MDedge Dermatology

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

SAN DIEGO – When Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, opened his own cosmetic dermatology practice in Stamford, Conn., in 2012, he sensed that he had his work cut out for him.

“I was a fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon who wanted to do aesthetics,” Dr. Ibrahimi, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, recalled during the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “I was in a geographic area that was new to me. I didn’t know any referring doctors, but I started to network and tried to grow my practice.”

Someone once told him that the “three As” of being a medical specialist are “Available, Affable, and Ability,” so he applied that principle as he began to cultivate relationships with physicians in his geographic area. “I told my referring doctors, ‘If you’re kind enough to send me Mohs cases, I’ll help you out if there’s something you don’t like doing, whether it’s a nail biopsy or treating male genital warts,’” he said. “You want to make it easy for doctors to refer to you, but you also want to make their lives easier.”

Dr. Ibrahimi, who is also on the board of directors for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, offered nine other recommendations for building and growing a cosmetic dermatology practice. They include:

Know yourself. Do what you love to do, not what you feel like you should do. “Whatever you’re doing in your practice, it should be something that you’re passionate about and excited about,” he said. “I do a mix of Mohs surgery and procedural aesthetic dermatology. Most of my practice is shaped toward energy-based devices and laser procedures. Pick the things that you enjoy doing and try to deliver good results.”

Know your patients. When dermatologists who plan to open their own practice ask Dr. Ibrahimi what kind of laser they should buy, he typically responds by asking them to consider what procedures their patients are asking for. “Depending on where you are geographically and the economic profile of the community in which you practice, it can be a different answer,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “If you practice in the Northeast and do a lot of medical dermatology, it might mean getting a vascular laser to treat rosacea. If you’re in Southern California, treating pigment might be a bigger concern than treating rosacea.” The annual ASDS Survey on Dermatologic Procedures provides a snapshot of trends and can be useful for decision-making, he said.

Know your practice. “Make sure you are capable of entering the aesthetics field,” he advised. “You cannot have a practice that runs like the DMV, with people waiting 30 to 40 minutes to be seen.” Proper training of staff is also key and representatives from device and injectable companies can provide advice and support. As for marketing, some dermatologists hire a public relations agency, but Dr. Ibrahimi finds that the best source of his referrals is word of mouth. “If I do a good job taking care of patients, they will send their friends and family over to me, but social media is also important,” he said. Taking quality before-and-after photos, and obtaining consent from patients to use them online in educational posts is a good approach, he noted.

Know your market. When Dr. Ibrahimi first opened his practice, offering laser hair removal was not a priority because so many other dermatologists and medical spas in his area were already providing it. With time, though, he added laser hair removal to his menu of treatment offerings because “I knew that if my patients weren’t getting that service from me, they would be getting it from somewhere else,” he said. “Initially it wasn’t important for me, but as my practice matured, I wanted to make sure that I was comprehensive.”

Start cautiously. Think safety first. “I tell people that starting a cosmetic practice is like baseball: don’t try to hit home runs,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Just aim for base hits and keep your patients happy. Make sure you deliver safe, good results.” This means knowing everything possible about the devices used in the office, because if the use of a laser is delegated to a staff member and a problem arises, “you have to know everything about how that device works so that you can troubleshoot,” he said. “A lot of problems that arise are from lack of intimacy with your device.”

Seek knowledge. Attend courses in cosmetic dermatology and read literature from journals like Dermatologic Surgery and Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, he advised. “People will see the success, but they won’t know how much hard work it takes to get there,” he said. “You have to develop your reputation to develop the kind of practice that you want.”

Understand the business of aesthetics. Most energy devices carry a steep price tag, and leasing or financing devices come with a monthly payment, he said. “Make sure that what you’re bringing in on that device is going to be sufficient to cover the monthly payment. With something like tissue microcoring, you don’t have to use that five times a day to cover that lease payment. But if you have a vascular laser, you probably need to be treating more than a couple patients per day to make that lease payment. If you can recover the amount the device costs in about a year, that’s going to be a good investment. Many devices come with consumables, so you have to remember that.”

Don’t be afraid to be unique/change directions. Becoming an early adopter of new technologies and procedures can make someone stand out. “Other providers feel more comfortable waiting to allow more data to come out about a new technology before they make a purchase,” he said. “But if you’re established and have a busy practice, that’s an opportunity that can draw people in.”

Have patience and realistic expectations. It’s smart to offer a variety of services, he said, such as medical or surgical dermatology in addition to cosmetic dermatology. “That’s going to help you through any kind of economic downturn,” he said. “Success depends on a lot of factors going right. Make sure you set short- and long-term goals.”

Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the Advisory Board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – When Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, opened his own cosmetic dermatology practice in Stamford, Conn., in 2012, he sensed that he had his work cut out for him.

“I was a fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon who wanted to do aesthetics,” Dr. Ibrahimi, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, recalled during the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “I was in a geographic area that was new to me. I didn’t know any referring doctors, but I started to network and tried to grow my practice.”

Someone once told him that the “three As” of being a medical specialist are “Available, Affable, and Ability,” so he applied that principle as he began to cultivate relationships with physicians in his geographic area. “I told my referring doctors, ‘If you’re kind enough to send me Mohs cases, I’ll help you out if there’s something you don’t like doing, whether it’s a nail biopsy or treating male genital warts,’” he said. “You want to make it easy for doctors to refer to you, but you also want to make their lives easier.”

Dr. Ibrahimi, who is also on the board of directors for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, offered nine other recommendations for building and growing a cosmetic dermatology practice. They include:

Know yourself. Do what you love to do, not what you feel like you should do. “Whatever you’re doing in your practice, it should be something that you’re passionate about and excited about,” he said. “I do a mix of Mohs surgery and procedural aesthetic dermatology. Most of my practice is shaped toward energy-based devices and laser procedures. Pick the things that you enjoy doing and try to deliver good results.”

Know your patients. When dermatologists who plan to open their own practice ask Dr. Ibrahimi what kind of laser they should buy, he typically responds by asking them to consider what procedures their patients are asking for. “Depending on where you are geographically and the economic profile of the community in which you practice, it can be a different answer,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “If you practice in the Northeast and do a lot of medical dermatology, it might mean getting a vascular laser to treat rosacea. If you’re in Southern California, treating pigment might be a bigger concern than treating rosacea.” The annual ASDS Survey on Dermatologic Procedures provides a snapshot of trends and can be useful for decision-making, he said.

Know your practice. “Make sure you are capable of entering the aesthetics field,” he advised. “You cannot have a practice that runs like the DMV, with people waiting 30 to 40 minutes to be seen.” Proper training of staff is also key and representatives from device and injectable companies can provide advice and support. As for marketing, some dermatologists hire a public relations agency, but Dr. Ibrahimi finds that the best source of his referrals is word of mouth. “If I do a good job taking care of patients, they will send their friends and family over to me, but social media is also important,” he said. Taking quality before-and-after photos, and obtaining consent from patients to use them online in educational posts is a good approach, he noted.

Know your market. When Dr. Ibrahimi first opened his practice, offering laser hair removal was not a priority because so many other dermatologists and medical spas in his area were already providing it. With time, though, he added laser hair removal to his menu of treatment offerings because “I knew that if my patients weren’t getting that service from me, they would be getting it from somewhere else,” he said. “Initially it wasn’t important for me, but as my practice matured, I wanted to make sure that I was comprehensive.”

Start cautiously. Think safety first. “I tell people that starting a cosmetic practice is like baseball: don’t try to hit home runs,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Just aim for base hits and keep your patients happy. Make sure you deliver safe, good results.” This means knowing everything possible about the devices used in the office, because if the use of a laser is delegated to a staff member and a problem arises, “you have to know everything about how that device works so that you can troubleshoot,” he said. “A lot of problems that arise are from lack of intimacy with your device.”

Seek knowledge. Attend courses in cosmetic dermatology and read literature from journals like Dermatologic Surgery and Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, he advised. “People will see the success, but they won’t know how much hard work it takes to get there,” he said. “You have to develop your reputation to develop the kind of practice that you want.”

Understand the business of aesthetics. Most energy devices carry a steep price tag, and leasing or financing devices come with a monthly payment, he said. “Make sure that what you’re bringing in on that device is going to be sufficient to cover the monthly payment. With something like tissue microcoring, you don’t have to use that five times a day to cover that lease payment. But if you have a vascular laser, you probably need to be treating more than a couple patients per day to make that lease payment. If you can recover the amount the device costs in about a year, that’s going to be a good investment. Many devices come with consumables, so you have to remember that.”

Don’t be afraid to be unique/change directions. Becoming an early adopter of new technologies and procedures can make someone stand out. “Other providers feel more comfortable waiting to allow more data to come out about a new technology before they make a purchase,” he said. “But if you’re established and have a busy practice, that’s an opportunity that can draw people in.”

Have patience and realistic expectations. It’s smart to offer a variety of services, he said, such as medical or surgical dermatology in addition to cosmetic dermatology. “That’s going to help you through any kind of economic downturn,” he said. “Success depends on a lot of factors going right. Make sure you set short- and long-term goals.”

Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the Advisory Board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – When Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, opened his own cosmetic dermatology practice in Stamford, Conn., in 2012, he sensed that he had his work cut out for him.

“I was a fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon who wanted to do aesthetics,” Dr. Ibrahimi, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, recalled during the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “I was in a geographic area that was new to me. I didn’t know any referring doctors, but I started to network and tried to grow my practice.”

Someone once told him that the “three As” of being a medical specialist are “Available, Affable, and Ability,” so he applied that principle as he began to cultivate relationships with physicians in his geographic area. “I told my referring doctors, ‘If you’re kind enough to send me Mohs cases, I’ll help you out if there’s something you don’t like doing, whether it’s a nail biopsy or treating male genital warts,’” he said. “You want to make it easy for doctors to refer to you, but you also want to make their lives easier.”

Dr. Ibrahimi, who is also on the board of directors for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, offered nine other recommendations for building and growing a cosmetic dermatology practice. They include:

Know yourself. Do what you love to do, not what you feel like you should do. “Whatever you’re doing in your practice, it should be something that you’re passionate about and excited about,” he said. “I do a mix of Mohs surgery and procedural aesthetic dermatology. Most of my practice is shaped toward energy-based devices and laser procedures. Pick the things that you enjoy doing and try to deliver good results.”

Know your patients. When dermatologists who plan to open their own practice ask Dr. Ibrahimi what kind of laser they should buy, he typically responds by asking them to consider what procedures their patients are asking for. “Depending on where you are geographically and the economic profile of the community in which you practice, it can be a different answer,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “If you practice in the Northeast and do a lot of medical dermatology, it might mean getting a vascular laser to treat rosacea. If you’re in Southern California, treating pigment might be a bigger concern than treating rosacea.” The annual ASDS Survey on Dermatologic Procedures provides a snapshot of trends and can be useful for decision-making, he said.

Know your practice. “Make sure you are capable of entering the aesthetics field,” he advised. “You cannot have a practice that runs like the DMV, with people waiting 30 to 40 minutes to be seen.” Proper training of staff is also key and representatives from device and injectable companies can provide advice and support. As for marketing, some dermatologists hire a public relations agency, but Dr. Ibrahimi finds that the best source of his referrals is word of mouth. “If I do a good job taking care of patients, they will send their friends and family over to me, but social media is also important,” he said. Taking quality before-and-after photos, and obtaining consent from patients to use them online in educational posts is a good approach, he noted.

Know your market. When Dr. Ibrahimi first opened his practice, offering laser hair removal was not a priority because so many other dermatologists and medical spas in his area were already providing it. With time, though, he added laser hair removal to his menu of treatment offerings because “I knew that if my patients weren’t getting that service from me, they would be getting it from somewhere else,” he said. “Initially it wasn’t important for me, but as my practice matured, I wanted to make sure that I was comprehensive.”

Start cautiously. Think safety first. “I tell people that starting a cosmetic practice is like baseball: don’t try to hit home runs,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Just aim for base hits and keep your patients happy. Make sure you deliver safe, good results.” This means knowing everything possible about the devices used in the office, because if the use of a laser is delegated to a staff member and a problem arises, “you have to know everything about how that device works so that you can troubleshoot,” he said. “A lot of problems that arise are from lack of intimacy with your device.”

Seek knowledge. Attend courses in cosmetic dermatology and read literature from journals like Dermatologic Surgery and Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, he advised. “People will see the success, but they won’t know how much hard work it takes to get there,” he said. “You have to develop your reputation to develop the kind of practice that you want.”

Understand the business of aesthetics. Most energy devices carry a steep price tag, and leasing or financing devices come with a monthly payment, he said. “Make sure that what you’re bringing in on that device is going to be sufficient to cover the monthly payment. With something like tissue microcoring, you don’t have to use that five times a day to cover that lease payment. But if you have a vascular laser, you probably need to be treating more than a couple patients per day to make that lease payment. If you can recover the amount the device costs in about a year, that’s going to be a good investment. Many devices come with consumables, so you have to remember that.”

Don’t be afraid to be unique/change directions. Becoming an early adopter of new technologies and procedures can make someone stand out. “Other providers feel more comfortable waiting to allow more data to come out about a new technology before they make a purchase,” he said. “But if you’re established and have a busy practice, that’s an opportunity that can draw people in.”

Have patience and realistic expectations. It’s smart to offer a variety of services, he said, such as medical or surgical dermatology in addition to cosmetic dermatology. “That’s going to help you through any kind of economic downturn,” he said. “Success depends on a lot of factors going right. Make sure you set short- and long-term goals.”

Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the Advisory Board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – Proper patient selection and setting realistic expectations are the keys to enhancing results with fractional radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices, according to Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD.

Most core fractional RF microneedling indications – acne scars, rhytides, skin tightening – require multiple treatments, Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Boston, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “That’s an important expectation to set for your patients,” she said. “You also want to select depth and density parameters based on pathophysiology of the condition being treated, and combination treatments always provide the best results. So, whether you’re treating someone for acne scars or rhytides, you want to treat them for their erythema or their dermatoheliosis. The same goes for skin tightening procedures.”

Many nonpolar and bipolar devices are available for use, most of which feature adjustable depths and energies. Tips can be insulated or noninsulated. Generally, the insulated tips are safer for darker skin types because the energy is not delivered to the epidermis. However, the Sylfirm X device from Benev has a noninsulated tip but is safe for all skin types because the energy is delivered from the tip of a conically shaped needle and moves proximally but never reaches the epidermis, said Dr. DiGiorgio. Continuous wave mode is used for tightening and wrinkles while pulsed mode is used for pigment and vascular lesions.

Treatment with most fractional RF microneedling devices is painful so topical anesthesia is required. Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses topical 23% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine. The downtime varies depending on which device is being used. For anesthesia prior to aggressive fractional microneedle RF treatments such as with the Profound RF for skin tightening, Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses a Mesoram needle with a cocktail of 30 ccs of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, 15 ccs of bicarbonate, and 5 ccs of saline. “More aggressive RF procedures can result in bruising for 7 to 8 days,” she said. “It can be covered with makeup. Wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have also helped patients cover the bruising.”

In her clinical experience, the ideal patient for skin tightening with fractional RF microneedling has mild to moderate skin laxity that does not require surgical intervention. “Nonsurgical treatments provide nonsurgical results,” she said. “If a patient comes in holding their skin back and there is a lot of laxity, this is not going to be the right treatment for that person.”

Dr. DiGiorgio offers fractional RF microneedling in the context of a full-face rejuvenation. She begins by addressing volume loss and dynamic rhytides with injectables prior to skin tightening devices such as fractional RF microneedling or ultrasound-based tightening devices such as Sofwave or Ulthera (also referred to as Ultherapy). “You can add an ablative fractional to target deeper rhytides or pigment-targeting laser to address their dermatoheliosis, which will enhance their results,” she said. “Finally, you can follow up with a thread lift two weeks after the microneedle RF to achieve greater skin tightening. If the thread lift is performed before the microneedle RF, you want to wait about 2 months because the microneedle RF can damage the thread.”

Despite the limited efficacy for tissue tightening with fractional RF microneedling, “it’s a good alternative to lasers, especially for darker skin types,” she said. “Combination treatments will always enhance your results.”

Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Quthero. She is also a consultant for Revelle and has received equipment from Acclaro.

SAN DIEGO – Proper patient selection and setting realistic expectations are the keys to enhancing results with fractional radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices, according to Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD.

Most core fractional RF microneedling indications – acne scars, rhytides, skin tightening – require multiple treatments, Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Boston, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “That’s an important expectation to set for your patients,” she said. “You also want to select depth and density parameters based on pathophysiology of the condition being treated, and combination treatments always provide the best results. So, whether you’re treating someone for acne scars or rhytides, you want to treat them for their erythema or their dermatoheliosis. The same goes for skin tightening procedures.”

Many nonpolar and bipolar devices are available for use, most of which feature adjustable depths and energies. Tips can be insulated or noninsulated. Generally, the insulated tips are safer for darker skin types because the energy is not delivered to the epidermis. However, the Sylfirm X device from Benev has a noninsulated tip but is safe for all skin types because the energy is delivered from the tip of a conically shaped needle and moves proximally but never reaches the epidermis, said Dr. DiGiorgio. Continuous wave mode is used for tightening and wrinkles while pulsed mode is used for pigment and vascular lesions.

Treatment with most fractional RF microneedling devices is painful so topical anesthesia is required. Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses topical 23% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine. The downtime varies depending on which device is being used. For anesthesia prior to aggressive fractional microneedle RF treatments such as with the Profound RF for skin tightening, Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses a Mesoram needle with a cocktail of 30 ccs of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, 15 ccs of bicarbonate, and 5 ccs of saline. “More aggressive RF procedures can result in bruising for 7 to 8 days,” she said. “It can be covered with makeup. Wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have also helped patients cover the bruising.”

In her clinical experience, the ideal patient for skin tightening with fractional RF microneedling has mild to moderate skin laxity that does not require surgical intervention. “Nonsurgical treatments provide nonsurgical results,” she said. “If a patient comes in holding their skin back and there is a lot of laxity, this is not going to be the right treatment for that person.”

Dr. DiGiorgio offers fractional RF microneedling in the context of a full-face rejuvenation. She begins by addressing volume loss and dynamic rhytides with injectables prior to skin tightening devices such as fractional RF microneedling or ultrasound-based tightening devices such as Sofwave or Ulthera (also referred to as Ultherapy). “You can add an ablative fractional to target deeper rhytides or pigment-targeting laser to address their dermatoheliosis, which will enhance their results,” she said. “Finally, you can follow up with a thread lift two weeks after the microneedle RF to achieve greater skin tightening. If the thread lift is performed before the microneedle RF, you want to wait about 2 months because the microneedle RF can damage the thread.”

Despite the limited efficacy for tissue tightening with fractional RF microneedling, “it’s a good alternative to lasers, especially for darker skin types,” she said. “Combination treatments will always enhance your results.”

Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Quthero. She is also a consultant for Revelle and has received equipment from Acclaro.

SAN DIEGO – Proper patient selection and setting realistic expectations are the keys to enhancing results with fractional radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices, according to Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD.

Most core fractional RF microneedling indications – acne scars, rhytides, skin tightening – require multiple treatments, Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Boston, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “That’s an important expectation to set for your patients,” she said. “You also want to select depth and density parameters based on pathophysiology of the condition being treated, and combination treatments always provide the best results. So, whether you’re treating someone for acne scars or rhytides, you want to treat them for their erythema or their dermatoheliosis. The same goes for skin tightening procedures.”

Many nonpolar and bipolar devices are available for use, most of which feature adjustable depths and energies. Tips can be insulated or noninsulated. Generally, the insulated tips are safer for darker skin types because the energy is not delivered to the epidermis. However, the Sylfirm X device from Benev has a noninsulated tip but is safe for all skin types because the energy is delivered from the tip of a conically shaped needle and moves proximally but never reaches the epidermis, said Dr. DiGiorgio. Continuous wave mode is used for tightening and wrinkles while pulsed mode is used for pigment and vascular lesions.

Treatment with most fractional RF microneedling devices is painful so topical anesthesia is required. Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses topical 23% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine. The downtime varies depending on which device is being used. For anesthesia prior to aggressive fractional microneedle RF treatments such as with the Profound RF for skin tightening, Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses a Mesoram needle with a cocktail of 30 ccs of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, 15 ccs of bicarbonate, and 5 ccs of saline. “More aggressive RF procedures can result in bruising for 7 to 8 days,” she said. “It can be covered with makeup. Wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have also helped patients cover the bruising.”

In her clinical experience, the ideal patient for skin tightening with fractional RF microneedling has mild to moderate skin laxity that does not require surgical intervention. “Nonsurgical treatments provide nonsurgical results,” she said. “If a patient comes in holding their skin back and there is a lot of laxity, this is not going to be the right treatment for that person.”

Dr. DiGiorgio offers fractional RF microneedling in the context of a full-face rejuvenation. She begins by addressing volume loss and dynamic rhytides with injectables prior to skin tightening devices such as fractional RF microneedling or ultrasound-based tightening devices such as Sofwave or Ulthera (also referred to as Ultherapy). “You can add an ablative fractional to target deeper rhytides or pigment-targeting laser to address their dermatoheliosis, which will enhance their results,” she said. “Finally, you can follow up with a thread lift two weeks after the microneedle RF to achieve greater skin tightening. If the thread lift is performed before the microneedle RF, you want to wait about 2 months because the microneedle RF can damage the thread.”

Despite the limited efficacy for tissue tightening with fractional RF microneedling, “it’s a good alternative to lasers, especially for darker skin types,” she said. “Combination treatments will always enhance your results.”

Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Quthero. She is also a consultant for Revelle and has received equipment from Acclaro.

The Diagnosis: Sweet Syndrome (Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis)

A skin biopsy of the right lower extremity demonstrated diffuse interstitial, perivascular, and periadnexal neutrophilic dermal infiltrate in the reticular dermis (Figure 1), consistent with a diagnosis of Sweet syndrome without evidence of leukemia cutis or infection. The firm erythematous papulonodules with follicular accentuation on the face (Figure 2) also were confirmed as Sweet syndrome on histopathology. Concern for leukemic transformation was confirmed with bone biopsy revealing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our patient began a short course of prednisone, and the cutaneous lesions improved during hospitalization; however, he was lost to follow-up.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a rare inflammatory skin condition typically characterized by asymmetric, painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules involving the arms, face, and neck.¹ It most commonly occurs in women and typically presents in patients aged 47 to 57 years. Although the pathogenesis of neutrophilic dermatoses is not completely understood, they are believed to be due to altered expression of inflammatory cytokines, irregular neutrophil function, and a genetic predisposition.² There are 3 main categories of Sweet syndrome: classical (or idiopathic), drug induced, and malignancy associated.¹ The lesions associated with Sweet syndrome vary from a few millimeters to several centimeters and may be annular or targetoid in the later stages. They also may form bullae and ulcerate. Fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute-phase reactants also are common on presentation.1 Histopathologic analysis demonstrates an intense neutrophilic infiltrate within the reticular dermis with marked leukocytoclasia. Admixed within the neutrophil polymorphs are variable numbers of lymphocytes and histiocytes. Edema in the upper dermis also is characteristic.³ The exact pathogenesis of Sweet syndrome has yet to be elucidated but may involve a combination of cytokine dysregulation, hypersensitivity reactions, and genetics.⁴ Our case demonstrates 3 distinct morphologies of Sweet syndrome in a single patient, including classic edematous plaques, agminated targetoid plaques, and ulceration. Based on the clinical presentation, diagnostic workup for an undiagnosed malignancy was warranted, which confirmed AML. The malignancy-associated form of Sweet syndrome accounts for a substantial portion of cases, with approximately 21% of patients diagnosed with Sweet syndrome having an underlying malignancy, commonly a hematologic malignancy or myeloproliferative disorder with AML being the most common.¹

The differential diagnosis for Sweet syndrome includes cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, which commonly presents with symmetric palpable purpura of the legs. Lesions may be round, port wine–colored plaques and even may form ulcers, vesicles, and targetoid lesions. However, skin biopsy shows polymorphonuclear infiltrate affecting postcapillary venules, fibrinoid deposits, and extravasation of red blood cells.⁵ Leukemia cutis describes any type of leukemia that manifests in the skin. It typically presents as violaceous or red-brown papules, nodules, and plaques most commonly on the legs. Histopathology varies by immunophenotype but generally demonstrates perivascular or periadnexal involvement or a diffuse, interstitial, or nodular infiltrate of the dermis or subcutis.⁶ Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis describes an aseptic neutrophilic infiltration around eccrine coils and glands. It may present as papules or plaques that usually are erythematous but also may be pigmented. Lesions can be asymptomatic or painful as in Sweet syndrome and are distributed proximally or on the distal extremities. Histopathologic examination demonstrates the degeneration of the eccrine gland and neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrates.⁷ Lastly, necrotizing fasciitis is a life-threatening infection of the deep soft tissue and fascia, classically caused by group A Streptococcus. The infected site may have erythema, tenderness, fluctuance, necrosis, and bullae.8 Although our patient had a fever, he did not display the tachycardia, hypotension, tachypnea, and rapid deterioration that is common in necrotizing fasciitis.

Sweet syndrome may present with various morphologies within the same patient. Painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, nodules, bullae, and ulcers may be seen. A workup for an underlying malignancy may be warranted based on clinical presentation. Most patients have a rapid and dramatic response to systemic corticosteroids.

The Diagnosis: Sweet Syndrome (Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis)

A skin biopsy of the right lower extremity demonstrated diffuse interstitial, perivascular, and periadnexal neutrophilic dermal infiltrate in the reticular dermis (Figure 1), consistent with a diagnosis of Sweet syndrome without evidence of leukemia cutis or infection. The firm erythematous papulonodules with follicular accentuation on the face (Figure 2) also were confirmed as Sweet syndrome on histopathology. Concern for leukemic transformation was confirmed with bone biopsy revealing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our patient began a short course of prednisone, and the cutaneous lesions improved during hospitalization; however, he was lost to follow-up.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a rare inflammatory skin condition typically characterized by asymmetric, painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules involving the arms, face, and neck.¹ It most commonly occurs in women and typically presents in patients aged 47 to 57 years. Although the pathogenesis of neutrophilic dermatoses is not completely understood, they are believed to be due to altered expression of inflammatory cytokines, irregular neutrophil function, and a genetic predisposition.² There are 3 main categories of Sweet syndrome: classical (or idiopathic), drug induced, and malignancy associated.¹ The lesions associated with Sweet syndrome vary from a few millimeters to several centimeters and may be annular or targetoid in the later stages. They also may form bullae and ulcerate. Fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute-phase reactants also are common on presentation.1 Histopathologic analysis demonstrates an intense neutrophilic infiltrate within the reticular dermis with marked leukocytoclasia. Admixed within the neutrophil polymorphs are variable numbers of lymphocytes and histiocytes. Edema in the upper dermis also is characteristic.³ The exact pathogenesis of Sweet syndrome has yet to be elucidated but may involve a combination of cytokine dysregulation, hypersensitivity reactions, and genetics.⁴ Our case demonstrates 3 distinct morphologies of Sweet syndrome in a single patient, including classic edematous plaques, agminated targetoid plaques, and ulceration. Based on the clinical presentation, diagnostic workup for an undiagnosed malignancy was warranted, which confirmed AML. The malignancy-associated form of Sweet syndrome accounts for a substantial portion of cases, with approximately 21% of patients diagnosed with Sweet syndrome having an underlying malignancy, commonly a hematologic malignancy or myeloproliferative disorder with AML being the most common.¹

The differential diagnosis for Sweet syndrome includes cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, which commonly presents with symmetric palpable purpura of the legs. Lesions may be round, port wine–colored plaques and even may form ulcers, vesicles, and targetoid lesions. However, skin biopsy shows polymorphonuclear infiltrate affecting postcapillary venules, fibrinoid deposits, and extravasation of red blood cells.⁵ Leukemia cutis describes any type of leukemia that manifests in the skin. It typically presents as violaceous or red-brown papules, nodules, and plaques most commonly on the legs. Histopathology varies by immunophenotype but generally demonstrates perivascular or periadnexal involvement or a diffuse, interstitial, or nodular infiltrate of the dermis or subcutis.⁶ Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis describes an aseptic neutrophilic infiltration around eccrine coils and glands. It may present as papules or plaques that usually are erythematous but also may be pigmented. Lesions can be asymptomatic or painful as in Sweet syndrome and are distributed proximally or on the distal extremities. Histopathologic examination demonstrates the degeneration of the eccrine gland and neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrates.⁷ Lastly, necrotizing fasciitis is a life-threatening infection of the deep soft tissue and fascia, classically caused by group A Streptococcus. The infected site may have erythema, tenderness, fluctuance, necrosis, and bullae.8 Although our patient had a fever, he did not display the tachycardia, hypotension, tachypnea, and rapid deterioration that is common in necrotizing fasciitis.

Sweet syndrome may present with various morphologies within the same patient. Painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, nodules, bullae, and ulcers may be seen. A workup for an underlying malignancy may be warranted based on clinical presentation. Most patients have a rapid and dramatic response to systemic corticosteroids.

The Diagnosis: Sweet Syndrome (Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis)

A skin biopsy of the right lower extremity demonstrated diffuse interstitial, perivascular, and periadnexal neutrophilic dermal infiltrate in the reticular dermis (Figure 1), consistent with a diagnosis of Sweet syndrome without evidence of leukemia cutis or infection. The firm erythematous papulonodules with follicular accentuation on the face (Figure 2) also were confirmed as Sweet syndrome on histopathology. Concern for leukemic transformation was confirmed with bone biopsy revealing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our patient began a short course of prednisone, and the cutaneous lesions improved during hospitalization; however, he was lost to follow-up.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a rare inflammatory skin condition typically characterized by asymmetric, painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules involving the arms, face, and neck.¹ It most commonly occurs in women and typically presents in patients aged 47 to 57 years. Although the pathogenesis of neutrophilic dermatoses is not completely understood, they are believed to be due to altered expression of inflammatory cytokines, irregular neutrophil function, and a genetic predisposition.² There are 3 main categories of Sweet syndrome: classical (or idiopathic), drug induced, and malignancy associated.¹ The lesions associated with Sweet syndrome vary from a few millimeters to several centimeters and may be annular or targetoid in the later stages. They also may form bullae and ulcerate. Fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute-phase reactants also are common on presentation.1 Histopathologic analysis demonstrates an intense neutrophilic infiltrate within the reticular dermis with marked leukocytoclasia. Admixed within the neutrophil polymorphs are variable numbers of lymphocytes and histiocytes. Edema in the upper dermis also is characteristic.³ The exact pathogenesis of Sweet syndrome has yet to be elucidated but may involve a combination of cytokine dysregulation, hypersensitivity reactions, and genetics.⁴ Our case demonstrates 3 distinct morphologies of Sweet syndrome in a single patient, including classic edematous plaques, agminated targetoid plaques, and ulceration. Based on the clinical presentation, diagnostic workup for an undiagnosed malignancy was warranted, which confirmed AML. The malignancy-associated form of Sweet syndrome accounts for a substantial portion of cases, with approximately 21% of patients diagnosed with Sweet syndrome having an underlying malignancy, commonly a hematologic malignancy or myeloproliferative disorder with AML being the most common.¹

The differential diagnosis for Sweet syndrome includes cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, which commonly presents with symmetric palpable purpura of the legs. Lesions may be round, port wine–colored plaques and even may form ulcers, vesicles, and targetoid lesions. However, skin biopsy shows polymorphonuclear infiltrate affecting postcapillary venules, fibrinoid deposits, and extravasation of red blood cells.⁵ Leukemia cutis describes any type of leukemia that manifests in the skin. It typically presents as violaceous or red-brown papules, nodules, and plaques most commonly on the legs. Histopathology varies by immunophenotype but generally demonstrates perivascular or periadnexal involvement or a diffuse, interstitial, or nodular infiltrate of the dermis or subcutis.⁶ Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis describes an aseptic neutrophilic infiltration around eccrine coils and glands. It may present as papules or plaques that usually are erythematous but also may be pigmented. Lesions can be asymptomatic or painful as in Sweet syndrome and are distributed proximally or on the distal extremities. Histopathologic examination demonstrates the degeneration of the eccrine gland and neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrates.⁷ Lastly, necrotizing fasciitis is a life-threatening infection of the deep soft tissue and fascia, classically caused by group A Streptococcus. The infected site may have erythema, tenderness, fluctuance, necrosis, and bullae.8 Although our patient had a fever, he did not display the tachycardia, hypotension, tachypnea, and rapid deterioration that is common in necrotizing fasciitis.

Sweet syndrome may present with various morphologies within the same patient. Painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, nodules, bullae, and ulcers may be seen. A workup for an underlying malignancy may be warranted based on clinical presentation. Most patients have a rapid and dramatic response to systemic corticosteroids.

To the Editor:

Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that predominantly affects the muscles and skin, among other organs. Since the recognition of dermatomyositis (DM) more than 100 years ago, a variety of clinical diagnostic criteria have been utilized. Classically, DM presents with muscle weakness and a pathognomonic cutaneous macular, violaceous, erythematous eruption. The juvenile variant is defined by onset prior to 16 years of age. Histologically, these entities are indistinguishable and demonstrate an interface dermatitis with epidermal atrophy. Clinically, JDM has a higher incidence of calcinosis cutis and is not associated with an increased risk for malignancy in contrast to the adult-onset variant.¹ Panniculitis is a rare but serious complication in a subset of patients with DM and may represent a precursor to calcinosis cutis.² We describe a case of JDM-associated panniculitis that was difficult to control with prednisone and rituximab.

A 21-year-old woman with fever, fatigue, muscle pain, and new-onset swelling of 2 weeks’ duration was admitted to the hospital. She had a 5-year history of intermittent muscle weakness and concomitant rash. Prior to presentation, she had been hospitalized twice for fever of unknown origin, and the source remained undetermined. Physical examination revealed prominent facial and periorbital edema. There was tender nonpitting edema present on all 4 extremities and hyperpigmented indurated nodules on the shins (Figure 1). A full laboratory and imaging workup was performed for autoantibodies and infectious etiologies. The complete blood cell count was notable for pancytopenia, and a thorough infectious workup was negative. Creatine kinase level was within reference range. A biopsy of the right shin was performed, and histopathology revealed a lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis and mixed inflammation with neutrophils with perieccrine involvement as well as an interface dermatitis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, Grocott methenamine-silver, and Gram stains were negative. Myositis-specific antibody testing revealed anti-p155/140 autoantibodies, and magnetic resonance imaging did not reveal active myositis within the visualized muscles, consistent with stable nonprogressing DM. A diagnosis of JDM with panniculitis was made. The patient was started on oral prednisone. Subsequently, a trial of rituximab was initiated. Although the patient’s symptoms initially improved, the response was not sustained on rituximab, and the patient was continued on systemic steroids with initiation of cyclosporine.

Juvenile dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that involves systemic inflammation of the muscles, skin, and internal organs. It often can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.^2,3 Bohan and Peter^4,5 clinical criteria may help identify potential patients with JDM, but magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, and muscle biopsy often are required to confirm the diagnosis.⁶ Skin manifestations include heliotrope rash; V sign; shawl sign; Gottron papules; periorbital edema; and infrequently panniculitis, the subcutaneous inflammation of adipose tissue.^3,7

Although panniculitis is found in approximately 10% of skin biopsies in patients with DM, our patient presented with anti-p155/140 antibodies.^8-10 Fat involvement in these patients traditionally manifests as lipodystrophy. Panniculitis also may precede calcinosis cutis, a debilitating skin change that may occur in approximately 46% of patients with JDM and can cause severe morbidity.^2,6,9

Subcutaneous edema rarely is described in DM-panniculitis, present in only 6% of 86 DM patients in one study.⁷ The pathophysiology of DM may be due to antibodies that target endothelial cells and activate complement, resulting in the membranolytic attack complex. This leads to microischemia, and microinfarction of the muscle fibers has been suggested to result in edema of the subcutaneous tissue in severe cases.^7,11 Microinfarction has been found to be present 2.3 times more often in edematous DM compared with nonedematous DM.⁷ Subcutaneous edema may be an isolated presentation of DM that arises more quickly with severe disease activity. As such, recommendations have been made to consider edema in future classification schemes.⁷

Because of the severity of edematous and/or subcutaneous DM, aggressive therapy may be required. First-line therapy consists of corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents if adequate response is not achieved.^3,12 The effectiveness of rituximab in DM has been suggested.^2,12,13 The Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial (N=200) was the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to assess rituximab’s efficacy in refractory compared with early-onset inflammatory myopathies. Although outcomes were similar in both groups, 83% of patients overall, including the JDM subset, met the definition of improvement.¹² In re-examining the RIM trial data and other cases using rituximab to treat inflammatory myopathies, an overall response rate of 78.3% was observed, with 52.1% of patients with DM reporting improvement in skin lesions (N=458, pooled from 48 studies).¹³ Further analysis of the RIM data revealed that panniculitis affected 10.4% of patients with JDM at baseline, which decreased to 6.8% at 36 weeks of rituximab therapy (N=48).¹²

As exhibited in our patient, subcutaneous tissue involvement, including calcinosis cutis and panniculitis, is seen more often in JDM than adult DM.^2,6 However, panniculitis in anti-p155/140 patients is rare. Our patient also had antibody positivity, which likely predisposed her to a more severe course. Despite not having sustained improvement on rituximab, initiating aggressive therapy earlier in the disease course may be beneficial, and our patient continues with alternative therapies.

To the Editor:

Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that predominantly affects the muscles and skin, among other organs. Since the recognition of dermatomyositis (DM) more than 100 years ago, a variety of clinical diagnostic criteria have been utilized. Classically, DM presents with muscle weakness and a pathognomonic cutaneous macular, violaceous, erythematous eruption. The juvenile variant is defined by onset prior to 16 years of age. Histologically, these entities are indistinguishable and demonstrate an interface dermatitis with epidermal atrophy. Clinically, JDM has a higher incidence of calcinosis cutis and is not associated with an increased risk for malignancy in contrast to the adult-onset variant.¹ Panniculitis is a rare but serious complication in a subset of patients with DM and may represent a precursor to calcinosis cutis.² We describe a case of JDM-associated panniculitis that was difficult to control with prednisone and rituximab.

A 21-year-old woman with fever, fatigue, muscle pain, and new-onset swelling of 2 weeks’ duration was admitted to the hospital. She had a 5-year history of intermittent muscle weakness and concomitant rash. Prior to presentation, she had been hospitalized twice for fever of unknown origin, and the source remained undetermined. Physical examination revealed prominent facial and periorbital edema. There was tender nonpitting edema present on all 4 extremities and hyperpigmented indurated nodules on the shins (Figure 1). A full laboratory and imaging workup was performed for autoantibodies and infectious etiologies. The complete blood cell count was notable for pancytopenia, and a thorough infectious workup was negative. Creatine kinase level was within reference range. A biopsy of the right shin was performed, and histopathology revealed a lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis and mixed inflammation with neutrophils with perieccrine involvement as well as an interface dermatitis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, Grocott methenamine-silver, and Gram stains were negative. Myositis-specific antibody testing revealed anti-p155/140 autoantibodies, and magnetic resonance imaging did not reveal active myositis within the visualized muscles, consistent with stable nonprogressing DM. A diagnosis of JDM with panniculitis was made. The patient was started on oral prednisone. Subsequently, a trial of rituximab was initiated. Although the patient’s symptoms initially improved, the response was not sustained on rituximab, and the patient was continued on systemic steroids with initiation of cyclosporine.

Juvenile dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that involves systemic inflammation of the muscles, skin, and internal organs. It often can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.^2,3 Bohan and Peter^4,5 clinical criteria may help identify potential patients with JDM, but magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, and muscle biopsy often are required to confirm the diagnosis.⁶ Skin manifestations include heliotrope rash; V sign; shawl sign; Gottron papules; periorbital edema; and infrequently panniculitis, the subcutaneous inflammation of adipose tissue.^3,7

Although panniculitis is found in approximately 10% of skin biopsies in patients with DM, our patient presented with anti-p155/140 antibodies.^8-10 Fat involvement in these patients traditionally manifests as lipodystrophy. Panniculitis also may precede calcinosis cutis, a debilitating skin change that may occur in approximately 46% of patients with JDM and can cause severe morbidity.^2,6,9

Subcutaneous edema rarely is described in DM-panniculitis, present in only 6% of 86 DM patients in one study.⁷ The pathophysiology of DM may be due to antibodies that target endothelial cells and activate complement, resulting in the membranolytic attack complex. This leads to microischemia, and microinfarction of the muscle fibers has been suggested to result in edema of the subcutaneous tissue in severe cases.^7,11 Microinfarction has been found to be present 2.3 times more often in edematous DM compared with nonedematous DM.⁷ Subcutaneous edema may be an isolated presentation of DM that arises more quickly with severe disease activity. As such, recommendations have been made to consider edema in future classification schemes.⁷

Because of the severity of edematous and/or subcutaneous DM, aggressive therapy may be required. First-line therapy consists of corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents if adequate response is not achieved.^3,12 The effectiveness of rituximab in DM has been suggested.^2,12,13 The Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial (N=200) was the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to assess rituximab’s efficacy in refractory compared with early-onset inflammatory myopathies. Although outcomes were similar in both groups, 83% of patients overall, including the JDM subset, met the definition of improvement.¹² In re-examining the RIM trial data and other cases using rituximab to treat inflammatory myopathies, an overall response rate of 78.3% was observed, with 52.1% of patients with DM reporting improvement in skin lesions (N=458, pooled from 48 studies).¹³ Further analysis of the RIM data revealed that panniculitis affected 10.4% of patients with JDM at baseline, which decreased to 6.8% at 36 weeks of rituximab therapy (N=48).¹²

As exhibited in our patient, subcutaneous tissue involvement, including calcinosis cutis and panniculitis, is seen more often in JDM than adult DM.^2,6 However, panniculitis in anti-p155/140 patients is rare. Our patient also had antibody positivity, which likely predisposed her to a more severe course. Despite not having sustained improvement on rituximab, initiating aggressive therapy earlier in the disease course may be beneficial, and our patient continues with alternative therapies.

To the Editor:

Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that predominantly affects the muscles and skin, among other organs. Since the recognition of dermatomyositis (DM) more than 100 years ago, a variety of clinical diagnostic criteria have been utilized. Classically, DM presents with muscle weakness and a pathognomonic cutaneous macular, violaceous, erythematous eruption. The juvenile variant is defined by onset prior to 16 years of age. Histologically, these entities are indistinguishable and demonstrate an interface dermatitis with epidermal atrophy. Clinically, JDM has a higher incidence of calcinosis cutis and is not associated with an increased risk for malignancy in contrast to the adult-onset variant.¹ Panniculitis is a rare but serious complication in a subset of patients with DM and may represent a precursor to calcinosis cutis.² We describe a case of JDM-associated panniculitis that was difficult to control with prednisone and rituximab.

A 21-year-old woman with fever, fatigue, muscle pain, and new-onset swelling of 2 weeks’ duration was admitted to the hospital. She had a 5-year history of intermittent muscle weakness and concomitant rash. Prior to presentation, she had been hospitalized twice for fever of unknown origin, and the source remained undetermined. Physical examination revealed prominent facial and periorbital edema. There was tender nonpitting edema present on all 4 extremities and hyperpigmented indurated nodules on the shins (Figure 1). A full laboratory and imaging workup was performed for autoantibodies and infectious etiologies. The complete blood cell count was notable for pancytopenia, and a thorough infectious workup was negative. Creatine kinase level was within reference range. A biopsy of the right shin was performed, and histopathology revealed a lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis and mixed inflammation with neutrophils with perieccrine involvement as well as an interface dermatitis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, Grocott methenamine-silver, and Gram stains were negative. Myositis-specific antibody testing revealed anti-p155/140 autoantibodies, and magnetic resonance imaging did not reveal active myositis within the visualized muscles, consistent with stable nonprogressing DM. A diagnosis of JDM with panniculitis was made. The patient was started on oral prednisone. Subsequently, a trial of rituximab was initiated. Although the patient’s symptoms initially improved, the response was not sustained on rituximab, and the patient was continued on systemic steroids with initiation of cyclosporine.

Juvenile dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that involves systemic inflammation of the muscles, skin, and internal organs. It often can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.^2,3 Bohan and Peter^4,5 clinical criteria may help identify potential patients with JDM, but magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, and muscle biopsy often are required to confirm the diagnosis.⁶ Skin manifestations include heliotrope rash; V sign; shawl sign; Gottron papules; periorbital edema; and infrequently panniculitis, the subcutaneous inflammation of adipose tissue.^3,7

Although panniculitis is found in approximately 10% of skin biopsies in patients with DM, our patient presented with anti-p155/140 antibodies.^8-10 Fat involvement in these patients traditionally manifests as lipodystrophy. Panniculitis also may precede calcinosis cutis, a debilitating skin change that may occur in approximately 46% of patients with JDM and can cause severe morbidity.^2,6,9

Subcutaneous edema rarely is described in DM-panniculitis, present in only 6% of 86 DM patients in one study.⁷ The pathophysiology of DM may be due to antibodies that target endothelial cells and activate complement, resulting in the membranolytic attack complex. This leads to microischemia, and microinfarction of the muscle fibers has been suggested to result in edema of the subcutaneous tissue in severe cases.^7,11 Microinfarction has been found to be present 2.3 times more often in edematous DM compared with nonedematous DM.⁷ Subcutaneous edema may be an isolated presentation of DM that arises more quickly with severe disease activity. As such, recommendations have been made to consider edema in future classification schemes.⁷

Because of the severity of edematous and/or subcutaneous DM, aggressive therapy may be required. First-line therapy consists of corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents if adequate response is not achieved.^3,12 The effectiveness of rituximab in DM has been suggested.^2,12,13 The Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial (N=200) was the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to assess rituximab’s efficacy in refractory compared with early-onset inflammatory myopathies. Although outcomes were similar in both groups, 83% of patients overall, including the JDM subset, met the definition of improvement.¹² In re-examining the RIM trial data and other cases using rituximab to treat inflammatory myopathies, an overall response rate of 78.3% was observed, with 52.1% of patients with DM reporting improvement in skin lesions (N=458, pooled from 48 studies).¹³ Further analysis of the RIM data revealed that panniculitis affected 10.4% of patients with JDM at baseline, which decreased to 6.8% at 36 weeks of rituximab therapy (N=48).¹²

As exhibited in our patient, subcutaneous tissue involvement, including calcinosis cutis and panniculitis, is seen more often in JDM than adult DM.^2,6 However, panniculitis in anti-p155/140 patients is rare. Our patient also had antibody positivity, which likely predisposed her to a more severe course. Despite not having sustained improvement on rituximab, initiating aggressive therapy earlier in the disease course may be beneficial, and our patient continues with alternative therapies.

To the Editor:

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a neurologic condition characterized by chronic pain and sensory changes, including allodynia and hyperalgesia, that usually affect the extremities.^1,2 The syndrome is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as a condition that appears regionally after an injury, with a variety of symptoms that often exceed the expected clinical course both in magnitude and duration, causing impairment of motor function and variable progression.³

Although CRPS most often is described following minor peripheral trauma, other precipitating causes include surgery and vascular events.⁴ Additional features of the condition include autonomic dysfunction, edema, and trophic changes.¹ Symptoms of CRPS traditionally present in 3 stages, with notable skin changes most often documented in stages II and III.²

Skin changes are a known manifestation of the syndrome, but reports in the dermatologic literature are scarce. Qureshi and Friedman⁵ identified only 23 articles in the dermatology literature since 1990 in which skin changes in CRPS were described. We present a patient with a diagnosis of CRPS who developed hyperpigmentation and sclerotic changes, including skin thickening, induration, and skin tightening.

A middle-aged Black woman presented to dermatology for evaluation of progressive hyperpigmentation, hyperhidrosis, and sclerotic changes to the skin. Approximately 3 years prior, the patient was given a diagnosis of CRPS of the hands and feet. Pain symptoms started approximately 3 years prior to the onset of symptoms. Symptoms started in the left hand and eventually spread to the right arm, left leg, and subsequently to the right leg. The first dermatologic change the patient noticed was tightening of the skin in the affected area that led to decreased mobility, which improved over time—partly on its own and partly with physical therapy.

A biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist at the initial presentation demonstrated sclerodermalike changes, which were treated with creams but without improvement. Scleroderma was later ruled out by the same dermatologist. Skin tightening improved over time, with complete resolution approximately 1 year after the onset of symptoms.

Upon presentation to our clinic, the patient reported continuing intermittent flares of CRPS; however, she said she was most concerned about diffuse hyperpigmentation, which spread to include the face, arms, abdomen, legs (Figure), and buttocks and persisted after skin tightening resolved.

To treat the hyperpigmentation, a decision was made to first focus on a localized area. Facial hyperpigmentation was chosen because it was of greatest concern to the patient. She was instructed to use azelaic acid gel 15% in the morning, tretinoin cream 0.05% at night, and sunscreen daily. The patient had mild improvement in hyperpigmentation after a 4-month period but has been inconsistent in follow-up. She continues to have intermittent flares of CRPS, which may interfere with her response to treatment. In addition to the aforementioned regimen of azelaic acid gel and tretinoin, she has continued to work with a pain specialist to better control the neurologic symptoms and pain associated with her CRPS.

Complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition characterized by chronic pain, affects women 3 times more often than men. The syndrome is more common in the fourth and fifth decades of life.^1,2

There are 2 subtypes of CRPS. Type I (also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy) is more common and occurs following minor trauma without peripheral nerve injury. Type II (otherwise known as causalgia) occurs following more notable trauma with injury to a peripheral nerve.^1,6 Onset of symptoms most often is secondary to minor peripheral trauma. More common triggers include soft-tissue injury (40%); fractures and subsequent orthopedic surgery (25%); and visceral lesions, such as myocardial infarction and cerebral vascular accident (12%).⁵ Regardless of the inciting event, prolonged immobilization of a limb has been identified as an important predisposing factor. One study found that 47% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRPS previously underwent immobilization of the same limb.⁷

The pathogenesis of CRPS has not been fully elucidated. Possible explanations include central nervous system sensitization to thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli; sympathetic dysfunction leading to vasomotor, pseudomotor, and trophic changes; and inflammatory cytokine release and microcirculatory dysfunction, causing tissue injury.^1,2,6

The diagnosis of CRPS is a based on clinical findings. Using the Budapest Criteria established to define CRPS, a clinical diagnosis can be made when all of the following criteria are met: chronic continuing pain disproportionate to any inciting event; 1 or more reported symptoms from 3 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic; 1 or more sign at the time of evaluation in 2 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic.⁸ Dermatologic findings are a common presenting feature of CRPS and are included in the Budapest Criteria used for diagnosis. In a retrospective chart review (N=26), researchers found that vascular findings were the most common dermatologic manifestation of CRPS—edema in 58% of patients and erythema in 54%.⁹ Other common manifestations included dermatitis (35%), erythematous papules (23%), and cutaneous atrophy (23%). Hyperpigmentation, which was present in our patient, was seen in 8% of patients in the chart review.⁹

Complex regional pain syndrome progresses through 3 stages; dermatologic changes are present in each stage and are more severe in later stages. Stage I lasts 2 or 3 months and is characterized by onset of pain, usually burning type, accompanied by allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early vasomotor and pseudomotor changes, such as erythema and edema, may become apparent.^1,2 Stage II lasts 3 to 6 months and is characterized by more severe edema and more obvious trophic changes. Functional limitations, such as limited range of motion and muscle weakness, begin to manifest. Stage III—the final and most severe stage—is characterized by obvious hair, skin, and nail changes, as well as functional limitations.^1,2 The waxy thickened skin changes and hyperpigmentation observed in our patient are characteristic of stage III. Furthermore, our patient experienced decreased mobility and limited range of motion secondary to tightening of the skin, a characteristic motor change of late-stage CRPS. Although chronic pain and allodynia are the most common characteristics of CRPS, skin changes also can cause notable distress and early dermatologic manifestations can be a chief concern.

Dermatologic management is focused to address the specific skin changes of CRPS. However, traditional treatment of the common dermatologic findings of CRPS is difficult and often unsuccessful; instead, the most successful treatment of skin findings involves controlling the underlying CRPS.⁹ Current treatment options include removal of any nidus of tissue trauma, sympathetic neural blockade with a local anesthetic, spinal cord stimulation to interrupt dysregulated sympathetic innervation, and physiotherapy or occupational therapy to desensitize skin.^1,10

Given the complexity of CRPS and the variability of its presentation, management of the syndrome and its associated dermatologic conditions often requires interdisciplinary care and coordination of multiple specialties. Dermatologists can play an important role in both identification of CRPS and co-management of affected patients. Early diagnosis of CRPS has been universally identified as a key prognostic factor. For that reason, dermatologists should be aware of CRPS and include the syndrome in the differential diagnosis when presented with severe cutaneous findings following trauma either with or without peripheral nerve damage, suggestive of CRPS.

To the Editor:

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a neurologic condition characterized by chronic pain and sensory changes, including allodynia and hyperalgesia, that usually affect the extremities.^1,2 The syndrome is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as a condition that appears regionally after an injury, with a variety of symptoms that often exceed the expected clinical course both in magnitude and duration, causing impairment of motor function and variable progression.³

Although CRPS most often is described following minor peripheral trauma, other precipitating causes include surgery and vascular events.⁴ Additional features of the condition include autonomic dysfunction, edema, and trophic changes.¹ Symptoms of CRPS traditionally present in 3 stages, with notable skin changes most often documented in stages II and III.²

Skin changes are a known manifestation of the syndrome, but reports in the dermatologic literature are scarce. Qureshi and Friedman⁵ identified only 23 articles in the dermatology literature since 1990 in which skin changes in CRPS were described. We present a patient with a diagnosis of CRPS who developed hyperpigmentation and sclerotic changes, including skin thickening, induration, and skin tightening.

A middle-aged Black woman presented to dermatology for evaluation of progressive hyperpigmentation, hyperhidrosis, and sclerotic changes to the skin. Approximately 3 years prior, the patient was given a diagnosis of CRPS of the hands and feet. Pain symptoms started approximately 3 years prior to the onset of symptoms. Symptoms started in the left hand and eventually spread to the right arm, left leg, and subsequently to the right leg. The first dermatologic change the patient noticed was tightening of the skin in the affected area that led to decreased mobility, which improved over time—partly on its own and partly with physical therapy.

A biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist at the initial presentation demonstrated sclerodermalike changes, which were treated with creams but without improvement. Scleroderma was later ruled out by the same dermatologist. Skin tightening improved over time, with complete resolution approximately 1 year after the onset of symptoms.

Upon presentation to our clinic, the patient reported continuing intermittent flares of CRPS; however, she said she was most concerned about diffuse hyperpigmentation, which spread to include the face, arms, abdomen, legs (Figure), and buttocks and persisted after skin tightening resolved.

To treat the hyperpigmentation, a decision was made to first focus on a localized area. Facial hyperpigmentation was chosen because it was of greatest concern to the patient. She was instructed to use azelaic acid gel 15% in the morning, tretinoin cream 0.05% at night, and sunscreen daily. The patient had mild improvement in hyperpigmentation after a 4-month period but has been inconsistent in follow-up. She continues to have intermittent flares of CRPS, which may interfere with her response to treatment. In addition to the aforementioned regimen of azelaic acid gel and tretinoin, she has continued to work with a pain specialist to better control the neurologic symptoms and pain associated with her CRPS.

Complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition characterized by chronic pain, affects women 3 times more often than men. The syndrome is more common in the fourth and fifth decades of life.^1,2

There are 2 subtypes of CRPS. Type I (also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy) is more common and occurs following minor trauma without peripheral nerve injury. Type II (otherwise known as causalgia) occurs following more notable trauma with injury to a peripheral nerve.^1,6 Onset of symptoms most often is secondary to minor peripheral trauma. More common triggers include soft-tissue injury (40%); fractures and subsequent orthopedic surgery (25%); and visceral lesions, such as myocardial infarction and cerebral vascular accident (12%).⁵ Regardless of the inciting event, prolonged immobilization of a limb has been identified as an important predisposing factor. One study found that 47% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRPS previously underwent immobilization of the same limb.⁷

The pathogenesis of CRPS has not been fully elucidated. Possible explanations include central nervous system sensitization to thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli; sympathetic dysfunction leading to vasomotor, pseudomotor, and trophic changes; and inflammatory cytokine release and microcirculatory dysfunction, causing tissue injury.^1,2,6

The diagnosis of CRPS is a based on clinical findings. Using the Budapest Criteria established to define CRPS, a clinical diagnosis can be made when all of the following criteria are met: chronic continuing pain disproportionate to any inciting event; 1 or more reported symptoms from 3 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic; 1 or more sign at the time of evaluation in 2 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic.⁸ Dermatologic findings are a common presenting feature of CRPS and are included in the Budapest Criteria used for diagnosis. In a retrospective chart review (N=26), researchers found that vascular findings were the most common dermatologic manifestation of CRPS—edema in 58% of patients and erythema in 54%.⁹ Other common manifestations included dermatitis (35%), erythematous papules (23%), and cutaneous atrophy (23%). Hyperpigmentation, which was present in our patient, was seen in 8% of patients in the chart review.⁹

Complex regional pain syndrome progresses through 3 stages; dermatologic changes are present in each stage and are more severe in later stages. Stage I lasts 2 or 3 months and is characterized by onset of pain, usually burning type, accompanied by allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early vasomotor and pseudomotor changes, such as erythema and edema, may become apparent.^1,2 Stage II lasts 3 to 6 months and is characterized by more severe edema and more obvious trophic changes. Functional limitations, such as limited range of motion and muscle weakness, begin to manifest. Stage III—the final and most severe stage—is characterized by obvious hair, skin, and nail changes, as well as functional limitations.^1,2 The waxy thickened skin changes and hyperpigmentation observed in our patient are characteristic of stage III. Furthermore, our patient experienced decreased mobility and limited range of motion secondary to tightening of the skin, a characteristic motor change of late-stage CRPS. Although chronic pain and allodynia are the most common characteristics of CRPS, skin changes also can cause notable distress and early dermatologic manifestations can be a chief concern.

Dermatologic management is focused to address the specific skin changes of CRPS. However, traditional treatment of the common dermatologic findings of CRPS is difficult and often unsuccessful; instead, the most successful treatment of skin findings involves controlling the underlying CRPS.⁹ Current treatment options include removal of any nidus of tissue trauma, sympathetic neural blockade with a local anesthetic, spinal cord stimulation to interrupt dysregulated sympathetic innervation, and physiotherapy or occupational therapy to desensitize skin.^1,10

Given the complexity of CRPS and the variability of its presentation, management of the syndrome and its associated dermatologic conditions often requires interdisciplinary care and coordination of multiple specialties. Dermatologists can play an important role in both identification of CRPS and co-management of affected patients. Early diagnosis of CRPS has been universally identified as a key prognostic factor. For that reason, dermatologists should be aware of CRPS and include the syndrome in the differential diagnosis when presented with severe cutaneous findings following trauma either with or without peripheral nerve damage, suggestive of CRPS.

To the Editor:

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a neurologic condition characterized by chronic pain and sensory changes, including allodynia and hyperalgesia, that usually affect the extremities.^1,2 The syndrome is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as a condition that appears regionally after an injury, with a variety of symptoms that often exceed the expected clinical course both in magnitude and duration, causing impairment of motor function and variable progression.³

Although CRPS most often is described following minor peripheral trauma, other precipitating causes include surgery and vascular events.⁴ Additional features of the condition include autonomic dysfunction, edema, and trophic changes.¹ Symptoms of CRPS traditionally present in 3 stages, with notable skin changes most often documented in stages II and III.²

Skin changes are a known manifestation of the syndrome, but reports in the dermatologic literature are scarce. Qureshi and Friedman⁵ identified only 23 articles in the dermatology literature since 1990 in which skin changes in CRPS were described. We present a patient with a diagnosis of CRPS who developed hyperpigmentation and sclerotic changes, including skin thickening, induration, and skin tightening.

A middle-aged Black woman presented to dermatology for evaluation of progressive hyperpigmentation, hyperhidrosis, and sclerotic changes to the skin. Approximately 3 years prior, the patient was given a diagnosis of CRPS of the hands and feet. Pain symptoms started approximately 3 years prior to the onset of symptoms. Symptoms started in the left hand and eventually spread to the right arm, left leg, and subsequently to the right leg. The first dermatologic change the patient noticed was tightening of the skin in the affected area that led to decreased mobility, which improved over time—partly on its own and partly with physical therapy.

A biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist at the initial presentation demonstrated sclerodermalike changes, which were treated with creams but without improvement. Scleroderma was later ruled out by the same dermatologist. Skin tightening improved over time, with complete resolution approximately 1 year after the onset of symptoms.

Upon presentation to our clinic, the patient reported continuing intermittent flares of CRPS; however, she said she was most concerned about diffuse hyperpigmentation, which spread to include the face, arms, abdomen, legs (Figure), and buttocks and persisted after skin tightening resolved.

To treat the hyperpigmentation, a decision was made to first focus on a localized area. Facial hyperpigmentation was chosen because it was of greatest concern to the patient. She was instructed to use azelaic acid gel 15% in the morning, tretinoin cream 0.05% at night, and sunscreen daily. The patient had mild improvement in hyperpigmentation after a 4-month period but has been inconsistent in follow-up. She continues to have intermittent flares of CRPS, which may interfere with her response to treatment. In addition to the aforementioned regimen of azelaic acid gel and tretinoin, she has continued to work with a pain specialist to better control the neurologic symptoms and pain associated with her CRPS.

Complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition characterized by chronic pain, affects women 3 times more often than men. The syndrome is more common in the fourth and fifth decades of life.^1,2

There are 2 subtypes of CRPS. Type I (also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy) is more common and occurs following minor trauma without peripheral nerve injury. Type II (otherwise known as causalgia) occurs following more notable trauma with injury to a peripheral nerve.^1,6 Onset of symptoms most often is secondary to minor peripheral trauma. More common triggers include soft-tissue injury (40%); fractures and subsequent orthopedic surgery (25%); and visceral lesions, such as myocardial infarction and cerebral vascular accident (12%).⁵ Regardless of the inciting event, prolonged immobilization of a limb has been identified as an important predisposing factor. One study found that 47% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRPS previously underwent immobilization of the same limb.⁷

The pathogenesis of CRPS has not been fully elucidated. Possible explanations include central nervous system sensitization to thermal, mechanical, and pain stimuli; sympathetic dysfunction leading to vasomotor, pseudomotor, and trophic changes; and inflammatory cytokine release and microcirculatory dysfunction, causing tissue injury.^1,2,6

The diagnosis of CRPS is a based on clinical findings. Using the Budapest Criteria established to define CRPS, a clinical diagnosis can be made when all of the following criteria are met: chronic continuing pain disproportionate to any inciting event; 1 or more reported symptoms from 3 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic; 1 or more sign at the time of evaluation in 2 or more of the categories of involvement including sensory, vasomotor, pseudomotor, edema, and motor or trophic.⁸ Dermatologic findings are a common presenting feature of CRPS and are included in the Budapest Criteria used for diagnosis. In a retrospective chart review (N=26), researchers found that vascular findings were the most common dermatologic manifestation of CRPS—edema in 58% of patients and erythema in 54%.⁹ Other common manifestations included dermatitis (35%), erythematous papules (23%), and cutaneous atrophy (23%). Hyperpigmentation, which was present in our patient, was seen in 8% of patients in the chart review.⁹

Complex regional pain syndrome progresses through 3 stages; dermatologic changes are present in each stage and are more severe in later stages. Stage I lasts 2 or 3 months and is characterized by onset of pain, usually burning type, accompanied by allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early vasomotor and pseudomotor changes, such as erythema and edema, may become apparent.^1,2 Stage II lasts 3 to 6 months and is characterized by more severe edema and more obvious trophic changes. Functional limitations, such as limited range of motion and muscle weakness, begin to manifest. Stage III—the final and most severe stage—is characterized by obvious hair, skin, and nail changes, as well as functional limitations.^1,2 The waxy thickened skin changes and hyperpigmentation observed in our patient are characteristic of stage III. Furthermore, our patient experienced decreased mobility and limited range of motion secondary to tightening of the skin, a characteristic motor change of late-stage CRPS. Although chronic pain and allodynia are the most common characteristics of CRPS, skin changes also can cause notable distress and early dermatologic manifestations can be a chief concern.

Dermatologic management is focused to address the specific skin changes of CRPS. However, traditional treatment of the common dermatologic findings of CRPS is difficult and often unsuccessful; instead, the most successful treatment of skin findings involves controlling the underlying CRPS.⁹ Current treatment options include removal of any nidus of tissue trauma, sympathetic neural blockade with a local anesthetic, spinal cord stimulation to interrupt dysregulated sympathetic innervation, and physiotherapy or occupational therapy to desensitize skin.^1,10

Given the complexity of CRPS and the variability of its presentation, management of the syndrome and its associated dermatologic conditions often requires interdisciplinary care and coordination of multiple specialties. Dermatologists can play an important role in both identification of CRPS and co-management of affected patients. Early diagnosis of CRPS has been universally identified as a key prognostic factor. For that reason, dermatologists should be aware of CRPS and include the syndrome in the differential diagnosis when presented with severe cutaneous findings following trauma either with or without peripheral nerve damage, suggestive of CRPS.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Case Report

A 7-year-old girl who was otherwise healthy was referred by pediatric gastroenterology for evaluation of cutaneous Crohn disease (CD). The patient had a 4-year history of persistent lip swelling and a 3-year history of asymmetric erythematous labial swelling and perianal erythema with skin tags. She had been applying the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.03% 1 or 2 times daily to her lesions with minimal improvement. She did not have a medical history of recurrent or unusual infectious diseases. There was no family history of autoimmune disease.

The patient and her guardian reported intermittent perianal pain but denied constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and blood in the stool. She denied throat and tongue swelling, dysphagia, dyspnea, drooling, facial paralysis, and eyelid edema. She was a well-nourished child whose height and weight percentiles tracked at 30% and 25%, respectively. Physical examination revealed confluent symmetric lip swelling with mild angular cheilitis. Multiple 1- to 2-mm white pustules with pinpoint erosions covered the upper and lower labial mucosa and extended onto the buccal mucosa (Figure 1). She had symmetric erythema and swelling of the left labia majora extending to and involving the left perianal mucosa. Three perianal erythematous skin tags and a perianal fissure were identified.

The patient had been assessed 2 years earlier by pediatric dermatology and gastroenterology with an extensive evaluation that favored a diagnosis of cutaneous CD because the combination of orofacial granulomatosis (OFG), vulvar edema, and perianal skin tags is strongly associated.^1-3 Contact dermatitis affecting the mouth was considered; however, allergen testing did not demonstrate a trigger.

A trial of a benzoate- and cinnamon-free diet, which has been reported to improve OFG,⁴ did not provide symptomatic improvement. Topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus reduced the perioral erythema, but the swelling persisted. An infectious cause was considered; however, topical mupirocin had no effect, and amoxicillin resulted in oral candidiasis.

A perianal biopsy revealed a granulomatous dermatitis. Fungal and bacterial cultures were negative. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and a fecal calprotectin assay were not suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A complete blood cell count and QuantiFERON-TB Gold test measuring the immune response to tuberculosis antigens were normal. Chronic granulomatous disease, RAG1/RAG2 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, and NOD2 defects were ruled out with normal tests of dihydrorhodamine, quantitative immunoglobulins, and toll-like receptors.

Because of the discomfort associated with the patient’s lesions, she was offered treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab. These agents had been offered since the onset of symptoms; however, her parents declined systemic medication unless she developed GI involvement. Instead, the tacrolimus concentration was increased to 0.1% applied to the lips, labia, and perianal area, and fluocinonide gel 0.05% applied nightly to the oral pustules was added.

Two months later the patient had notably fewer oral pustules and diminished erythema but only slightly reduced oral, vulvar, and perianal swelling. A trial of oral metronidazole, which has been reported to clear a patient with cutaneous CD,⁵ was discontinued by her parents after 6 weeks because of a lack of interval improvement.

One year later, a pre-existing perianal skin tag doubled in size and became exquisitely tender. The calprotectin level—previously within reference range at less than 16 μg/g—was now elevated at 149 μg/g (reference range, 1–120 μg/g) and increased to 336 μg/g 3 weeks later. Testing for C-reactive protein, zinc, and stool occult blood; a comprehensive metabolic panel; and a complete blood cell count were unremarkable.

Repeat upper and lower GI endoscopy did not suggest CD. A biopsy using direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was obtained to evaluate for pyostomatitis vegetans (PSV) and rule out pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau (PVH). Biopsy of a pustule was attempted but was challenging because of the patient’s age and difficulty cooperating.

The captured biopsy did not demonstrate the intended pustule; instead, it included less-affected mucosa and was obtained during topical treatment when few pustules and erosions persisted. Pathologic analysis revealed noncaseating granulomas without an increase in microabscesses, neutrophils, or eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence staining for IgG, IgA, and C3 and indirect immunofluorescence staining for desmoglein-1 and desmoglein-3 antibodies were negative. Although the biopsy did not capture the intended pustule, diagnosis of PV was made based on clinical features and the constellation of cutaneous findings associated with IBD.

Intralesional triamcinolone, which has been of benefit for pediatric patients with orofacial granulomatosis,^1,6,7 was instituted and normalized the vulva and perianal mucosa; however, lip swelling improved only minimally.

Comment

Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by multiple white or yellow, friable, miliary pustules that rupture, leaving behind ulcerations and erosions that cause a varying degree of oral pain.⁸ The disorder can involve any area of the oral mucosa—most often the labia-attached gingiva, soft and hard palates, buccal mucosa, vestibule, and tonsillar areas—but often spares the floor of the mouth and tongue.^8-11 The term pyostomatitis vegetans was proposed in 1949 by McCarthy¹² when he noted in a patient who presented with the characteristic appearance of the oral mucosa, though cases of vaginal, nasal, and periocular involvement have been reported.^8,13,14

Histopathology—Pyostomatitis vegetans displays pseudoepithelial hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and intraepithelial or subepithelial microabscesses (or both) with neutrophils and eosinophils.^8,9,15 There are a few possible explanations for this patient’s lack of tissue eosinophilia. It has been theorized that the presence of granulomas could mask concurrent PSV¹⁶ or that tissue in PSV contains fewer eosinophils as the disorder progresses.¹¹ The oral biopsy obtained from our patient did not capture a pustule, and the condition had noticeably improved with topical tacrolimus at the time of biopsy; therefore, neither neutrophils nor eosinophils were identified. Peripheral eosinophilia, which is present in 42% to 90% of cases of PSV,^9,17 can be a diagnostic clue.¹⁸ However, PE is associated with IBD,²⁴ which usually occurs with PSV, so the absence of peripheral eosinophilia in our patient may be explained by her lack of bowel disease.

Pathogenesis—The pathogenesis of PSV is unknown. A proposed etiology includes cross-reacting antigens in the bowel and skin secondary to IBD as well as an aberrant immune response to an unidentified factor.⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans is considered by many to be the mucosal variant of pyodermatitis vegetans,^9,15,19 a neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by asymmetric, crusted, erythematous papulopustules that extend peripherally and coalesce to form large vegetating plaques. These lesions commonly manifest in the axillary folds, groin, and scalp and can involve the face, trunk, and distal extremities.^9,18 Infection has been suggested as a cause of PSV, though cultures for pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi consistently show only normal flora.²⁰ Zinc deficiency attributed to malabsorption from CD was reported in an adult with PSV.²¹ The PSV resolved after 6 weeks of zinc supplementation.

Differential Diagnosis—The main entity in the clinical differential diagnosis for PSV is PVH, which is considered a variant of pemphigus vulgaris. Pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau presents with pustules and progresses to hyperpigmented vegetative plaques with peripheral hypertrophic granulation tissue.²² The clinical and histological presentation of PVH can be similar to PSV; in PVH, however, DIF demonstrates intercellular IgG and C3 due to circulating IgG autoantibodies specific for desmoglein 3, a cell adhesion molecule.^22-24 In PSV, DIF typically is negative for IgG, IgA, and C3.⁸ Immunohistochemical findings of PSV may overlap with IgA pemphigus, IgG/IgA pemphigus, and IgG pemphigus, which has sparked debate if PSV is an autoimmune blistering disorder or a secondary finding of epithelial injury.^9,18,24

Pyostomatitis vegetans is most prevalent in patients aged 20 to 59 years²⁵ but can occur at any age.^8,19 Overall, extraintestinal symptoms, including mucocutaneous findings, are common in pediatric patients—in 30% to 71% of children with CD and 21% to 22% of children with ulcerative colitis²⁶—and can predate onset of GI symptoms in 6% of pediatric patients.²⁷

Oral disease is common in CD; manifestations are listed in the Table.^28,29 In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, 42% (20/48) had oral manifestations identified at diagnosis²⁸; in a similar study of 25 children, researchers noted that 48% (12/25) had disease-specific oral lesions.²⁹ None of these children recognized the oral findings prior to the onset of systemic symptoms.²⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans was the least common oral manifestation, reported in 1 of 73 patients in the 2 studies combined.^28,29

Two recent articles that looked at PSV in pediatric and adolescent populations identified only 9 patients with PSV.^24,30 Only 2 patients (siblings) had documented onset of PSV before 12 years of age,³¹ which suggests an underlying genetic predisposition in young children.

It has been reported that active or subclinical (ie, asymptomatic with positive endoscopic findings) IBD in adults precedes onset of PSV, which may be considered a sign of relapse.^9,30 However, PSV is incredibly rare in children and adolescents and can be an early finding of IBD in children.^16,31,32

Our patient has not developed GI involvement since her initial presentation 5 years prior, though another pediatric patient developed symptomatic CD 9 years after onset of OFG.⁵ A retrospective review of pediatric OFG without CD met criteria for CD at a median of 3.1 years (range, 0.4–6.9 years).³³ Regrettably, the early presence of PSV has been associated with future progression to CD and a complicated disease course.^12,34

Management—Pyoderma stomatitis vegetans is treated with management of underlying IBD,⁸ with scarce literature available regarding pediatric patients. Oral lesions have been treated with antiseptics and topical corticosteroids, though these have limited benefit.⁸ In an adult with IBD, topical tacrolimus initially cleared PSV; however, lesions recurred until mesalamine was initiated.³⁵ Systemic steroids were effective in a 16-year-old patient with CD and PSV,¹² but recurrence is common after corticosteroids are stopped.³⁴

Some patients benefit from steroid-sparing medications, such as dapsone, azathioprine, sulfamethoxypyridazine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors such as infliximab and adalimumab.^{8,9,15,23,34,36} A 12-year-old patient with pyodermatitis–PSV without intestinal disease was treated with prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine with improvement but not complete resolution of oral erosions after 18 weeks of treatment.³² A 15-year-old patient with CD and pyodermatitis–PSV did not show improvement on prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine but rapidly responded to infliximab.²³ Infliximab led to complete clearance of oral lesions in an adult with severe fistulizing CD who developed PSV.¹¹ However, 2 adolescent patients with CD developed PSV while on adalimumab,^6,34 though 1 did improve after increasing adalimumab from once to twice weekly.⁶

Conclusion

The case described here—PSV in a prepubertal 7-year-old with multiple cutaneous findings suggestive of CD, including OFG, perianal and vulvar edema with biopsy-proven noncaseating granulomas, anal skin tags, and an elevated calprotectin level, noted during a cutaneous flare without clinical or endoscopically identified underlying bowel involvement—is an extremely rare presentation. Literature regarding management of PSV primarily is found in the form of case reports and focuses on treating underlying IBD. In patients with intestinal disease, treatment with biologic therapy appears most effective.^6,23

ADDENDUM

Interestingly, 3 years after the patient’s original presentation to our clinic, chromosomal sequencing analysis to assess for copy number variants and whole exome gene sequencing identified a variant of unknown significance in the heat shock protein family A member 1-like gene, HSPA1L, which has an unknown mode of inheritance, but the literature suggests that both truncating and missense variants could be associated with individuals with ulcerative colitis, CD, and IBD.^37,38 Although we cannot use this information to render a molecular diagnosis, it is highly suspicious that this is the cause of her clinical findings. Additionally, the patient currently is aged 10 years with unchanged cutaneous findings and has not developed gastrointestinal findings of IBD.

Case Report

A 7-year-old girl who was otherwise healthy was referred by pediatric gastroenterology for evaluation of cutaneous Crohn disease (CD). The patient had a 4-year history of persistent lip swelling and a 3-year history of asymmetric erythematous labial swelling and perianal erythema with skin tags. She had been applying the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.03% 1 or 2 times daily to her lesions with minimal improvement. She did not have a medical history of recurrent or unusual infectious diseases. There was no family history of autoimmune disease.

The patient and her guardian reported intermittent perianal pain but denied constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and blood in the stool. She denied throat and tongue swelling, dysphagia, dyspnea, drooling, facial paralysis, and eyelid edema. She was a well-nourished child whose height and weight percentiles tracked at 30% and 25%, respectively. Physical examination revealed confluent symmetric lip swelling with mild angular cheilitis. Multiple 1- to 2-mm white pustules with pinpoint erosions covered the upper and lower labial mucosa and extended onto the buccal mucosa (Figure 1). She had symmetric erythema and swelling of the left labia majora extending to and involving the left perianal mucosa. Three perianal erythematous skin tags and a perianal fissure were identified.

The patient had been assessed 2 years earlier by pediatric dermatology and gastroenterology with an extensive evaluation that favored a diagnosis of cutaneous CD because the combination of orofacial granulomatosis (OFG), vulvar edema, and perianal skin tags is strongly associated.^1-3 Contact dermatitis affecting the mouth was considered; however, allergen testing did not demonstrate a trigger.

A trial of a benzoate- and cinnamon-free diet, which has been reported to improve OFG,⁴ did not provide symptomatic improvement. Topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus reduced the perioral erythema, but the swelling persisted. An infectious cause was considered; however, topical mupirocin had no effect, and amoxicillin resulted in oral candidiasis.

A perianal biopsy revealed a granulomatous dermatitis. Fungal and bacterial cultures were negative. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and a fecal calprotectin assay were not suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A complete blood cell count and QuantiFERON-TB Gold test measuring the immune response to tuberculosis antigens were normal. Chronic granulomatous disease, RAG1/RAG2 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, and NOD2 defects were ruled out with normal tests of dihydrorhodamine, quantitative immunoglobulins, and toll-like receptors.

Because of the discomfort associated with the patient’s lesions, she was offered treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab. These agents had been offered since the onset of symptoms; however, her parents declined systemic medication unless she developed GI involvement. Instead, the tacrolimus concentration was increased to 0.1% applied to the lips, labia, and perianal area, and fluocinonide gel 0.05% applied nightly to the oral pustules was added.

Two months later the patient had notably fewer oral pustules and diminished erythema but only slightly reduced oral, vulvar, and perianal swelling. A trial of oral metronidazole, which has been reported to clear a patient with cutaneous CD,⁵ was discontinued by her parents after 6 weeks because of a lack of interval improvement.

One year later, a pre-existing perianal skin tag doubled in size and became exquisitely tender. The calprotectin level—previously within reference range at less than 16 μg/g—was now elevated at 149 μg/g (reference range, 1–120 μg/g) and increased to 336 μg/g 3 weeks later. Testing for C-reactive protein, zinc, and stool occult blood; a comprehensive metabolic panel; and a complete blood cell count were unremarkable.

Repeat upper and lower GI endoscopy did not suggest CD. A biopsy using direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was obtained to evaluate for pyostomatitis vegetans (PSV) and rule out pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau (PVH). Biopsy of a pustule was attempted but was challenging because of the patient’s age and difficulty cooperating.

The captured biopsy did not demonstrate the intended pustule; instead, it included less-affected mucosa and was obtained during topical treatment when few pustules and erosions persisted. Pathologic analysis revealed noncaseating granulomas without an increase in microabscesses, neutrophils, or eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence staining for IgG, IgA, and C3 and indirect immunofluorescence staining for desmoglein-1 and desmoglein-3 antibodies were negative. Although the biopsy did not capture the intended pustule, diagnosis of PV was made based on clinical features and the constellation of cutaneous findings associated with IBD.

Intralesional triamcinolone, which has been of benefit for pediatric patients with orofacial granulomatosis,^1,6,7 was instituted and normalized the vulva and perianal mucosa; however, lip swelling improved only minimally.

Comment

Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by multiple white or yellow, friable, miliary pustules that rupture, leaving behind ulcerations and erosions that cause a varying degree of oral pain.⁸ The disorder can involve any area of the oral mucosa—most often the labia-attached gingiva, soft and hard palates, buccal mucosa, vestibule, and tonsillar areas—but often spares the floor of the mouth and tongue.^8-11 The term pyostomatitis vegetans was proposed in 1949 by McCarthy¹² when he noted in a patient who presented with the characteristic appearance of the oral mucosa, though cases of vaginal, nasal, and periocular involvement have been reported.^8,13,14

Histopathology—Pyostomatitis vegetans displays pseudoepithelial hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and intraepithelial or subepithelial microabscesses (or both) with neutrophils and eosinophils.^8,9,15 There are a few possible explanations for this patient’s lack of tissue eosinophilia. It has been theorized that the presence of granulomas could mask concurrent PSV¹⁶ or that tissue in PSV contains fewer eosinophils as the disorder progresses.¹¹ The oral biopsy obtained from our patient did not capture a pustule, and the condition had noticeably improved with topical tacrolimus at the time of biopsy; therefore, neither neutrophils nor eosinophils were identified. Peripheral eosinophilia, which is present in 42% to 90% of cases of PSV,^9,17 can be a diagnostic clue.¹⁸ However, PE is associated with IBD,²⁴ which usually occurs with PSV, so the absence of peripheral eosinophilia in our patient may be explained by her lack of bowel disease.

Pathogenesis—The pathogenesis of PSV is unknown. A proposed etiology includes cross-reacting antigens in the bowel and skin secondary to IBD as well as an aberrant immune response to an unidentified factor.⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans is considered by many to be the mucosal variant of pyodermatitis vegetans,^9,15,19 a neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by asymmetric, crusted, erythematous papulopustules that extend peripherally and coalesce to form large vegetating plaques. These lesions commonly manifest in the axillary folds, groin, and scalp and can involve the face, trunk, and distal extremities.^9,18 Infection has been suggested as a cause of PSV, though cultures for pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi consistently show only normal flora.²⁰ Zinc deficiency attributed to malabsorption from CD was reported in an adult with PSV.²¹ The PSV resolved after 6 weeks of zinc supplementation.

Differential Diagnosis—The main entity in the clinical differential diagnosis for PSV is PVH, which is considered a variant of pemphigus vulgaris. Pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau presents with pustules and progresses to hyperpigmented vegetative plaques with peripheral hypertrophic granulation tissue.²² The clinical and histological presentation of PVH can be similar to PSV; in PVH, however, DIF demonstrates intercellular IgG and C3 due to circulating IgG autoantibodies specific for desmoglein 3, a cell adhesion molecule.^22-24 In PSV, DIF typically is negative for IgG, IgA, and C3.⁸ Immunohistochemical findings of PSV may overlap with IgA pemphigus, IgG/IgA pemphigus, and IgG pemphigus, which has sparked debate if PSV is an autoimmune blistering disorder or a secondary finding of epithelial injury.^9,18,24

Pyostomatitis vegetans is most prevalent in patients aged 20 to 59 years²⁵ but can occur at any age.^8,19 Overall, extraintestinal symptoms, including mucocutaneous findings, are common in pediatric patients—in 30% to 71% of children with CD and 21% to 22% of children with ulcerative colitis²⁶—and can predate onset of GI symptoms in 6% of pediatric patients.²⁷

Oral disease is common in CD; manifestations are listed in the Table.^28,29 In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, 42% (20/48) had oral manifestations identified at diagnosis²⁸; in a similar study of 25 children, researchers noted that 48% (12/25) had disease-specific oral lesions.²⁹ None of these children recognized the oral findings prior to the onset of systemic symptoms.²⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans was the least common oral manifestation, reported in 1 of 73 patients in the 2 studies combined.^28,29

Two recent articles that looked at PSV in pediatric and adolescent populations identified only 9 patients with PSV.^24,30 Only 2 patients (siblings) had documented onset of PSV before 12 years of age,³¹ which suggests an underlying genetic predisposition in young children.

It has been reported that active or subclinical (ie, asymptomatic with positive endoscopic findings) IBD in adults precedes onset of PSV, which may be considered a sign of relapse.^9,30 However, PSV is incredibly rare in children and adolescents and can be an early finding of IBD in children.^16,31,32

Our patient has not developed GI involvement since her initial presentation 5 years prior, though another pediatric patient developed symptomatic CD 9 years after onset of OFG.⁵ A retrospective review of pediatric OFG without CD met criteria for CD at a median of 3.1 years (range, 0.4–6.9 years).³³ Regrettably, the early presence of PSV has been associated with future progression to CD and a complicated disease course.^12,34

Management—Pyoderma stomatitis vegetans is treated with management of underlying IBD,⁸ with scarce literature available regarding pediatric patients. Oral lesions have been treated with antiseptics and topical corticosteroids, though these have limited benefit.⁸ In an adult with IBD, topical tacrolimus initially cleared PSV; however, lesions recurred until mesalamine was initiated.³⁵ Systemic steroids were effective in a 16-year-old patient with CD and PSV,¹² but recurrence is common after corticosteroids are stopped.³⁴

Some patients benefit from steroid-sparing medications, such as dapsone, azathioprine, sulfamethoxypyridazine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors such as infliximab and adalimumab.^{8,9,15,23,34,36} A 12-year-old patient with pyodermatitis–PSV without intestinal disease was treated with prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine with improvement but not complete resolution of oral erosions after 18 weeks of treatment.³² A 15-year-old patient with CD and pyodermatitis–PSV did not show improvement on prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine but rapidly responded to infliximab.²³ Infliximab led to complete clearance of oral lesions in an adult with severe fistulizing CD who developed PSV.¹¹ However, 2 adolescent patients with CD developed PSV while on adalimumab,^6,34 though 1 did improve after increasing adalimumab from once to twice weekly.⁶

Conclusion

The case described here—PSV in a prepubertal 7-year-old with multiple cutaneous findings suggestive of CD, including OFG, perianal and vulvar edema with biopsy-proven noncaseating granulomas, anal skin tags, and an elevated calprotectin level, noted during a cutaneous flare without clinical or endoscopically identified underlying bowel involvement—is an extremely rare presentation. Literature regarding management of PSV primarily is found in the form of case reports and focuses on treating underlying IBD. In patients with intestinal disease, treatment with biologic therapy appears most effective.^6,23

ADDENDUM

Interestingly, 3 years after the patient’s original presentation to our clinic, chromosomal sequencing analysis to assess for copy number variants and whole exome gene sequencing identified a variant of unknown significance in the heat shock protein family A member 1-like gene, HSPA1L, which has an unknown mode of inheritance, but the literature suggests that both truncating and missense variants could be associated with individuals with ulcerative colitis, CD, and IBD.^37,38 Although we cannot use this information to render a molecular diagnosis, it is highly suspicious that this is the cause of her clinical findings. Additionally, the patient currently is aged 10 years with unchanged cutaneous findings and has not developed gastrointestinal findings of IBD.

Case Report

A 7-year-old girl who was otherwise healthy was referred by pediatric gastroenterology for evaluation of cutaneous Crohn disease (CD). The patient had a 4-year history of persistent lip swelling and a 3-year history of asymmetric erythematous labial swelling and perianal erythema with skin tags. She had been applying the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus ointment 0.03% 1 or 2 times daily to her lesions with minimal improvement. She did not have a medical history of recurrent or unusual infectious diseases. There was no family history of autoimmune disease.

The patient and her guardian reported intermittent perianal pain but denied constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and blood in the stool. She denied throat and tongue swelling, dysphagia, dyspnea, drooling, facial paralysis, and eyelid edema. She was a well-nourished child whose height and weight percentiles tracked at 30% and 25%, respectively. Physical examination revealed confluent symmetric lip swelling with mild angular cheilitis. Multiple 1- to 2-mm white pustules with pinpoint erosions covered the upper and lower labial mucosa and extended onto the buccal mucosa (Figure 1). She had symmetric erythema and swelling of the left labia majora extending to and involving the left perianal mucosa. Three perianal erythematous skin tags and a perianal fissure were identified.

The patient had been assessed 2 years earlier by pediatric dermatology and gastroenterology with an extensive evaluation that favored a diagnosis of cutaneous CD because the combination of orofacial granulomatosis (OFG), vulvar edema, and perianal skin tags is strongly associated.^1-3 Contact dermatitis affecting the mouth was considered; however, allergen testing did not demonstrate a trigger.

A trial of a benzoate- and cinnamon-free diet, which has been reported to improve OFG,⁴ did not provide symptomatic improvement. Topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus reduced the perioral erythema, but the swelling persisted. An infectious cause was considered; however, topical mupirocin had no effect, and amoxicillin resulted in oral candidiasis.

A perianal biopsy revealed a granulomatous dermatitis. Fungal and bacterial cultures were negative. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and a fecal calprotectin assay were not suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A complete blood cell count and QuantiFERON-TB Gold test measuring the immune response to tuberculosis antigens were normal. Chronic granulomatous disease, RAG1/RAG2 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, and NOD2 defects were ruled out with normal tests of dihydrorhodamine, quantitative immunoglobulins, and toll-like receptors.

Because of the discomfort associated with the patient’s lesions, she was offered treatment with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab. These agents had been offered since the onset of symptoms; however, her parents declined systemic medication unless she developed GI involvement. Instead, the tacrolimus concentration was increased to 0.1% applied to the lips, labia, and perianal area, and fluocinonide gel 0.05% applied nightly to the oral pustules was added.

Two months later the patient had notably fewer oral pustules and diminished erythema but only slightly reduced oral, vulvar, and perianal swelling. A trial of oral metronidazole, which has been reported to clear a patient with cutaneous CD,⁵ was discontinued by her parents after 6 weeks because of a lack of interval improvement.

One year later, a pre-existing perianal skin tag doubled in size and became exquisitely tender. The calprotectin level—previously within reference range at less than 16 μg/g—was now elevated at 149 μg/g (reference range, 1–120 μg/g) and increased to 336 μg/g 3 weeks later. Testing for C-reactive protein, zinc, and stool occult blood; a comprehensive metabolic panel; and a complete blood cell count were unremarkable.

Repeat upper and lower GI endoscopy did not suggest CD. A biopsy using direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was obtained to evaluate for pyostomatitis vegetans (PSV) and rule out pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau (PVH). Biopsy of a pustule was attempted but was challenging because of the patient’s age and difficulty cooperating.

The captured biopsy did not demonstrate the intended pustule; instead, it included less-affected mucosa and was obtained during topical treatment when few pustules and erosions persisted. Pathologic analysis revealed noncaseating granulomas without an increase in microabscesses, neutrophils, or eosinophils (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence staining for IgG, IgA, and C3 and indirect immunofluorescence staining for desmoglein-1 and desmoglein-3 antibodies were negative. Although the biopsy did not capture the intended pustule, diagnosis of PV was made based on clinical features and the constellation of cutaneous findings associated with IBD.

Intralesional triamcinolone, which has been of benefit for pediatric patients with orofacial granulomatosis,^1,6,7 was instituted and normalized the vulva and perianal mucosa; however, lip swelling improved only minimally.

Comment

Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by multiple white or yellow, friable, miliary pustules that rupture, leaving behind ulcerations and erosions that cause a varying degree of oral pain.⁸ The disorder can involve any area of the oral mucosa—most often the labia-attached gingiva, soft and hard palates, buccal mucosa, vestibule, and tonsillar areas—but often spares the floor of the mouth and tongue.^8-11 The term pyostomatitis vegetans was proposed in 1949 by McCarthy¹² when he noted in a patient who presented with the characteristic appearance of the oral mucosa, though cases of vaginal, nasal, and periocular involvement have been reported.^8,13,14

Histopathology—Pyostomatitis vegetans displays pseudoepithelial hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and intraepithelial or subepithelial microabscesses (or both) with neutrophils and eosinophils.^8,9,15 There are a few possible explanations for this patient’s lack of tissue eosinophilia. It has been theorized that the presence of granulomas could mask concurrent PSV¹⁶ or that tissue in PSV contains fewer eosinophils as the disorder progresses.¹¹ The oral biopsy obtained from our patient did not capture a pustule, and the condition had noticeably improved with topical tacrolimus at the time of biopsy; therefore, neither neutrophils nor eosinophils were identified. Peripheral eosinophilia, which is present in 42% to 90% of cases of PSV,^9,17 can be a diagnostic clue.¹⁸ However, PE is associated with IBD,²⁴ which usually occurs with PSV, so the absence of peripheral eosinophilia in our patient may be explained by her lack of bowel disease.

Pathogenesis—The pathogenesis of PSV is unknown. A proposed etiology includes cross-reacting antigens in the bowel and skin secondary to IBD as well as an aberrant immune response to an unidentified factor.⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans is considered by many to be the mucosal variant of pyodermatitis vegetans,^9,15,19 a neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by asymmetric, crusted, erythematous papulopustules that extend peripherally and coalesce to form large vegetating plaques. These lesions commonly manifest in the axillary folds, groin, and scalp and can involve the face, trunk, and distal extremities.^9,18 Infection has been suggested as a cause of PSV, though cultures for pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi consistently show only normal flora.²⁰ Zinc deficiency attributed to malabsorption from CD was reported in an adult with PSV.²¹ The PSV resolved after 6 weeks of zinc supplementation.

Differential Diagnosis—The main entity in the clinical differential diagnosis for PSV is PVH, which is considered a variant of pemphigus vulgaris. Pemphigus vegetans of Hallopeau presents with pustules and progresses to hyperpigmented vegetative plaques with peripheral hypertrophic granulation tissue.²² The clinical and histological presentation of PVH can be similar to PSV; in PVH, however, DIF demonstrates intercellular IgG and C3 due to circulating IgG autoantibodies specific for desmoglein 3, a cell adhesion molecule.^22-24 In PSV, DIF typically is negative for IgG, IgA, and C3.⁸ Immunohistochemical findings of PSV may overlap with IgA pemphigus, IgG/IgA pemphigus, and IgG pemphigus, which has sparked debate if PSV is an autoimmune blistering disorder or a secondary finding of epithelial injury.^9,18,24

Pyostomatitis vegetans is most prevalent in patients aged 20 to 59 years²⁵ but can occur at any age.^8,19 Overall, extraintestinal symptoms, including mucocutaneous findings, are common in pediatric patients—in 30% to 71% of children with CD and 21% to 22% of children with ulcerative colitis²⁶—and can predate onset of GI symptoms in 6% of pediatric patients.²⁷

Oral disease is common in CD; manifestations are listed in the Table.^28,29 In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, 42% (20/48) had oral manifestations identified at diagnosis²⁸; in a similar study of 25 children, researchers noted that 48% (12/25) had disease-specific oral lesions.²⁹ None of these children recognized the oral findings prior to the onset of systemic symptoms.²⁸ Pyostomatitis vegetans was the least common oral manifestation, reported in 1 of 73 patients in the 2 studies combined.^28,29

Two recent articles that looked at PSV in pediatric and adolescent populations identified only 9 patients with PSV.^24,30 Only 2 patients (siblings) had documented onset of PSV before 12 years of age,³¹ which suggests an underlying genetic predisposition in young children.

It has been reported that active or subclinical (ie, asymptomatic with positive endoscopic findings) IBD in adults precedes onset of PSV, which may be considered a sign of relapse.^9,30 However, PSV is incredibly rare in children and adolescents and can be an early finding of IBD in children.^16,31,32

Our patient has not developed GI involvement since her initial presentation 5 years prior, though another pediatric patient developed symptomatic CD 9 years after onset of OFG.⁵ A retrospective review of pediatric OFG without CD met criteria for CD at a median of 3.1 years (range, 0.4–6.9 years).³³ Regrettably, the early presence of PSV has been associated with future progression to CD and a complicated disease course.^12,34

Management—Pyoderma stomatitis vegetans is treated with management of underlying IBD,⁸ with scarce literature available regarding pediatric patients. Oral lesions have been treated with antiseptics and topical corticosteroids, though these have limited benefit.⁸ In an adult with IBD, topical tacrolimus initially cleared PSV; however, lesions recurred until mesalamine was initiated.³⁵ Systemic steroids were effective in a 16-year-old patient with CD and PSV,¹² but recurrence is common after corticosteroids are stopped.³⁴

Some patients benefit from steroid-sparing medications, such as dapsone, azathioprine, sulfamethoxypyridazine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors such as infliximab and adalimumab.^{8,9,15,23,34,36} A 12-year-old patient with pyodermatitis–PSV without intestinal disease was treated with prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine with improvement but not complete resolution of oral erosions after 18 weeks of treatment.³² A 15-year-old patient with CD and pyodermatitis–PSV did not show improvement on prednisone, dapsone, and azathioprine but rapidly responded to infliximab.²³ Infliximab led to complete clearance of oral lesions in an adult with severe fistulizing CD who developed PSV.¹¹ However, 2 adolescent patients with CD developed PSV while on adalimumab,^6,34 though 1 did improve after increasing adalimumab from once to twice weekly.⁶

Conclusion

The case described here—PSV in a prepubertal 7-year-old with multiple cutaneous findings suggestive of CD, including OFG, perianal and vulvar edema with biopsy-proven noncaseating granulomas, anal skin tags, and an elevated calprotectin level, noted during a cutaneous flare without clinical or endoscopically identified underlying bowel involvement—is an extremely rare presentation. Literature regarding management of PSV primarily is found in the form of case reports and focuses on treating underlying IBD. In patients with intestinal disease, treatment with biologic therapy appears most effective.^6,23

ADDENDUM

Interestingly, 3 years after the patient’s original presentation to our clinic, chromosomal sequencing analysis to assess for copy number variants and whole exome gene sequencing identified a variant of unknown significance in the heat shock protein family A member 1-like gene, HSPA1L, which has an unknown mode of inheritance, but the literature suggests that both truncating and missense variants could be associated with individuals with ulcerative colitis, CD, and IBD.^37,38 Although we cannot use this information to render a molecular diagnosis, it is highly suspicious that this is the cause of her clinical findings. Additionally, the patient currently is aged 10 years with unchanged cutaneous findings and has not developed gastrointestinal findings of IBD.

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

Key clinical point: Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) had the highest incidence rate (IR) per 1000 person-years for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), followed by venous thrombotic events (VTE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE).

Major finding: The IR per 1000 person-years for MACE, VTE, DVT, and PE were 2.6 (95% CI 2.1-3.2), 2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.5), 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-2.1), and 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-1.0), respectively.

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 8197 patients aged ≥12 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer, Inc. Some authors declared receiving grant funding from Pfizer. Two authors declared being current or former employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

Source: Hedderson MM et al. Rates of cardiovascular events among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in an integrated health care system: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277469 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277469

Key clinical point: Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) had the highest incidence rate (IR) per 1000 person-years for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), followed by venous thrombotic events (VTE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE).

Major finding: The IR per 1000 person-years for MACE, VTE, DVT, and PE were 2.6 (95% CI 2.1-3.2), 2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.5), 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-2.1), and 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-1.0), respectively.

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 8197 patients aged ≥12 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer, Inc. Some authors declared receiving grant funding from Pfizer. Two authors declared being current or former employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

Source: Hedderson MM et al. Rates of cardiovascular events among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in an integrated health care system: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277469 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277469

Key clinical point: Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) had the highest incidence rate (IR) per 1000 person-years for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), followed by venous thrombotic events (VTE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE).

Major finding: The IR per 1000 person-years for MACE, VTE, DVT, and PE were 2.6 (95% CI 2.1-3.2), 2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.5), 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-2.1), and 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-1.0), respectively.

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 8197 patients aged ≥12 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer, Inc. Some authors declared receiving grant funding from Pfizer. Two authors declared being current or former employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

Source: Hedderson MM et al. Rates of cardiovascular events among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in an integrated health care system: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277469 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277469