcer on the buccal mucosa and a tender well-demarcated ulcer with elevated borders on the ventral penile shaft. HIV antigen/antibody testing was negative; syphilis antibody testing was positive due to a prior infection 1 year earlier with titers down to 1:1. A penile ulcer swab did not detect herpes simplex virus types 1/2 DNA. Pharyngeal, penile, and rectal swabs were negative for chlamydia or gonorrhea DNA. A polymerase chain reaction assay of a pustule was positive for orthopoxvirus, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed Monkeypox virus. On day 12, a penile ulcer biopsy was nonspecific with dense mixed inflammation; immunohistochemical stains for Treponema pallidum and herpes simplex virus types 1/2 were negative. Consideration was given to starting antiviral treatment with tecovirimat, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for smallpox caused by variola virus, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expanded access protocol, but the patient’s symptoms and lesions cleared quickly without intervention. The patient’s recent sexual contact in the United States later tested positive for mpox. Given that the density of our patient’s mpox lesions positively correlated with areas of peeling sunburn with rapid spread during the period of desquamation, he was diagnosed with KVE due to mpox in the setting of a peeling sunburn.

To the Editor:

The recent global mpox (monkeypox) outbreak that started in May 2022 has distinctive risk factors, clinical features, and patient attributes that can portend dissemination of infection. We report a case of Kaposi varicelliform eruption (KVE) over a peeling sunburn after mpox infection. Dermatologists should recognize cutaneous risk factors for dissemination of mpox.

A 35-year-old man who was otherwise healthy presented with a papulopustular eruption that began on the shoulders in an area that had been sunburned 24 to 48 hours earlier. He experienced fever (temperature, 38.6 °C)[101.5 °F]), chills, malaise, and the appearance of a painful penile ulcer. He reported a recent male sexual partner a week prior to the eruption during travel to eastern Asia and a subsequent male partner in the United States 5 days prior to eruption. Physical examination revealed a peeling sunburn with sharp clothing demarcation. Locations with the most notable desquamation—the superior shoulders, dorsal arms, upper chest, and ventral thighs—positively correlated with the highest density of scattered, discrete, erythematous-based pustules and pink papules, some with crusted umbilication (Figures 1 and 2). Lesions spared sun-protected locations except a punctate painful ulcer on the buccal mucosa and a tender well-demarcated ulcer with elevated borders on the ventral penile shaft. HIV antigen/antibody testing was negative; syphilis antibody testing was positive due to a prior infection 1 year earlier with titers down to 1:1. A penile ulcer swab did not detect herpes simplex virus types 1/2 DNA. Pharyngeal, penile, and rectal swabs were negative for chlamydia or gonorrhea DNA. A polymerase chain reaction assay of a pustule was positive for orthopoxvirus, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed Monkeypox virus. On day 12, a penile ulcer biopsy was nonspecific with dense mixed inflammation; immunohistochemical stains for Treponema pallidum and herpes simplex virus types 1/2 were negative. Consideration was given to starting antiviral treatment with tecovirimat, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for smallpox caused by variola virus, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expanded access protocol, but the patient’s symptoms and lesions cleared quickly without intervention. The patient’s recent sexual contact in the United States later tested positive for mpox. Given that the density of our patient’s mpox lesions positively correlated with areas of peeling sunburn with rapid spread during the period of desquamation, he was diagnosed with KVE due to mpox in the setting of a peeling sunburn.

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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