MDedge Dermatology

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

To the Editor:

A 59-year-old man presented with a severely pruritic rash on the legs, arms, abdomen, groin, and buttocks of 3 days’ duration. He reported subjective fever and chills. Prior to the appearance of the rash, the patient and his family had eaten shiitake mushrooms daily for 3 days. He denied any new medications in the last several months or any recent upper respiratory or gastrointestinal tract illnesses. His medical history included type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetes-induced end-stage renal disease requiring home peritoneal dialysis. His long-term medications for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hyperlipidemia, and insomnia included amlodipine, atorvastatin, finasteride, gabapentin, insulin glargine, linagliptin, metoprolol, and mirtazapine.

Physical examination revealed an afebrile man with medium brown skin tone and diffuse, bright red, erythematous patches on the lower legs, axillae, medial forearms, lateral trunk, lower abdomen, and groin. There were distinct flagellate, linear, red patches on the lower legs (Figure 1). In addition, small clusters of 1- to 2-mm superficial pustules were present on the right upper medial thigh and left forearm with micropapules grouped in the skin folds.

A shave biopsy specimen from a pustule on the right upper medial thigh revealed spongiotic dermatitis with neutrophilic subcorneal pustule formation and frequent eosinophils (Figure 2). The dermis contained scattered mixed inflammatory cells including neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes (Figure 3). These histologic findings were consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). No biopsy was performed on the flagellate patches due to its clinically distinct presentation and well-established association with shiitake mushroom ingestion.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone ointment and systemic corticosteroids to reduce pruritus and quickly clear the lesions due to his comorbidities. He recovered completely within 1 week and had no evidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from the flagellate dermatitis.

Flagellate dermatitis is an intensely pruritic dermatitis characterized by 1-mm, disseminated, erythematous papules in a linear grouped arrangement secondary to koebnerization due to the patient scratching. It was first described in 1977 by Nakamura.¹ Although it rarely is seen outside of China and Japan, there are well-established associations of flagellate dermatitis with bleomycin and shiitake mushroom (Lentinula edodes) ingestion. One key clinical difference between the two causes is that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation changes usually are seen with bleomycin-induced flagellate dermatitis and typically are not present with shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis.² Following ingestion of shiitake mushrooms, the median time of onset of presentation typically is 24 hours but ranges from 12 hours to 5 days. Most patients completely recover by 3 weeks, with or without treatment.³ Although the pathogenesis of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis is not clear, the most common theory is a toxic reaction to lentinan, a polysaccharide isolated from shiitake mushrooms. However, type I and IV allergic hypersensitivities also have been supported by the time of onset, clearance, severe pruritus, benefit from steroids and antihistamines, and lack of grouped outbreaks in people exposed to shared meals containing shiitake mushrooms.^3,4 Furthermore, there is a case of patch test–confirmed allergic contact dermatitis to shiitake mushrooms, demonstrating a 1+ reaction at 96 hours to the cap of a shiitake mushroom but a negative pin-prick test at 20 minutes, suggesting type IV hypersensitivity.⁵ An additional case revealed a positive skin-prick test with formation of a 4-mm wheal and subsequent pruritic papules and vesicles appearing 48 to 72 hours later at the prick site.⁶ Subsequent cases have been reported in association with consumption of raw shiitake mushrooms, but cases have been reported after consumption of fully cooked mushrooms, which does not support a toxin-mediated theory, as cooking the mushroom before consumption likely would denature or change the structure of the suspected toxin.²

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is a rare eruption that occurs due to ingestion of a causative agent, usually an antibiotic, and is characterized by the presence of fever and disseminated, erythematous, pinpoint, sterile pustules on the skin and mucous membranes. It affects 1 to 5 persons per million per year, with more than 90% of cases attributed to drug ingestion.⁷ Spontaneous resolution can be expected within 15 days of its onset; however, there is a mortality rate of up to 5% that occurs most often in those with severe comorbidities or in older patients, for whom systemic corticosteroid therapy may be justified.^7,8 A multinational case-control study conducted to evaluate the risk of AGEP associated with certain drugs revealed macrolides (namely pristinamycin); β-lactam antibiotics including penicillin, aminopenicillin, and cephalosporin; quinolones; hydroxychloroquine; anti-infective sulfonamides; terbinafine; and diltiazem as the most strongly associated culprits.⁹ Our patient’s flagellate dermatitis was unique in that it also showed histologic features of AGEP. The pathogenesis of drug-induced AGEP has been partially elucidated and involves activation of drug-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells that migrate to the skin and participate in apoptotic signaling of keratinocytes and recruitment of neutrophils and eosinophils, which form subcorneal sterile pustules.⁷ In a study of severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, 50% (7/14) of patients with AGEP had positive patch tests to the causative agent.¹⁰ This T cell–dependent response explains why the condition responds to systemic corticosteroids. Additionally, our case report of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis with histologic features of AGEP suggests that the pathogenesis of flagellate dermatitis may be a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction. The time of onset, lack of grouped outbreaks in those sharing shiitake mushroom–containing meals, severe pruritus, lack of cases demonstrating an anaphylactic or wheal and flare response, benefit of steroids, and a case with histologic features of AGEP all lend support to this theory.

We report a case of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis with histologic features of AGEP. The time course, histologic features of AGEP, absence of new medications, and resolution with discontinuation of shiitake mushrooms lends support of the hypothesis that the pathogenesis of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis is similar to AGEP’s type IV hypersensitivity reaction. To further elucidate its pathogenesis, skin prick testing and patch testing with shiitake mushrooms in patients exhibiting shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis may prove to be beneficial.

To the Editor:

A 59-year-old man presented with a severely pruritic rash on the legs, arms, abdomen, groin, and buttocks of 3 days’ duration. He reported subjective fever and chills. Prior to the appearance of the rash, the patient and his family had eaten shiitake mushrooms daily for 3 days. He denied any new medications in the last several months or any recent upper respiratory or gastrointestinal tract illnesses. His medical history included type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetes-induced end-stage renal disease requiring home peritoneal dialysis. His long-term medications for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hyperlipidemia, and insomnia included amlodipine, atorvastatin, finasteride, gabapentin, insulin glargine, linagliptin, metoprolol, and mirtazapine.

Physical examination revealed an afebrile man with medium brown skin tone and diffuse, bright red, erythematous patches on the lower legs, axillae, medial forearms, lateral trunk, lower abdomen, and groin. There were distinct flagellate, linear, red patches on the lower legs (Figure 1). In addition, small clusters of 1- to 2-mm superficial pustules were present on the right upper medial thigh and left forearm with micropapules grouped in the skin folds.

A shave biopsy specimen from a pustule on the right upper medial thigh revealed spongiotic dermatitis with neutrophilic subcorneal pustule formation and frequent eosinophils (Figure 2). The dermis contained scattered mixed inflammatory cells including neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes (Figure 3). These histologic findings were consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). No biopsy was performed on the flagellate patches due to its clinically distinct presentation and well-established association with shiitake mushroom ingestion.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone ointment and systemic corticosteroids to reduce pruritus and quickly clear the lesions due to his comorbidities. He recovered completely within 1 week and had no evidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from the flagellate dermatitis.

Flagellate dermatitis is an intensely pruritic dermatitis characterized by 1-mm, disseminated, erythematous papules in a linear grouped arrangement secondary to koebnerization due to the patient scratching. It was first described in 1977 by Nakamura.¹ Although it rarely is seen outside of China and Japan, there are well-established associations of flagellate dermatitis with bleomycin and shiitake mushroom (Lentinula edodes) ingestion. One key clinical difference between the two causes is that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation changes usually are seen with bleomycin-induced flagellate dermatitis and typically are not present with shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis.² Following ingestion of shiitake mushrooms, the median time of onset of presentation typically is 24 hours but ranges from 12 hours to 5 days. Most patients completely recover by 3 weeks, with or without treatment.³ Although the pathogenesis of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis is not clear, the most common theory is a toxic reaction to lentinan, a polysaccharide isolated from shiitake mushrooms. However, type I and IV allergic hypersensitivities also have been supported by the time of onset, clearance, severe pruritus, benefit from steroids and antihistamines, and lack of grouped outbreaks in people exposed to shared meals containing shiitake mushrooms.^3,4 Furthermore, there is a case of patch test–confirmed allergic contact dermatitis to shiitake mushrooms, demonstrating a 1+ reaction at 96 hours to the cap of a shiitake mushroom but a negative pin-prick test at 20 minutes, suggesting type IV hypersensitivity.⁵ An additional case revealed a positive skin-prick test with formation of a 4-mm wheal and subsequent pruritic papules and vesicles appearing 48 to 72 hours later at the prick site.⁶ Subsequent cases have been reported in association with consumption of raw shiitake mushrooms, but cases have been reported after consumption of fully cooked mushrooms, which does not support a toxin-mediated theory, as cooking the mushroom before consumption likely would denature or change the structure of the suspected toxin.²

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is a rare eruption that occurs due to ingestion of a causative agent, usually an antibiotic, and is characterized by the presence of fever and disseminated, erythematous, pinpoint, sterile pustules on the skin and mucous membranes. It affects 1 to 5 persons per million per year, with more than 90% of cases attributed to drug ingestion.⁷ Spontaneous resolution can be expected within 15 days of its onset; however, there is a mortality rate of up to 5% that occurs most often in those with severe comorbidities or in older patients, for whom systemic corticosteroid therapy may be justified.^7,8 A multinational case-control study conducted to evaluate the risk of AGEP associated with certain drugs revealed macrolides (namely pristinamycin); β-lactam antibiotics including penicillin, aminopenicillin, and cephalosporin; quinolones; hydroxychloroquine; anti-infective sulfonamides; terbinafine; and diltiazem as the most strongly associated culprits.⁹ Our patient’s flagellate dermatitis was unique in that it also showed histologic features of AGEP. The pathogenesis of drug-induced AGEP has been partially elucidated and involves activation of drug-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells that migrate to the skin and participate in apoptotic signaling of keratinocytes and recruitment of neutrophils and eosinophils, which form subcorneal sterile pustules.⁷ In a study of severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, 50% (7/14) of patients with AGEP had positive patch tests to the causative agent.¹⁰ This T cell–dependent response explains why the condition responds to systemic corticosteroids. Additionally, our case report of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis with histologic features of AGEP suggests that the pathogenesis of flagellate dermatitis may be a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction. The time of onset, lack of grouped outbreaks in those sharing shiitake mushroom–containing meals, severe pruritus, lack of cases demonstrating an anaphylactic or wheal and flare response, benefit of steroids, and a case with histologic features of AGEP all lend support to this theory.

We report a case of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis with histologic features of AGEP. The time course, histologic features of AGEP, absence of new medications, and resolution with discontinuation of shiitake mushrooms lends support of the hypothesis that the pathogenesis of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis is similar to AGEP’s type IV hypersensitivity reaction. To further elucidate its pathogenesis, skin prick testing and patch testing with shiitake mushrooms in patients exhibiting shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis may prove to be beneficial.

To the Editor:

A 59-year-old man presented with a severely pruritic rash on the legs, arms, abdomen, groin, and buttocks of 3 days’ duration. He reported subjective fever and chills. Prior to the appearance of the rash, the patient and his family had eaten shiitake mushrooms daily for 3 days. He denied any new medications in the last several months or any recent upper respiratory or gastrointestinal tract illnesses. His medical history included type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetes-induced end-stage renal disease requiring home peritoneal dialysis. His long-term medications for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hyperlipidemia, and insomnia included amlodipine, atorvastatin, finasteride, gabapentin, insulin glargine, linagliptin, metoprolol, and mirtazapine.

Physical examination revealed an afebrile man with medium brown skin tone and diffuse, bright red, erythematous patches on the lower legs, axillae, medial forearms, lateral trunk, lower abdomen, and groin. There were distinct flagellate, linear, red patches on the lower legs (Figure 1). In addition, small clusters of 1- to 2-mm superficial pustules were present on the right upper medial thigh and left forearm with micropapules grouped in the skin folds.

A shave biopsy specimen from a pustule on the right upper medial thigh revealed spongiotic dermatitis with neutrophilic subcorneal pustule formation and frequent eosinophils (Figure 2). The dermis contained scattered mixed inflammatory cells including neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes (Figure 3). These histologic findings were consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). No biopsy was performed on the flagellate patches due to its clinically distinct presentation and well-established association with shiitake mushroom ingestion.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone ointment and systemic corticosteroids to reduce pruritus and quickly clear the lesions due to his comorbidities. He recovered completely within 1 week and had no evidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from the flagellate dermatitis.

Flagellate dermatitis is an intensely pruritic dermatitis characterized by 1-mm, disseminated, erythematous papules in a linear grouped arrangement secondary to koebnerization due to the patient scratching. It was first described in 1977 by Nakamura.¹ Although it rarely is seen outside of China and Japan, there are well-established associations of flagellate dermatitis with bleomycin and shiitake mushroom (Lentinula edodes) ingestion. One key clinical difference between the two causes is that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation changes usually are seen with bleomycin-induced flagellate dermatitis and typically are not present with shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis.² Following ingestion of shiitake mushrooms, the median time of onset of presentation typically is 24 hours but ranges from 12 hours to 5 days. Most patients completely recover by 3 weeks, with or without treatment.³ Although the pathogenesis of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis is not clear, the most common theory is a toxic reaction to lentinan, a polysaccharide isolated from shiitake mushrooms. However, type I and IV allergic hypersensitivities also have been supported by the time of onset, clearance, severe pruritus, benefit from steroids and antihistamines, and lack of grouped outbreaks in people exposed to shared meals containing shiitake mushrooms.^3,4 Furthermore, there is a case of patch test–confirmed allergic contact dermatitis to shiitake mushrooms, demonstrating a 1+ reaction at 96 hours to the cap of a shiitake mushroom but a negative pin-prick test at 20 minutes, suggesting type IV hypersensitivity.⁵ An additional case revealed a positive skin-prick test with formation of a 4-mm wheal and subsequent pruritic papules and vesicles appearing 48 to 72 hours later at the prick site.⁶ Subsequent cases have been reported in association with consumption of raw shiitake mushrooms, but cases have been reported after consumption of fully cooked mushrooms, which does not support a toxin-mediated theory, as cooking the mushroom before consumption likely would denature or change the structure of the suspected toxin.²

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is a rare eruption that occurs due to ingestion of a causative agent, usually an antibiotic, and is characterized by the presence of fever and disseminated, erythematous, pinpoint, sterile pustules on the skin and mucous membranes. It affects 1 to 5 persons per million per year, with more than 90% of cases attributed to drug ingestion.⁷ Spontaneous resolution can be expected within 15 days of its onset; however, there is a mortality rate of up to 5% that occurs most often in those with severe comorbidities or in older patients, for whom systemic corticosteroid therapy may be justified.^7,8 A multinational case-control study conducted to evaluate the risk of AGEP associated with certain drugs revealed macrolides (namely pristinamycin); β-lactam antibiotics including penicillin, aminopenicillin, and cephalosporin; quinolones; hydroxychloroquine; anti-infective sulfonamides; terbinafine; and diltiazem as the most strongly associated culprits.⁹ Our patient’s flagellate dermatitis was unique in that it also showed histologic features of AGEP. The pathogenesis of drug-induced AGEP has been partially elucidated and involves activation of drug-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells that migrate to the skin and participate in apoptotic signaling of keratinocytes and recruitment of neutrophils and eosinophils, which form subcorneal sterile pustules.⁷ In a study of severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, 50% (7/14) of patients with AGEP had positive patch tests to the causative agent.¹⁰ This T cell–dependent response explains why the condition responds to systemic corticosteroids. Additionally, our case report of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis with histologic features of AGEP suggests that the pathogenesis of flagellate dermatitis may be a T cell–mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction. The time of onset, lack of grouped outbreaks in those sharing shiitake mushroom–containing meals, severe pruritus, lack of cases demonstrating an anaphylactic or wheal and flare response, benefit of steroids, and a case with histologic features of AGEP all lend support to this theory.

We report a case of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis with histologic features of AGEP. The time course, histologic features of AGEP, absence of new medications, and resolution with discontinuation of shiitake mushrooms lends support of the hypothesis that the pathogenesis of shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis is similar to AGEP’s type IV hypersensitivity reaction. To further elucidate its pathogenesis, skin prick testing and patch testing with shiitake mushrooms in patients exhibiting shiitake mushroom–induced flagellate dermatitis may prove to be beneficial.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

To the Editor:

PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS) encompasses a spectrum of disorders that most commonly are caused by autosomal-dominant germline mutations in the phosphatase and tensin homolog, PTEN, tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 10q23. We describe a patient who presented with clinical features of PHTS and Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHDS). Because the genetic mutations associated with both PHTS and BHDS result in altered mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling, patients may have overlapping phenotypic features.

A 51-year-old man with a history of multiple carcinomas presented for evaluation of flesh-colored papules on the cheeks, nose, tongue, and hands, in addition to numerous skin tags on the neck, axillae, and lower abdomen bilaterally. His medical history was notable for several nasal and gastrointestinal tract polyps, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, cutaneous lipomas, atypical carcinoid syndrome of the right lung, and a multinodular thyroid. His family history was notable for small cell lung cancer in his father, breast cancer and pancreatic cancer in his maternal aunt, esophageal cancer in his maternal grandfather, and celiac disease in his daughter.

Clinical examination revealed flesh-colored, dome-shaped papules measuring 1 to 2 mm in diameter on the nose and cheeks (Figure 1). He had hyperkeratotic papules on the dorsal fingers, consistent with acral keratoses. Additionally, multiple flesh-colored papules with a cobblestonelike appearance were noted on the oral mucosa (Figure 2). Other findings included pedunculated papules on the neck, axillae, and lower abdomen bilaterally, consistent with fibroepithelial polyps, as well as hyperpigmented velvety plaques on the axillae, characteristic of acanthosis nigricans (Figure 3). A shave biopsy of a papule on the right cheek revealed a proliferation of plump stellate fibroblasts, small blood vessels, and thick collagen bundles, characteristic of a fibrous papule (Figure 4).

Differential diagnoses for our patient included BHDS and Cowden syndrome (CS). Due to the combination of extensive family history of multiorgan cancers as well as the clinical findings, he was referred to a geneticist for further evaluation. Genetic analysis was positive for a heterozygous mutation variant of uncertain significance in the PTEN gene.

The PHTS disorders include CS, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, Lhermitte-Duclos disease, Proteus syndrome, and Proteus-like syndrome (Table).^1-9 Our patient’s clinical findings were indicative of CS, a rare genodermatosis characterized by multiple hamartomas and neoplasms of ectodermal, mesodermal, and endodermal origin.¹ Most CS patients develop trichilemmomas of the central face, mucocutaneous papillomatous papules, and acral and plantar keratoses by the third decade of life.¹ Importantly, CS patients have an increased risk for breast, thyroid, renal, endometrial, and colorectal cancers, as well as melanoma, with estimated lifetime risks of 85%, 35%, 33%, 28%, 9%, and 6%, respectively.^2,10

Regarding the pathophysiology of PHTS disorders, PTEN encodes a phosphatase that inhibits phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt and mTOR signaling pathways, thereby controlling cell proliferation, cell-cycle progression, and apoptosis.^2,3 Loss of PTEN function, as seen in CS patients, results in an increased risk for cancer.² Other genetic diseases, including juvenile polyposis syndrome, Proteus syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, have phenotypic similarities to PHTS.³ Specifically, loss-of-function mutations of TSC1 and TSC2, tumor suppressor genes associated with tuberous sclerosis, similarly result in dysregulation of mTOR signaling.

Our patient also had some clinical features characteristic of BHDS, such as flesh-colored facial papules, acrochordonlike lesions, and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.¹¹ Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome most often is caused by an autosomal-dominant germline mutation in FLCN, a tumor suppressor gene.¹¹ Interestingly, FLCN interacts with AMP-activated protein kinase to help regulate mTOR signaling, which may explain phenotypic similarities seen in CS and BHDS.¹²

Because the PHTS disorders and BHDS result in similar functional consequences on the mTOR signaling pathway, patients can present with overlapping clinical features that may be diagnostically challenging. Management includes patient education regarding cancer risk, surveillance for early detection of malignancy, and genetic counseling for family members.² It is important for clinicians to appreciate phenotypic similarities between PHTS and other disorders affecting mTOR signaling to prevent delays in diagnosis.

To the Editor:

PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS) encompasses a spectrum of disorders that most commonly are caused by autosomal-dominant germline mutations in the phosphatase and tensin homolog, PTEN, tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 10q23. We describe a patient who presented with clinical features of PHTS and Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHDS). Because the genetic mutations associated with both PHTS and BHDS result in altered mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling, patients may have overlapping phenotypic features.

A 51-year-old man with a history of multiple carcinomas presented for evaluation of flesh-colored papules on the cheeks, nose, tongue, and hands, in addition to numerous skin tags on the neck, axillae, and lower abdomen bilaterally. His medical history was notable for several nasal and gastrointestinal tract polyps, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, cutaneous lipomas, atypical carcinoid syndrome of the right lung, and a multinodular thyroid. His family history was notable for small cell lung cancer in his father, breast cancer and pancreatic cancer in his maternal aunt, esophageal cancer in his maternal grandfather, and celiac disease in his daughter.

Clinical examination revealed flesh-colored, dome-shaped papules measuring 1 to 2 mm in diameter on the nose and cheeks (Figure 1). He had hyperkeratotic papules on the dorsal fingers, consistent with acral keratoses. Additionally, multiple flesh-colored papules with a cobblestonelike appearance were noted on the oral mucosa (Figure 2). Other findings included pedunculated papules on the neck, axillae, and lower abdomen bilaterally, consistent with fibroepithelial polyps, as well as hyperpigmented velvety plaques on the axillae, characteristic of acanthosis nigricans (Figure 3). A shave biopsy of a papule on the right cheek revealed a proliferation of plump stellate fibroblasts, small blood vessels, and thick collagen bundles, characteristic of a fibrous papule (Figure 4).

Differential diagnoses for our patient included BHDS and Cowden syndrome (CS). Due to the combination of extensive family history of multiorgan cancers as well as the clinical findings, he was referred to a geneticist for further evaluation. Genetic analysis was positive for a heterozygous mutation variant of uncertain significance in the PTEN gene.

The PHTS disorders include CS, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, Lhermitte-Duclos disease, Proteus syndrome, and Proteus-like syndrome (Table).^1-9 Our patient’s clinical findings were indicative of CS, a rare genodermatosis characterized by multiple hamartomas and neoplasms of ectodermal, mesodermal, and endodermal origin.¹ Most CS patients develop trichilemmomas of the central face, mucocutaneous papillomatous papules, and acral and plantar keratoses by the third decade of life.¹ Importantly, CS patients have an increased risk for breast, thyroid, renal, endometrial, and colorectal cancers, as well as melanoma, with estimated lifetime risks of 85%, 35%, 33%, 28%, 9%, and 6%, respectively.^2,10

Regarding the pathophysiology of PHTS disorders, PTEN encodes a phosphatase that inhibits phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt and mTOR signaling pathways, thereby controlling cell proliferation, cell-cycle progression, and apoptosis.^2,3 Loss of PTEN function, as seen in CS patients, results in an increased risk for cancer.² Other genetic diseases, including juvenile polyposis syndrome, Proteus syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, have phenotypic similarities to PHTS.³ Specifically, loss-of-function mutations of TSC1 and TSC2, tumor suppressor genes associated with tuberous sclerosis, similarly result in dysregulation of mTOR signaling.

Our patient also had some clinical features characteristic of BHDS, such as flesh-colored facial papules, acrochordonlike lesions, and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.¹¹ Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome most often is caused by an autosomal-dominant germline mutation in FLCN, a tumor suppressor gene.¹¹ Interestingly, FLCN interacts with AMP-activated protein kinase to help regulate mTOR signaling, which may explain phenotypic similarities seen in CS and BHDS.¹²

Because the PHTS disorders and BHDS result in similar functional consequences on the mTOR signaling pathway, patients can present with overlapping clinical features that may be diagnostically challenging. Management includes patient education regarding cancer risk, surveillance for early detection of malignancy, and genetic counseling for family members.² It is important for clinicians to appreciate phenotypic similarities between PHTS and other disorders affecting mTOR signaling to prevent delays in diagnosis.

To the Editor:

PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS) encompasses a spectrum of disorders that most commonly are caused by autosomal-dominant germline mutations in the phosphatase and tensin homolog, PTEN, tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 10q23. We describe a patient who presented with clinical features of PHTS and Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHDS). Because the genetic mutations associated with both PHTS and BHDS result in altered mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling, patients may have overlapping phenotypic features.

A 51-year-old man with a history of multiple carcinomas presented for evaluation of flesh-colored papules on the cheeks, nose, tongue, and hands, in addition to numerous skin tags on the neck, axillae, and lower abdomen bilaterally. His medical history was notable for several nasal and gastrointestinal tract polyps, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, cutaneous lipomas, atypical carcinoid syndrome of the right lung, and a multinodular thyroid. His family history was notable for small cell lung cancer in his father, breast cancer and pancreatic cancer in his maternal aunt, esophageal cancer in his maternal grandfather, and celiac disease in his daughter.

Clinical examination revealed flesh-colored, dome-shaped papules measuring 1 to 2 mm in diameter on the nose and cheeks (Figure 1). He had hyperkeratotic papules on the dorsal fingers, consistent with acral keratoses. Additionally, multiple flesh-colored papules with a cobblestonelike appearance were noted on the oral mucosa (Figure 2). Other findings included pedunculated papules on the neck, axillae, and lower abdomen bilaterally, consistent with fibroepithelial polyps, as well as hyperpigmented velvety plaques on the axillae, characteristic of acanthosis nigricans (Figure 3). A shave biopsy of a papule on the right cheek revealed a proliferation of plump stellate fibroblasts, small blood vessels, and thick collagen bundles, characteristic of a fibrous papule (Figure 4).

Differential diagnoses for our patient included BHDS and Cowden syndrome (CS). Due to the combination of extensive family history of multiorgan cancers as well as the clinical findings, he was referred to a geneticist for further evaluation. Genetic analysis was positive for a heterozygous mutation variant of uncertain significance in the PTEN gene.

The PHTS disorders include CS, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, Lhermitte-Duclos disease, Proteus syndrome, and Proteus-like syndrome (Table).^1-9 Our patient’s clinical findings were indicative of CS, a rare genodermatosis characterized by multiple hamartomas and neoplasms of ectodermal, mesodermal, and endodermal origin.¹ Most CS patients develop trichilemmomas of the central face, mucocutaneous papillomatous papules, and acral and plantar keratoses by the third decade of life.¹ Importantly, CS patients have an increased risk for breast, thyroid, renal, endometrial, and colorectal cancers, as well as melanoma, with estimated lifetime risks of 85%, 35%, 33%, 28%, 9%, and 6%, respectively.^2,10

Regarding the pathophysiology of PHTS disorders, PTEN encodes a phosphatase that inhibits phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt and mTOR signaling pathways, thereby controlling cell proliferation, cell-cycle progression, and apoptosis.^2,3 Loss of PTEN function, as seen in CS patients, results in an increased risk for cancer.² Other genetic diseases, including juvenile polyposis syndrome, Proteus syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, have phenotypic similarities to PHTS.³ Specifically, loss-of-function mutations of TSC1 and TSC2, tumor suppressor genes associated with tuberous sclerosis, similarly result in dysregulation of mTOR signaling.

Our patient also had some clinical features characteristic of BHDS, such as flesh-colored facial papules, acrochordonlike lesions, and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.¹¹ Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome most often is caused by an autosomal-dominant germline mutation in FLCN, a tumor suppressor gene.¹¹ Interestingly, FLCN interacts with AMP-activated protein kinase to help regulate mTOR signaling, which may explain phenotypic similarities seen in CS and BHDS.¹²

Because the PHTS disorders and BHDS result in similar functional consequences on the mTOR signaling pathway, patients can present with overlapping clinical features that may be diagnostically challenging. Management includes patient education regarding cancer risk, surveillance for early detection of malignancy, and genetic counseling for family members.² It is important for clinicians to appreciate phenotypic similarities between PHTS and other disorders affecting mTOR signaling to prevent delays in diagnosis.

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

Medicare reimbursement for a group of 46 common dermatologic procedures dropped by a mean of 4.8% from 2007 to 2021, after adjusting for inflation, according to a new analysis.

Large increases in mean reimbursement for skin biopsies (+30.3%) and shave removal (+24.6%) were not enough to offset lower rates for procedures such as simple repair (–38.7%), premalignant destruction (–19.6%), Mohs micrographic surgery (–14.4%), and flap repair (–14.1%), Rishabh S. Mazmudar, BS, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and associates said.

“Given Medicare’s contribution to a large proportion of health care expenditures, changes in Medicare reimbursement rates may result in parallel changes in private insurance reimbursement,” they wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

A recently published study showed that Medicare reimbursement for 20 dermatologic service codes had fallen by 10% between the two comparison years, 2000 and 2020. The current study expanded the number of procedures to 46 (divided into nine categories) and used historical Medicare fee schedules to examine annual trends over a 15-year period, Mr. Mazmudar and associates explained.

Other specialties have seen reimbursement fall by more than 4.8%, including emergency medicine (–21.2% from 2000 to 2020) and general surgery (–24.4% from 2000 to 2018), but “these comparisons are likely skewed by the disproportionate increase in reimbursement rates for biopsies and shave removals during this time period,” the investigators said.

If those two procedure categories were excluded from the analysis, the mean change in overall reimbursement for the remaining dermatologic procedures would be −9.6%, they noted.

Detailed payment information provided for 15 of the 46 procedures shows that only intermediate repair (+4.5%) and benign destruction (+2.3%) joined biopsies and shave excisions with increased reimbursement from 2007 to 2021. The smallest drop among the other procedures was –1.9% for malignant destruction, the research team reported.

The inflation-adjusted, year-by-year analysis showed that reimbursement for the nine procedure categories has gradually declined since peaking in 2011, with the most notable exceptions being biopsies and shave excisions. Both had been following the trend until 2013, when reimbursement for shave removals jumped by almost 30 percentage points, and 2019, when rates for biopsies soared by more than 30 percentage points, according to the investigators.

The increase for skin biopsies followed the split of the original CPT code into three categories, but “the jump in reimbursement for shave removals in 2013 requires further investigation,” Mr. Mazmudar and associates wrote.

The investigators did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Medicare reimbursement for a group of 46 common dermatologic procedures dropped by a mean of 4.8% from 2007 to 2021, after adjusting for inflation, according to a new analysis.

Large increases in mean reimbursement for skin biopsies (+30.3%) and shave removal (+24.6%) were not enough to offset lower rates for procedures such as simple repair (–38.7%), premalignant destruction (–19.6%), Mohs micrographic surgery (–14.4%), and flap repair (–14.1%), Rishabh S. Mazmudar, BS, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and associates said.

“Given Medicare’s contribution to a large proportion of health care expenditures, changes in Medicare reimbursement rates may result in parallel changes in private insurance reimbursement,” they wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

A recently published study showed that Medicare reimbursement for 20 dermatologic service codes had fallen by 10% between the two comparison years, 2000 and 2020. The current study expanded the number of procedures to 46 (divided into nine categories) and used historical Medicare fee schedules to examine annual trends over a 15-year period, Mr. Mazmudar and associates explained.

Other specialties have seen reimbursement fall by more than 4.8%, including emergency medicine (–21.2% from 2000 to 2020) and general surgery (–24.4% from 2000 to 2018), but “these comparisons are likely skewed by the disproportionate increase in reimbursement rates for biopsies and shave removals during this time period,” the investigators said.

If those two procedure categories were excluded from the analysis, the mean change in overall reimbursement for the remaining dermatologic procedures would be −9.6%, they noted.

Detailed payment information provided for 15 of the 46 procedures shows that only intermediate repair (+4.5%) and benign destruction (+2.3%) joined biopsies and shave excisions with increased reimbursement from 2007 to 2021. The smallest drop among the other procedures was –1.9% for malignant destruction, the research team reported.

The inflation-adjusted, year-by-year analysis showed that reimbursement for the nine procedure categories has gradually declined since peaking in 2011, with the most notable exceptions being biopsies and shave excisions. Both had been following the trend until 2013, when reimbursement for shave removals jumped by almost 30 percentage points, and 2019, when rates for biopsies soared by more than 30 percentage points, according to the investigators.

The increase for skin biopsies followed the split of the original CPT code into three categories, but “the jump in reimbursement for shave removals in 2013 requires further investigation,” Mr. Mazmudar and associates wrote.

The investigators did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Medicare reimbursement for a group of 46 common dermatologic procedures dropped by a mean of 4.8% from 2007 to 2021, after adjusting for inflation, according to a new analysis.

Large increases in mean reimbursement for skin biopsies (+30.3%) and shave removal (+24.6%) were not enough to offset lower rates for procedures such as simple repair (–38.7%), premalignant destruction (–19.6%), Mohs micrographic surgery (–14.4%), and flap repair (–14.1%), Rishabh S. Mazmudar, BS, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and associates said.

“Given Medicare’s contribution to a large proportion of health care expenditures, changes in Medicare reimbursement rates may result in parallel changes in private insurance reimbursement,” they wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

A recently published study showed that Medicare reimbursement for 20 dermatologic service codes had fallen by 10% between the two comparison years, 2000 and 2020. The current study expanded the number of procedures to 46 (divided into nine categories) and used historical Medicare fee schedules to examine annual trends over a 15-year period, Mr. Mazmudar and associates explained.

Other specialties have seen reimbursement fall by more than 4.8%, including emergency medicine (–21.2% from 2000 to 2020) and general surgery (–24.4% from 2000 to 2018), but “these comparisons are likely skewed by the disproportionate increase in reimbursement rates for biopsies and shave removals during this time period,” the investigators said.

If those two procedure categories were excluded from the analysis, the mean change in overall reimbursement for the remaining dermatologic procedures would be −9.6%, they noted.

Detailed payment information provided for 15 of the 46 procedures shows that only intermediate repair (+4.5%) and benign destruction (+2.3%) joined biopsies and shave excisions with increased reimbursement from 2007 to 2021. The smallest drop among the other procedures was –1.9% for malignant destruction, the research team reported.

The inflation-adjusted, year-by-year analysis showed that reimbursement for the nine procedure categories has gradually declined since peaking in 2011, with the most notable exceptions being biopsies and shave excisions. Both had been following the trend until 2013, when reimbursement for shave removals jumped by almost 30 percentage points, and 2019, when rates for biopsies soared by more than 30 percentage points, according to the investigators.

The increase for skin biopsies followed the split of the original CPT code into three categories, but “the jump in reimbursement for shave removals in 2013 requires further investigation,” Mr. Mazmudar and associates wrote.

The investigators did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The Diagnosis: Dermatitis Neglecta

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed hyperkeratosis and mild papillomatosis (Figure), which can be seen in dermatitis neglecta (DN) and acanthosis nigricans (AN) as well as confluent and reticulated papillomatosis (CARP). Due to the patient’s history of mood and psychotic disorders, collateral information was obtained from the patient’s family, who reported that the patient had a depressed mood in the last few months and was not showering or caring for herself during this period. There was no additional personal or family history of skin disease. Clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of DN. Following recommendations for daily cleansing with soap and water along with topical ammonium lactate, near-complete resolution of the rash was achieved in 3 weeks.

Dermatitis neglecta, or unwashed dermatosis, is a skin condition that occurs secondary to poor hygiene, which was first reported in 1995 by Poskitt et al.¹ Avoidance of washing in affected areas can be due to physical disability, pain after injury, neurological deficit, or psychologically induced fear or neglect. Sebum, sweat, corneocytes, and bacteria combine into compact adherent crusts of dirt, which appear as hyperkeratotic plaques with cornflakelike scale.^2,3 Despite its innate simplicity, DN is a diagnostic challenge, as it clinically and histologically mimics other dermatoses including AN, terra firmaforme dermatosis, and CARP.^2,4 Ultimately, the diagnosis of DN can be made when a history of poor hygiene is probable or elicited, and lesions can be removed with soap and water. Treatment of DN includes daily cleansing with soap and water; however, resistant lesions or extensive disease may require keratolytic agents, as in our patient.^2-4 In contrast, terra firma-forme dermatosis, which may look similar, is not due to poor hygiene, and the lesions typically are resistant to soap and water, classically requiring isopropyl alcohol for removal. Overall, maintained awareness of DN is imperative, as early diagnosis can avoid unnecessary biopsies and more complex treatment measures as well as facilitate coordination of care when additional medical or psychiatric concerns are present.

Although the diagnoses of DN and terra firma-forme dermatosis can be distinguished based on the patient’s clinical history and response to simple cleansing measures alone, the alternate diagnoses can be excluded based on different clinical distributions and response to other treatment modalities but sometimes may require clinicopathologic correlation for definitive diagnosis. Our patient had a biopsy diagnosis of psoriasiform dermatitis from an outside provider, but neither her clinical disease nor repeated histopathologic findings supported a diagnosis of psoriasis or other classic psoriasiform dermatoses such as contact dermatitis, dermatophyte/ candidal infection, seborrheic dermatitis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, pityriasis rosea, scabies, or syphilis.

It is imperative to exclude alternative diagnoses because they can have systemic implications and can misguide treatment, as was done initially with our patient. Psoriasis vulgaris in its classic form is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that manifests as sharply demarcated, erythematous plaques with overlying thick silvery scale; it has the additional histologic findings of neutrophilic spongiform pustules in the epidermis, tortuous blood vessels in the papillary dermis, and neutrophils and parakeratosis in the stratum corneum. In its benign form, AN is associated with endocrinopathies, most commonly obesity and insulin-resistant diabetes mellitus, and presents as hyperkeratotic, velvety, hyperpigmented plaques typically limited to the neck and axillae. Malignant AN spontaneously arises in association with systemic malignancy and can be extensive and generalized.⁵ Treatment of AN primarily focuses on resolution of the underlying systemic disease; however, cosmetic treatment with topical or oral retinoids may hasten resolution of cutaneous disease.⁶ Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis is characterized by reticulated hyperkeratotic plaques with a common distribution over the central and upper trunk. Unlike DN and AN, which may occur at any age, CARP typically is seen in adolescents and young adults.⁷ There is no evidence-based gold standard for the management of CARP; however, the successful use of various antibiotics, antifungals, and retinoids—alone or in combination—has been reported.⁸ Overall, compared to the other entities in the differential diagnosis, DN easily can be prevented with consistent use of soap and water and may be underreported given the asymptomatic nature of the disease and the typical patient population.

The Diagnosis: Dermatitis Neglecta

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed hyperkeratosis and mild papillomatosis (Figure), which can be seen in dermatitis neglecta (DN) and acanthosis nigricans (AN) as well as confluent and reticulated papillomatosis (CARP). Due to the patient’s history of mood and psychotic disorders, collateral information was obtained from the patient’s family, who reported that the patient had a depressed mood in the last few months and was not showering or caring for herself during this period. There was no additional personal or family history of skin disease. Clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of DN. Following recommendations for daily cleansing with soap and water along with topical ammonium lactate, near-complete resolution of the rash was achieved in 3 weeks.

Dermatitis neglecta, or unwashed dermatosis, is a skin condition that occurs secondary to poor hygiene, which was first reported in 1995 by Poskitt et al.¹ Avoidance of washing in affected areas can be due to physical disability, pain after injury, neurological deficit, or psychologically induced fear or neglect. Sebum, sweat, corneocytes, and bacteria combine into compact adherent crusts of dirt, which appear as hyperkeratotic plaques with cornflakelike scale.^2,3 Despite its innate simplicity, DN is a diagnostic challenge, as it clinically and histologically mimics other dermatoses including AN, terra firmaforme dermatosis, and CARP.^2,4 Ultimately, the diagnosis of DN can be made when a history of poor hygiene is probable or elicited, and lesions can be removed with soap and water. Treatment of DN includes daily cleansing with soap and water; however, resistant lesions or extensive disease may require keratolytic agents, as in our patient.^2-4 In contrast, terra firma-forme dermatosis, which may look similar, is not due to poor hygiene, and the lesions typically are resistant to soap and water, classically requiring isopropyl alcohol for removal. Overall, maintained awareness of DN is imperative, as early diagnosis can avoid unnecessary biopsies and more complex treatment measures as well as facilitate coordination of care when additional medical or psychiatric concerns are present.

Although the diagnoses of DN and terra firma-forme dermatosis can be distinguished based on the patient’s clinical history and response to simple cleansing measures alone, the alternate diagnoses can be excluded based on different clinical distributions and response to other treatment modalities but sometimes may require clinicopathologic correlation for definitive diagnosis. Our patient had a biopsy diagnosis of psoriasiform dermatitis from an outside provider, but neither her clinical disease nor repeated histopathologic findings supported a diagnosis of psoriasis or other classic psoriasiform dermatoses such as contact dermatitis, dermatophyte/ candidal infection, seborrheic dermatitis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, pityriasis rosea, scabies, or syphilis.

It is imperative to exclude alternative diagnoses because they can have systemic implications and can misguide treatment, as was done initially with our patient. Psoriasis vulgaris in its classic form is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that manifests as sharply demarcated, erythematous plaques with overlying thick silvery scale; it has the additional histologic findings of neutrophilic spongiform pustules in the epidermis, tortuous blood vessels in the papillary dermis, and neutrophils and parakeratosis in the stratum corneum. In its benign form, AN is associated with endocrinopathies, most commonly obesity and insulin-resistant diabetes mellitus, and presents as hyperkeratotic, velvety, hyperpigmented plaques typically limited to the neck and axillae. Malignant AN spontaneously arises in association with systemic malignancy and can be extensive and generalized.⁵ Treatment of AN primarily focuses on resolution of the underlying systemic disease; however, cosmetic treatment with topical or oral retinoids may hasten resolution of cutaneous disease.⁶ Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis is characterized by reticulated hyperkeratotic plaques with a common distribution over the central and upper trunk. Unlike DN and AN, which may occur at any age, CARP typically is seen in adolescents and young adults.⁷ There is no evidence-based gold standard for the management of CARP; however, the successful use of various antibiotics, antifungals, and retinoids—alone or in combination—has been reported.⁸ Overall, compared to the other entities in the differential diagnosis, DN easily can be prevented with consistent use of soap and water and may be underreported given the asymptomatic nature of the disease and the typical patient population.

The Diagnosis: Dermatitis Neglecta

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed hyperkeratosis and mild papillomatosis (Figure), which can be seen in dermatitis neglecta (DN) and acanthosis nigricans (AN) as well as confluent and reticulated papillomatosis (CARP). Due to the patient’s history of mood and psychotic disorders, collateral information was obtained from the patient’s family, who reported that the patient had a depressed mood in the last few months and was not showering or caring for herself during this period. There was no additional personal or family history of skin disease. Clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of DN. Following recommendations for daily cleansing with soap and water along with topical ammonium lactate, near-complete resolution of the rash was achieved in 3 weeks.

Dermatitis neglecta, or unwashed dermatosis, is a skin condition that occurs secondary to poor hygiene, which was first reported in 1995 by Poskitt et al.¹ Avoidance of washing in affected areas can be due to physical disability, pain after injury, neurological deficit, or psychologically induced fear or neglect. Sebum, sweat, corneocytes, and bacteria combine into compact adherent crusts of dirt, which appear as hyperkeratotic plaques with cornflakelike scale.^2,3 Despite its innate simplicity, DN is a diagnostic challenge, as it clinically and histologically mimics other dermatoses including AN, terra firmaforme dermatosis, and CARP.^2,4 Ultimately, the diagnosis of DN can be made when a history of poor hygiene is probable or elicited, and lesions can be removed with soap and water. Treatment of DN includes daily cleansing with soap and water; however, resistant lesions or extensive disease may require keratolytic agents, as in our patient.^2-4 In contrast, terra firma-forme dermatosis, which may look similar, is not due to poor hygiene, and the lesions typically are resistant to soap and water, classically requiring isopropyl alcohol for removal. Overall, maintained awareness of DN is imperative, as early diagnosis can avoid unnecessary biopsies and more complex treatment measures as well as facilitate coordination of care when additional medical or psychiatric concerns are present.

Although the diagnoses of DN and terra firma-forme dermatosis can be distinguished based on the patient’s clinical history and response to simple cleansing measures alone, the alternate diagnoses can be excluded based on different clinical distributions and response to other treatment modalities but sometimes may require clinicopathologic correlation for definitive diagnosis. Our patient had a biopsy diagnosis of psoriasiform dermatitis from an outside provider, but neither her clinical disease nor repeated histopathologic findings supported a diagnosis of psoriasis or other classic psoriasiform dermatoses such as contact dermatitis, dermatophyte/ candidal infection, seborrheic dermatitis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, pityriasis rosea, scabies, or syphilis.

It is imperative to exclude alternative diagnoses because they can have systemic implications and can misguide treatment, as was done initially with our patient. Psoriasis vulgaris in its classic form is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that manifests as sharply demarcated, erythematous plaques with overlying thick silvery scale; it has the additional histologic findings of neutrophilic spongiform pustules in the epidermis, tortuous blood vessels in the papillary dermis, and neutrophils and parakeratosis in the stratum corneum. In its benign form, AN is associated with endocrinopathies, most commonly obesity and insulin-resistant diabetes mellitus, and presents as hyperkeratotic, velvety, hyperpigmented plaques typically limited to the neck and axillae. Malignant AN spontaneously arises in association with systemic malignancy and can be extensive and generalized.⁵ Treatment of AN primarily focuses on resolution of the underlying systemic disease; however, cosmetic treatment with topical or oral retinoids may hasten resolution of cutaneous disease.⁶ Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis is characterized by reticulated hyperkeratotic plaques with a common distribution over the central and upper trunk. Unlike DN and AN, which may occur at any age, CARP typically is seen in adolescents and young adults.⁷ There is no evidence-based gold standard for the management of CARP; however, the successful use of various antibiotics, antifungals, and retinoids—alone or in combination—has been reported.⁸ Overall, compared to the other entities in the differential diagnosis, DN easily can be prevented with consistent use of soap and water and may be underreported given the asymptomatic nature of the disease and the typical patient population.

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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