The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

Lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) is a rare acquired autoimmune blistering disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals.¹ It often manifests with overlapping features of both LP and bullous pemphigoid (BP). The condition usually presents in the fifth decade of life and has a slight female predominance.² Although primarily idiopathic, it has been associated with certain medications and treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors, labetalol, narrowband UVB, and psoralen plus UVA.^3,4

Patients initially present with lesions of classic lichen planus (LP) with pink-purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques.⁵ After weeks to months, tense vesicles and bullae usually develop on the sites of LP as well as on uninvolved skin. One study found a mean lag time of about 8.3 months for blistering to present after LP,⁵ but concurrent presentations of both have been reported.¹ In addition, oral mucosal involvement has been seen in 36% of cases. The most commonly affected sites are the extremities; however, involvement can be widespread.²

The pathogenesis of LPP currently is unknown. It has been proposed that in LP, injury of basal keratinocytes exposes hidden basement membrane and hemidesmosome antigens including BP180, a 180 kDa transmembrane protein of the basement membrane zone (BMZ),⁶ which triggers an immune response where T cells recognize the extracellular portion of BP180 and antibodies are formed against the likely autoantigen.1 One study has suggested that the autoantigen in LPP is the MCW-4 epitope within the C-terminal end of the NC16A domain of BP180.⁷

Histopathology of LPP reveals characteristics of both LP as well as BP. Typical features of LP on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining include lichenoid lymphocytic interface dermatitis, sawtooth rete ridges, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, and colloid bodies, as demonstrated from the biopsy of our patient’s gluteal cleft lesion (quiz image 1), while the predominant feature of BP on H&E staining includes a subepidermal bulla with eosinophils.² Typically, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) shows linear deposits of IgG and/or C3 along the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) often reveals IgG against the roof of the BMZ in a human split-skin substrate.¹ Antibodies against BP180 or uncommonly BP230 often are detected on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For our patient, IIF and ELISA tests were positive. Given the clinical presentation with recurrent oral and gluteal cleft erosions, histologic findings, and the results of our patient’s immunological testing, the diagnosis of LPP was made.

Topical steroids often are used to treat localized disease of LPP.8 Oral prednisone also may be given for widespread or unresponsive disease.⁹ Other treatments include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, tetracycline in combination with nicotinamide, acitretin, ustekinumab, baricitinib, and rituximab with intravenous immunoglobulin.^3,8,10-12 Any potential medication culprits should be discontinued.⁹ Patients with oral involvement may require a soft diet to avoid further mucosal insult.¹⁰ Additionally, providers should consider dentistry, ophthalmology, and/or otolaryngology referrals depending on disease severity.

Bullous pemphigoid, the most common autoimmune blistering disease, has an estimated incidence of 10 to 43 per million individuals per year.² Classically, it presents with tense bullae on the skin of the lower abdomen, thighs, groin, forearms, and axillae. Circulating antibodies against 2 BMZ proteins—BP180 and BP230—are important factors in BP pathogenesis.² Diagnosis of BP is based on clinical features, histologic findings, and immunological studies including DIF, IIF, and ELISA. An eosinophil-rich subepidermal split typically is seen on H&E staining (Figure 1).

Direct immunofluorescence displays linear IgG and/ or C3 staining at the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate commonly shows linear BMZ deposition on the roof of the blister.² Indirect immunofluorescence for IgG deposition on monkey esophagus substrate shows linear BMZ deposition. Antibodies against the NC16A domain of BP180 (NC16A-BP180) are dominant, but BP230 antibodies against BP230 also are detected with ELISA.² Further studies have indicated that the NC16A epitopes of BP180 that are targeted in BP are MCW-0-3,² different from the autoantigen MCW-4 that is targeted in LPP.⁷

Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) is another diagnosis to consider. Patients with PNP initially present with oral findings—most commonly chronic, erosive, and painful mucositis—followed by cutaneous involvement, which varies from the development of bullae to the formation of plaques similar to those of LP.¹³ The latter, in combination with oral erosions, may appear clinically similar to LPP. The results of DIF in conjugation with IIF and ELISA may help to further differentiate these disorders. Direct immunofluorescence in PNP typically reveals positive intercellular and/or BMZ IgG and C3, while DIF in LPP reveals depositions along the BMZ alone. Indirect immunofluorescence performed on rat bladder epithelium is particularly useful, as binding of IgG to rat bladder epithelium is characteristic of PNP and not seen in other disorders.¹⁴ Lastly, patients with PNP may develop IgG antibodies to various antigens such as desmoplakin I, desmoplakin II, envoplakin, periplakin, BP230, desmoglein 1, and desmoglein 3, which would not be expected in LPP patients.¹⁵ Hematoxylin and eosin staining differs from LPP, primarily with the location of the blister being intraepidermal. Acantholysis with hemorrhagic bullae can be seen (Figure 2).

Classic LP is an inflammatory disorder that mainly affects adults, with an estimated incidence of less than 1%.¹⁶ The classic form presents with purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques of varying size that often are characterized by Wickham striae. Lichen planus possesses a broad spectrum of subtypes involving different locations, though skin lesions usually are localized to the extremities. Despite an unknown etiology, activated T cells and T helper type 1 cytokines are considered key in keratinocyte injury. Compact orthokeratosis, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, focal dyskeratosis, and colloid bodies typically are found on H&E staining, along with a dense bandlike lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ)(Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence typically shows a shaggy band of fibrinogen along the DEJ in addition to colloid bodies that stain with various autoantibodies including IgM, IgG, IgA, and C3.¹⁶

Bullous LP is a rare variant of LP that commonly develops on the oral mucosa and the legs, with blisters confined on pre-existing LP lesions.⁹ The pathogenesis is related to an epidermal inflammatory infiltrate that leads to basal layer destruction followed by dermal-epidermal separations that cause blistering.¹⁷ Bullous LP does not have positive DIF, IIF, or ELISA because the pathophysiology does not involve autoantibody production. Histopathology typically displays an extensive inflammatory infiltrate and degeneration of the basal keratinocytes, resulting in large dermal-epidermal separations called Max-Joseph spaces (Figure 4).¹⁷ Colloid bodies are prominent in bullous LP but rarely are seen in LPP; eosinophils also are much more prominent in LPP compared to bullous LP.¹⁸ Unlike in LPP, DIF usually is negative in bullous LP, though lichenoid lesions may exhibit globular deposition of IgM, IgG, and IgA in the colloid bodies of the lower epidermis and/or papillary dermis. Similar to LP, DIF of the biopsy specimen shows linear or shaggy deposits of fibrinogen at the DEJ.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

Lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) is a rare acquired autoimmune blistering disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals.¹ It often manifests with overlapping features of both LP and bullous pemphigoid (BP). The condition usually presents in the fifth decade of life and has a slight female predominance.² Although primarily idiopathic, it has been associated with certain medications and treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors, labetalol, narrowband UVB, and psoralen plus UVA.^3,4

Patients initially present with lesions of classic lichen planus (LP) with pink-purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques.⁵ After weeks to months, tense vesicles and bullae usually develop on the sites of LP as well as on uninvolved skin. One study found a mean lag time of about 8.3 months for blistering to present after LP,⁵ but concurrent presentations of both have been reported.¹ In addition, oral mucosal involvement has been seen in 36% of cases. The most commonly affected sites are the extremities; however, involvement can be widespread.²

The pathogenesis of LPP currently is unknown. It has been proposed that in LP, injury of basal keratinocytes exposes hidden basement membrane and hemidesmosome antigens including BP180, a 180 kDa transmembrane protein of the basement membrane zone (BMZ),⁶ which triggers an immune response where T cells recognize the extracellular portion of BP180 and antibodies are formed against the likely autoantigen.1 One study has suggested that the autoantigen in LPP is the MCW-4 epitope within the C-terminal end of the NC16A domain of BP180.⁷

Histopathology of LPP reveals characteristics of both LP as well as BP. Typical features of LP on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining include lichenoid lymphocytic interface dermatitis, sawtooth rete ridges, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, and colloid bodies, as demonstrated from the biopsy of our patient’s gluteal cleft lesion (quiz image 1), while the predominant feature of BP on H&E staining includes a subepidermal bulla with eosinophils.² Typically, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) shows linear deposits of IgG and/or C3 along the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) often reveals IgG against the roof of the BMZ in a human split-skin substrate.¹ Antibodies against BP180 or uncommonly BP230 often are detected on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For our patient, IIF and ELISA tests were positive. Given the clinical presentation with recurrent oral and gluteal cleft erosions, histologic findings, and the results of our patient’s immunological testing, the diagnosis of LPP was made.

Topical steroids often are used to treat localized disease of LPP.8 Oral prednisone also may be given for widespread or unresponsive disease.⁹ Other treatments include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, tetracycline in combination with nicotinamide, acitretin, ustekinumab, baricitinib, and rituximab with intravenous immunoglobulin.^3,8,10-12 Any potential medication culprits should be discontinued.⁹ Patients with oral involvement may require a soft diet to avoid further mucosal insult.¹⁰ Additionally, providers should consider dentistry, ophthalmology, and/or otolaryngology referrals depending on disease severity.

Bullous pemphigoid, the most common autoimmune blistering disease, has an estimated incidence of 10 to 43 per million individuals per year.² Classically, it presents with tense bullae on the skin of the lower abdomen, thighs, groin, forearms, and axillae. Circulating antibodies against 2 BMZ proteins—BP180 and BP230—are important factors in BP pathogenesis.² Diagnosis of BP is based on clinical features, histologic findings, and immunological studies including DIF, IIF, and ELISA. An eosinophil-rich subepidermal split typically is seen on H&E staining (Figure 1).

Direct immunofluorescence displays linear IgG and/ or C3 staining at the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate commonly shows linear BMZ deposition on the roof of the blister.² Indirect immunofluorescence for IgG deposition on monkey esophagus substrate shows linear BMZ deposition. Antibodies against the NC16A domain of BP180 (NC16A-BP180) are dominant, but BP230 antibodies against BP230 also are detected with ELISA.² Further studies have indicated that the NC16A epitopes of BP180 that are targeted in BP are MCW-0-3,² different from the autoantigen MCW-4 that is targeted in LPP.⁷

Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) is another diagnosis to consider. Patients with PNP initially present with oral findings—most commonly chronic, erosive, and painful mucositis—followed by cutaneous involvement, which varies from the development of bullae to the formation of plaques similar to those of LP.¹³ The latter, in combination with oral erosions, may appear clinically similar to LPP. The results of DIF in conjugation with IIF and ELISA may help to further differentiate these disorders. Direct immunofluorescence in PNP typically reveals positive intercellular and/or BMZ IgG and C3, while DIF in LPP reveals depositions along the BMZ alone. Indirect immunofluorescence performed on rat bladder epithelium is particularly useful, as binding of IgG to rat bladder epithelium is characteristic of PNP and not seen in other disorders.¹⁴ Lastly, patients with PNP may develop IgG antibodies to various antigens such as desmoplakin I, desmoplakin II, envoplakin, periplakin, BP230, desmoglein 1, and desmoglein 3, which would not be expected in LPP patients.¹⁵ Hematoxylin and eosin staining differs from LPP, primarily with the location of the blister being intraepidermal. Acantholysis with hemorrhagic bullae can be seen (Figure 2).

Classic LP is an inflammatory disorder that mainly affects adults, with an estimated incidence of less than 1%.¹⁶ The classic form presents with purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques of varying size that often are characterized by Wickham striae. Lichen planus possesses a broad spectrum of subtypes involving different locations, though skin lesions usually are localized to the extremities. Despite an unknown etiology, activated T cells and T helper type 1 cytokines are considered key in keratinocyte injury. Compact orthokeratosis, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, focal dyskeratosis, and colloid bodies typically are found on H&E staining, along with a dense bandlike lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ)(Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence typically shows a shaggy band of fibrinogen along the DEJ in addition to colloid bodies that stain with various autoantibodies including IgM, IgG, IgA, and C3.¹⁶

Bullous LP is a rare variant of LP that commonly develops on the oral mucosa and the legs, with blisters confined on pre-existing LP lesions.⁹ The pathogenesis is related to an epidermal inflammatory infiltrate that leads to basal layer destruction followed by dermal-epidermal separations that cause blistering.¹⁷ Bullous LP does not have positive DIF, IIF, or ELISA because the pathophysiology does not involve autoantibody production. Histopathology typically displays an extensive inflammatory infiltrate and degeneration of the basal keratinocytes, resulting in large dermal-epidermal separations called Max-Joseph spaces (Figure 4).¹⁷ Colloid bodies are prominent in bullous LP but rarely are seen in LPP; eosinophils also are much more prominent in LPP compared to bullous LP.¹⁸ Unlike in LPP, DIF usually is negative in bullous LP, though lichenoid lesions may exhibit globular deposition of IgM, IgG, and IgA in the colloid bodies of the lower epidermis and/or papillary dermis. Similar to LP, DIF of the biopsy specimen shows linear or shaggy deposits of fibrinogen at the DEJ.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

Lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) is a rare acquired autoimmune blistering disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals.¹ It often manifests with overlapping features of both LP and bullous pemphigoid (BP). The condition usually presents in the fifth decade of life and has a slight female predominance.² Although primarily idiopathic, it has been associated with certain medications and treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors, labetalol, narrowband UVB, and psoralen plus UVA.^3,4

Patients initially present with lesions of classic lichen planus (LP) with pink-purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques.⁵ After weeks to months, tense vesicles and bullae usually develop on the sites of LP as well as on uninvolved skin. One study found a mean lag time of about 8.3 months for blistering to present after LP,⁵ but concurrent presentations of both have been reported.¹ In addition, oral mucosal involvement has been seen in 36% of cases. The most commonly affected sites are the extremities; however, involvement can be widespread.²

The pathogenesis of LPP currently is unknown. It has been proposed that in LP, injury of basal keratinocytes exposes hidden basement membrane and hemidesmosome antigens including BP180, a 180 kDa transmembrane protein of the basement membrane zone (BMZ),⁶ which triggers an immune response where T cells recognize the extracellular portion of BP180 and antibodies are formed against the likely autoantigen.1 One study has suggested that the autoantigen in LPP is the MCW-4 epitope within the C-terminal end of the NC16A domain of BP180.⁷

Histopathology of LPP reveals characteristics of both LP as well as BP. Typical features of LP on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining include lichenoid lymphocytic interface dermatitis, sawtooth rete ridges, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, and colloid bodies, as demonstrated from the biopsy of our patient’s gluteal cleft lesion (quiz image 1), while the predominant feature of BP on H&E staining includes a subepidermal bulla with eosinophils.² Typically, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) shows linear deposits of IgG and/or C3 along the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) often reveals IgG against the roof of the BMZ in a human split-skin substrate.¹ Antibodies against BP180 or uncommonly BP230 often are detected on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For our patient, IIF and ELISA tests were positive. Given the clinical presentation with recurrent oral and gluteal cleft erosions, histologic findings, and the results of our patient’s immunological testing, the diagnosis of LPP was made.

Topical steroids often are used to treat localized disease of LPP.8 Oral prednisone also may be given for widespread or unresponsive disease.⁹ Other treatments include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, tetracycline in combination with nicotinamide, acitretin, ustekinumab, baricitinib, and rituximab with intravenous immunoglobulin.^3,8,10-12 Any potential medication culprits should be discontinued.⁹ Patients with oral involvement may require a soft diet to avoid further mucosal insult.¹⁰ Additionally, providers should consider dentistry, ophthalmology, and/or otolaryngology referrals depending on disease severity.

Bullous pemphigoid, the most common autoimmune blistering disease, has an estimated incidence of 10 to 43 per million individuals per year.² Classically, it presents with tense bullae on the skin of the lower abdomen, thighs, groin, forearms, and axillae. Circulating antibodies against 2 BMZ proteins—BP180 and BP230—are important factors in BP pathogenesis.² Diagnosis of BP is based on clinical features, histologic findings, and immunological studies including DIF, IIF, and ELISA. An eosinophil-rich subepidermal split typically is seen on H&E staining (Figure 1).

Direct immunofluorescence displays linear IgG and/ or C3 staining at the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate commonly shows linear BMZ deposition on the roof of the blister.² Indirect immunofluorescence for IgG deposition on monkey esophagus substrate shows linear BMZ deposition. Antibodies against the NC16A domain of BP180 (NC16A-BP180) are dominant, but BP230 antibodies against BP230 also are detected with ELISA.² Further studies have indicated that the NC16A epitopes of BP180 that are targeted in BP are MCW-0-3,² different from the autoantigen MCW-4 that is targeted in LPP.⁷

Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) is another diagnosis to consider. Patients with PNP initially present with oral findings—most commonly chronic, erosive, and painful mucositis—followed by cutaneous involvement, which varies from the development of bullae to the formation of plaques similar to those of LP.¹³ The latter, in combination with oral erosions, may appear clinically similar to LPP. The results of DIF in conjugation with IIF and ELISA may help to further differentiate these disorders. Direct immunofluorescence in PNP typically reveals positive intercellular and/or BMZ IgG and C3, while DIF in LPP reveals depositions along the BMZ alone. Indirect immunofluorescence performed on rat bladder epithelium is particularly useful, as binding of IgG to rat bladder epithelium is characteristic of PNP and not seen in other disorders.¹⁴ Lastly, patients with PNP may develop IgG antibodies to various antigens such as desmoplakin I, desmoplakin II, envoplakin, periplakin, BP230, desmoglein 1, and desmoglein 3, which would not be expected in LPP patients.¹⁵ Hematoxylin and eosin staining differs from LPP, primarily with the location of the blister being intraepidermal. Acantholysis with hemorrhagic bullae can be seen (Figure 2).

Classic LP is an inflammatory disorder that mainly affects adults, with an estimated incidence of less than 1%.¹⁶ The classic form presents with purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques of varying size that often are characterized by Wickham striae. Lichen planus possesses a broad spectrum of subtypes involving different locations, though skin lesions usually are localized to the extremities. Despite an unknown etiology, activated T cells and T helper type 1 cytokines are considered key in keratinocyte injury. Compact orthokeratosis, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, focal dyskeratosis, and colloid bodies typically are found on H&E staining, along with a dense bandlike lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ)(Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence typically shows a shaggy band of fibrinogen along the DEJ in addition to colloid bodies that stain with various autoantibodies including IgM, IgG, IgA, and C3.¹⁶

Bullous LP is a rare variant of LP that commonly develops on the oral mucosa and the legs, with blisters confined on pre-existing LP lesions.⁹ The pathogenesis is related to an epidermal inflammatory infiltrate that leads to basal layer destruction followed by dermal-epidermal separations that cause blistering.¹⁷ Bullous LP does not have positive DIF, IIF, or ELISA because the pathophysiology does not involve autoantibody production. Histopathology typically displays an extensive inflammatory infiltrate and degeneration of the basal keratinocytes, resulting in large dermal-epidermal separations called Max-Joseph spaces (Figure 4).¹⁷ Colloid bodies are prominent in bullous LP but rarely are seen in LPP; eosinophils also are much more prominent in LPP compared to bullous LP.¹⁸ Unlike in LPP, DIF usually is negative in bullous LP, though lichenoid lesions may exhibit globular deposition of IgM, IgG, and IgA in the colloid bodies of the lower epidermis and/or papillary dermis. Similar to LP, DIF of the biopsy specimen shows linear or shaggy deposits of fibrinogen at the DEJ.¹⁷

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For most of my career, I have precepted residents in primary care clinics. Generally, 1st years are scheduled to see a patient every 45 minutes on average, then every 30 minutes after the first 6 months. By the 3rd year, residents are scheduled to see a patient every 15 minutes to approximate the frequency at which patients are routinely seen in practice. Adult health maintenance visits are typically allotted two slots, for a total of 30 minutes.

The gradually increased pace of seeing patients is a challenge for many residents. It requires them to not only perform more focused medical histories and physical examinations but also to address a select handful of issues in patients who may have a long list of health concerns or preventive care needs. Prioritizing tasks into those that are necessary to do today vs. those that can be deferred to a follow-up visit is an essential skill that is equal parts art and science. In a previous commentary, I wrote about a research group’s efforts to create visual decision aids to generate individualized estimates of life expectancy gains from various preventive services.

Of course, it’s uncommon to have the luxury of focusing exclusively on preventive care in older adults, most of whom have one or more chronic conditions. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease each has its own set of management guidelines. According to a recent estimate, following all guideline recommendations for chronic diseases plus those for preventive and acute care would require a primary care physician with a nationally representative panel of adult patients to work an impossible 27-hour day. That’s another good reason for me to continue seeing children in practice!

In a commentary in The BMJ, Dr Minna Johansson and colleagues argued that guideline panels should explicitly consider the estimated clinician time needed to improve the desired outcome for one person in the targeted population, a metric that they call “time needed to treat” (TNT). For example, to implement a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for U.K. general practitioners (GPs) about providing advice to physically inactive adults would require 3 hours for one more person to increase their self-reported physical activity. For a patient panel of 2000 adults, the absolute TNT would be 167 hours per GP, representing 15% of yearly total face time with all patients, which seems clearly excessive.

In fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does occasionally consider the “opportunity costs” of recommending preventive services. When they first reviewed screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008, the USPSTF reasoned that the minimal benefit of screening hundreds of patients to prevent a single COPD exacerbation was at least offset by the time and resources it would take to perform spirometry on every adult with a smoking history, a conclusion that it reaffirmed last year. In contrast to NICE, the USPSTF recommends selectively counseling adults without cardiovascular risk factors to promote a healthy diet and physical activity rather than counseling every single person.

Other US guideline groups would do well to adopt the advice of Johansson and colleagues to consider TNT. Last year, the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommended counseling every woman aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index “to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity.” Though preventing obesity is a laudable goal, I’d prefer to counsel those who are obese and suffering from obesity-related conditions and spend my 15 or 30 minutes with others doing something more valuable, like listening to the patient. As Dr. Johansson and colleagues wrote in their commentary, “Healthcare policies also need to account for the time clinicians should spend listening in silence, noticing carefully, and cocreating sensible plans of care with patients.”

Having served on several guideline panels in the past, I believe that thoughtfully developed evidence-based guidelines can help family physicians care for patients. But guidelines will never make up all of medicine, particularly primary care, where following too many well-intended recommendations can sometimes get in the way of being a good doctor.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For most of my career, I have precepted residents in primary care clinics. Generally, 1st years are scheduled to see a patient every 45 minutes on average, then every 30 minutes after the first 6 months. By the 3rd year, residents are scheduled to see a patient every 15 minutes to approximate the frequency at which patients are routinely seen in practice. Adult health maintenance visits are typically allotted two slots, for a total of 30 minutes.

The gradually increased pace of seeing patients is a challenge for many residents. It requires them to not only perform more focused medical histories and physical examinations but also to address a select handful of issues in patients who may have a long list of health concerns or preventive care needs. Prioritizing tasks into those that are necessary to do today vs. those that can be deferred to a follow-up visit is an essential skill that is equal parts art and science. In a previous commentary, I wrote about a research group’s efforts to create visual decision aids to generate individualized estimates of life expectancy gains from various preventive services.

Of course, it’s uncommon to have the luxury of focusing exclusively on preventive care in older adults, most of whom have one or more chronic conditions. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease each has its own set of management guidelines. According to a recent estimate, following all guideline recommendations for chronic diseases plus those for preventive and acute care would require a primary care physician with a nationally representative panel of adult patients to work an impossible 27-hour day. That’s another good reason for me to continue seeing children in practice!

In a commentary in The BMJ, Dr Minna Johansson and colleagues argued that guideline panels should explicitly consider the estimated clinician time needed to improve the desired outcome for one person in the targeted population, a metric that they call “time needed to treat” (TNT). For example, to implement a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for U.K. general practitioners (GPs) about providing advice to physically inactive adults would require 3 hours for one more person to increase their self-reported physical activity. For a patient panel of 2000 adults, the absolute TNT would be 167 hours per GP, representing 15% of yearly total face time with all patients, which seems clearly excessive.

In fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does occasionally consider the “opportunity costs” of recommending preventive services. When they first reviewed screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008, the USPSTF reasoned that the minimal benefit of screening hundreds of patients to prevent a single COPD exacerbation was at least offset by the time and resources it would take to perform spirometry on every adult with a smoking history, a conclusion that it reaffirmed last year. In contrast to NICE, the USPSTF recommends selectively counseling adults without cardiovascular risk factors to promote a healthy diet and physical activity rather than counseling every single person.

Other US guideline groups would do well to adopt the advice of Johansson and colleagues to consider TNT. Last year, the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommended counseling every woman aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index “to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity.” Though preventing obesity is a laudable goal, I’d prefer to counsel those who are obese and suffering from obesity-related conditions and spend my 15 or 30 minutes with others doing something more valuable, like listening to the patient. As Dr. Johansson and colleagues wrote in their commentary, “Healthcare policies also need to account for the time clinicians should spend listening in silence, noticing carefully, and cocreating sensible plans of care with patients.”

Having served on several guideline panels in the past, I believe that thoughtfully developed evidence-based guidelines can help family physicians care for patients. But guidelines will never make up all of medicine, particularly primary care, where following too many well-intended recommendations can sometimes get in the way of being a good doctor.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For most of my career, I have precepted residents in primary care clinics. Generally, 1st years are scheduled to see a patient every 45 minutes on average, then every 30 minutes after the first 6 months. By the 3rd year, residents are scheduled to see a patient every 15 minutes to approximate the frequency at which patients are routinely seen in practice. Adult health maintenance visits are typically allotted two slots, for a total of 30 minutes.

The gradually increased pace of seeing patients is a challenge for many residents. It requires them to not only perform more focused medical histories and physical examinations but also to address a select handful of issues in patients who may have a long list of health concerns or preventive care needs. Prioritizing tasks into those that are necessary to do today vs. those that can be deferred to a follow-up visit is an essential skill that is equal parts art and science. In a previous commentary, I wrote about a research group’s efforts to create visual decision aids to generate individualized estimates of life expectancy gains from various preventive services.

Of course, it’s uncommon to have the luxury of focusing exclusively on preventive care in older adults, most of whom have one or more chronic conditions. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease each has its own set of management guidelines. According to a recent estimate, following all guideline recommendations for chronic diseases plus those for preventive and acute care would require a primary care physician with a nationally representative panel of adult patients to work an impossible 27-hour day. That’s another good reason for me to continue seeing children in practice!

In a commentary in The BMJ, Dr Minna Johansson and colleagues argued that guideline panels should explicitly consider the estimated clinician time needed to improve the desired outcome for one person in the targeted population, a metric that they call “time needed to treat” (TNT). For example, to implement a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for U.K. general practitioners (GPs) about providing advice to physically inactive adults would require 3 hours for one more person to increase their self-reported physical activity. For a patient panel of 2000 adults, the absolute TNT would be 167 hours per GP, representing 15% of yearly total face time with all patients, which seems clearly excessive.

In fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does occasionally consider the “opportunity costs” of recommending preventive services. When they first reviewed screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008, the USPSTF reasoned that the minimal benefit of screening hundreds of patients to prevent a single COPD exacerbation was at least offset by the time and resources it would take to perform spirometry on every adult with a smoking history, a conclusion that it reaffirmed last year. In contrast to NICE, the USPSTF recommends selectively counseling adults without cardiovascular risk factors to promote a healthy diet and physical activity rather than counseling every single person.

Other US guideline groups would do well to adopt the advice of Johansson and colleagues to consider TNT. Last year, the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommended counseling every woman aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index “to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity.” Though preventing obesity is a laudable goal, I’d prefer to counsel those who are obese and suffering from obesity-related conditions and spend my 15 or 30 minutes with others doing something more valuable, like listening to the patient. As Dr. Johansson and colleagues wrote in their commentary, “Healthcare policies also need to account for the time clinicians should spend listening in silence, noticing carefully, and cocreating sensible plans of care with patients.”

Having served on several guideline panels in the past, I believe that thoughtfully developed evidence-based guidelines can help family physicians care for patients. But guidelines will never make up all of medicine, particularly primary care, where following too many well-intended recommendations can sometimes get in the way of being a good doctor.

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

Amplified by the childhood obesity epidemic, primary hypertension is now the leading type of pediatric hypertension, especially in adolescence, yet the condition is “underrecognized,” the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.

“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted. 

The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.

Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.

The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.

Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.

They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.

When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.

Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.

“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.

The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.

Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.

A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.  

Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
 

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

Amplified by the childhood obesity epidemic, primary hypertension is now the leading type of pediatric hypertension, especially in adolescence, yet the condition is “underrecognized,” the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.

“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted. 

The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.

Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.

The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.

Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.

They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.

When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.

Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.

“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.

The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.

Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.

A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.  

Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
 

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

Amplified by the childhood obesity epidemic, primary hypertension is now the leading type of pediatric hypertension, especially in adolescence, yet the condition is “underrecognized,” the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.

“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted. 

The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.

Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.

The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.

Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.

They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.

When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.

Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.

“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.

The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.

Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.

A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.  

Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
 

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

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a lymphocytic cicatricial alopecia that primarily affects postmenopausal women. Considered a subtype of lichen planopilaris (LPP), FFA is histologically identical but presents as symmetric frontotemporal hairline recession rather than the multifocal distribution typical of LPP (Figure 1). Patients also may experience symptoms such as itching, facial papules, and eyebrow loss. As a progressive and scarring alopecia, early management of FFA is necessary to prevent permanent hair loss; however, there still are no clear guidelines regarding the efficacy of different treatment options for FFA due to a lack of randomized controlled studies in the literature. Patients with skin of color (SOC) also may have varying responses to treatment, further complicating the establishment of any treatment algorithm. Furthermore, symptoms, clinical findings, and demographics of FFA have been observed to vary across different ethnicities, especially among Black individuals. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on FFA in Black patients, with an analysis of demographics, clinical findings, concomitant skin conditions, treatments given, and treatment responses.

Methods

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted of studies investigating FFA in patients with SOC from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2020, using the terms frontal fibrosing alopecia, ethnicity, African, Black, Asian, Indian, Hispanic, and Latino. Articles were included if they were available in English and discussed treatment and clinical outcomes of FFA in Black individuals. The reference lists of included studies also were reviewed. Articles were assessed for quality of evidence using a 4-point scale (1=well-designed randomized controlled trials; 2=controlled trials with limitations or well-designed cohort or case-control studies; 3=case series with or without intervention; 4=case reports). Variables related to study type, patient demographics, treatments, and clinical outcomes were recorded.

Results

Of the 69 search results, 8 studies—2 retrospective cohort studies, 3 case series, and 3 case reports—describing 51 Black individuals with FFA were included in our review (eTable). Of these, 49 (96.1%) were female and 2 (3.9%) were male. Of the 45 females with data available for menopausal status, 24 (53.3%) were premenopausal and 21 (46.7%) were postmenopausal; data were not available for 4 females. Patients identified as African or African American in 27 (52.9%) cases, South African in 19 (37.3%), Black in 3 (5.9%), Indian in 1 (2.0%), and Afro-Caribbean in 1 (2.0%). The average age of FFA onset was 43.8 years in females (raw data available in 24 patients) and 35 years in males (raw data available in 2 patients). A family history of hair loss was reported in 15.7% (8/51) of patients.

Involved areas of hair loss included the frontotemporal hairline (51/51 [100%]), eyebrows (32/51 [62.7%]), limbs (4/51 [7.8%]), occiput (4/51 [7.8%]), facial hair (2/51 [3.9%]), vertex scalp (1/51 [2.0%]), and eyelashes (1/51 [2.0%]). Patchy alopecia suggestive of LPP was reported in 2 (3.9%) patients.

Patients frequently presented with scalp pruritus (26/51 [51.0%]), perifollicular papules or pustules (9/51 [17.6%]), and perifollicular hyperpigmentation (9/51 [17.6%]). Other associated symptoms included perifollicular erythema (6/51 [11.8%]), scalp pain (5/51 [9.8%]), hyperkeratosis or flaking (3/51 [5.9%]), and facial papules (2/51 [3.9%]). Loss of follicular ostia, prominent follicular ostia, and the lonely hair sign (Figure 2) was described in 21 (41.2%), 5 (9.8%), and 15 (29.4%) of patients, respectively. Hairstyles that involve scalp traction (19/51 [37.3%]) and/or chemicals (28/51 [54.9%]), such as hair dye or chemical relaxers, commonly were reported in patients prior to the onset of FFA.

The most commonly reported dermatologic comorbidities included traction alopecia (17/51 [33.3%]), followed by lichen planus pigmentosus (LLPigm)(7/51 [13.7%]), LPP (2/51 [3.9%]), psoriasis (1/51 [2.0%]), and morphea (1/51 [2.0%]). Reported comorbid diseases included Sjögren syndrome (2/51 [3.9%]), hypothyroidism (2/51 [3.9%]), HIV (1/51 [2.0%]), and diabetes mellitus (1/51 [2.0%]).

Of available reports (n=32), the most common histologic findings included perifollicular fibrosis (23/32 [71.9%]), lichenoid lymphocytic inflammation (22/23 [95.7%]) primarily affecting the isthmus and infundibular areas of the follicles, and decreased follicular density (21/23 [91.3%]).

The average time interval from treatment initiation to treatment assessment in available reports (n=25) was 1.8 years (range, 0.5–2 years). Response to treatment included regrowth of hair in 5.9% (3/51) of patients, FFA stabilization in 39.2% (20/51), FFA progression in 51.0% (26/51), and not reported in 3.9% (2/51). Combination therapy was used in 84.3% (43/51) of patients, while monotherapy was used in 11.8% (6/51), and 3.9% (2/51) did not have any treatment reported. Response to treatment was highly variable among patients, as were the combinations of therapeutic agents used (Table). Regrowth of hair was rare, occurring in only 2 (100%) patients treated with oral prednisone plus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CHQ), and in 1 (50.0%) patient treated with topical corticosteroids plus antifungal shampoo, while there was no response in the other patient treated with this combination.

Improvement in hair loss, defined as having at least slowed progression of FFA, was observed in 100% (2/2) of patients who had oral steroids as part of their treatment regimen, followed by 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs)(finasteride and dutasteride; 62.5% [5/8]), intralesional steroids (57.1% [8/14]), HCQ/CHQ (42.9% [15/35]), topical steroids (41.5% [17/41]), antifungal shampoo (40.0% [2/5]), topical/oral minoxidil (36.0% [9/25]), and tacrolimus (33.3% [7/21]).

Comment

Frontal fibrosing alopecia is a progressive scarring alopecia and a clinical variant of LPP. First described in 1994 by Kossard,¹ it initially was thought to be a disease of postmenopausal White women. Although still most prevalent in White individuals, there has been a growing number of reports describing FFA in patients with SOC, including Black individuals.¹⁰ Despite the increasing number of cases over the years, studies on the treatment of FFA remain sparse. Without expert guidelines, treatments usually are chosen based on clinician preferences. Few observational studies on these treatment modalities and their clinical outcomes exist, and the cohorts largely are composed of White patients.^10-12 However, Black individuals may respond differently to these treatments, just as they have been shown to exhibit unique features of FFA.³

Demographics of Patients With FFA—Consistent with our findings, prior studies have found that Black patients are more likely to be younger and premenopausal at FFA onset than their White counterparts.^13-15 Among the Black individuals included in our review, the majority were premenopausal (53%) with an average age of FFA onset of 46.7 years. Conversely, only 5% of 60 White females with FFA reported in a retrospective review were premenopausal and had an older mean age of FFA onset of 64 years,¹ substantiating prior reports.

Clinical Findings in Patients With FFA—The clinical findings observed in our cohort were consistent with what has previously been described in Black patients, including loss of follicular ostia (41.2%), lonely hair sign (29.4%), perifollicular erythema (11.8%), perifollicular papules (17.6%), and hyperkeratosis or flaking (5.9%). In comparing these findings with a review of 932 patients, 86% of whom were White, the observed frequencies of follicular ostia loss (38.3%) and lonely hair sign (26.7%) were similar; however, perifollicular erythema (44.2%), and hyperkeratosis (44.4%) were more prevalent in this group, while perifollicular papules (6.2%) were less common compared to our Black cohort.¹⁶ An explanation for this discrepancy in perifollicular erythema may be the increased skin pigmentation diminishing the appearance of erythema in Black individuals. Our cohort of Black individuals noted the presence of follicular hyperpigmentation (17.6%) and a high prevalence of scalp pruritus (51.0%), which appear to be more common in Black patients.^3,17 Although it is unclear why these differences in FFA presentation exist, it may be helpful for clinicians to be aware of these unique features when examining Black patients with suspected FFA.

Concomitant Cutaneous Disorders—A notable proportion of our cohort also had concomitant traction alopecia, which presents with frontotemporal alopecia, similar to FFA, making the diagnosis more challenging; however, the presence of perifollicular hyperpigmentation and facial hyperpigmentation in FFA may aid in differentiating these 2 entities.³ Other concomitant conditions noted in our review included androgenic alopecia, Sjögren syndrome, psoriasis, hypothyroidism, morphea, and HIV, suggesting a potential interplay between autoimmune, genetic, hormonal, and environmental components in the etiology of FFA. In fact, a recent study found that a persistent inflammatory response, loss of immune privilege, and a genetic susceptibility are some of the key processes in the pathogenesis of FFA.¹⁸ Although the authors speculated that there may be other triggers in initiating the onset of FFA, such as steroid hormones, sun exposure, and topical allergens, more evidence and controlled studies are needed

Additionally, concomitant LPPigm occurred in 13.7% of our FFA cohort, which appears to be more common in patients with darker skin types.^5,19-21 Lichen planus pigmentosus is a rare variant of LPP, and previous reports suggest that it may be associated with FFA.⁵ Similar to FFA, the pathogenesis of LPPigm also is unclear, and its treatment may be just as difficult.²² Because LPPigm may occur before, during, or after onset of FFA,²³ it may be helpful for clinicians to search for the signs of LPPigm in patients with darker skin types patients presenting with hair loss both as a diagnostic clue and so that treatment may be tailored to both conditions.

Response to Treatment—Similar to the varying clinical pictures, the response to treatment also can vary between patients of different ethnicities. For Black patients, treatment outcomes did not seem as successful as they did for other patients with SOC described in the literature. A retrospective cohort of 58 Asian individuals with FFA found that up to 90% had improvement or stabilization of FFA after treatment,²³ while only 45.1% (23/51) of the Black patients included in our study had improvement or stabilization. One reason may be that a greater proportion of Black patients are premenopausal at FFA onset (53%) compared to what is reported in Asian patients (28%),²³ and women who are premenopausal at FFA onset often face more severe disease.¹⁵ Although there may be additional explanations for these differences in treatment outcomes between ethnic groups, further investigation is needed.

All patients included in our study received either monotherapy or combination therapy of topical/intralesional/oral steroids, HCQ or CHQ, 5-ARIs, topical/oral minoxidil, antifungal shampoo, and/or a calcineurin inhibitor; however, most patients (51.0%) did not see a response to treatment, while only 45.1% showed slowed or halted progression of FFA. Hair regrowth was rare, occurring in only 3 (5.9%) patients; 2 of them were the only patients treated with oral prednisone, making for a potentially promising therapeutic for Black patients that should be further investigated in larger controlled cohort studies. In a prior study, intramuscular steroids (40 mg every 3 weeks) plus topical minoxidil were unsuccessful in slowing the progression of FFA in 3 postmenopausal women,²⁴ which may be explained by the racial differences in the response to FFA treatments and perhaps also menopausal status. Although not included in any of the regimens in our review, isotretinoin was shown to be effective in an ethnically unspecified group of patients (n=16) and also may be efficacious in Black individuals.²⁵ Although FFA may stabilize with time,²⁶ this was not observed in any of the patients included in our study; however, we only included patients who were treated, making it impossible to discern whether resolution was idiopathic or due to treatment.

Future Research—Research on treatments for FFA is lacking, especially in patients with SOC. Although we observed that there may be differences in the treatment response among Black individuals compared to other patients with SOC, additional studies are needed to delineate these racial differences, which can help guide management. More randomized controlled trials evaluating the various treatment regimens also are required to establish treatment guidelines. Frontal fibrosing alopecia likely is underdiagnosed in Black individuals, contributing to the lack of research in this group. Darker skin can obscure some of the clinical and dermoscopic features that are more visible in fair skin. Furthermore, it may be challenging to distinguish clinical features of FFA in the setting of concomitant traction alopecia, which is more common in Black patients.²⁷ Frontal fibrosing alopecia presenting in Black women also is less likely to be biopsied, contributing to the tendency to miss FFA in favor of traction or androgenic alopecia, which often are assumed to be more common in this population.^2,27 Therefore, histologic evaluation through biopsy is paramount in securing an accurate diagnosis for Black patients with frontotemporal alopecia.

Study Limitations—The studies included in our review were limited by a lack of control comparison groups, especially among the retrospective cohort studies. Additionally, some of the studies included cases refractory to prior treatment modalities, possibly leading to a selection bias of more severe cases that were not representative of FFA in the general population. Thus, further studies involving larger populations of those with SOC are needed to fully evaluate the clinical utility of the current treatment modalities in this group.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a lymphocytic cicatricial alopecia that primarily affects postmenopausal women. Considered a subtype of lichen planopilaris (LPP), FFA is histologically identical but presents as symmetric frontotemporal hairline recession rather than the multifocal distribution typical of LPP (Figure 1). Patients also may experience symptoms such as itching, facial papules, and eyebrow loss. As a progressive and scarring alopecia, early management of FFA is necessary to prevent permanent hair loss; however, there still are no clear guidelines regarding the efficacy of different treatment options for FFA due to a lack of randomized controlled studies in the literature. Patients with skin of color (SOC) also may have varying responses to treatment, further complicating the establishment of any treatment algorithm. Furthermore, symptoms, clinical findings, and demographics of FFA have been observed to vary across different ethnicities, especially among Black individuals. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on FFA in Black patients, with an analysis of demographics, clinical findings, concomitant skin conditions, treatments given, and treatment responses.

Methods

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted of studies investigating FFA in patients with SOC from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2020, using the terms frontal fibrosing alopecia, ethnicity, African, Black, Asian, Indian, Hispanic, and Latino. Articles were included if they were available in English and discussed treatment and clinical outcomes of FFA in Black individuals. The reference lists of included studies also were reviewed. Articles were assessed for quality of evidence using a 4-point scale (1=well-designed randomized controlled trials; 2=controlled trials with limitations or well-designed cohort or case-control studies; 3=case series with or without intervention; 4=case reports). Variables related to study type, patient demographics, treatments, and clinical outcomes were recorded.

Results

Of the 69 search results, 8 studies—2 retrospective cohort studies, 3 case series, and 3 case reports—describing 51 Black individuals with FFA were included in our review (eTable). Of these, 49 (96.1%) were female and 2 (3.9%) were male. Of the 45 females with data available for menopausal status, 24 (53.3%) were premenopausal and 21 (46.7%) were postmenopausal; data were not available for 4 females. Patients identified as African or African American in 27 (52.9%) cases, South African in 19 (37.3%), Black in 3 (5.9%), Indian in 1 (2.0%), and Afro-Caribbean in 1 (2.0%). The average age of FFA onset was 43.8 years in females (raw data available in 24 patients) and 35 years in males (raw data available in 2 patients). A family history of hair loss was reported in 15.7% (8/51) of patients.

Involved areas of hair loss included the frontotemporal hairline (51/51 [100%]), eyebrows (32/51 [62.7%]), limbs (4/51 [7.8%]), occiput (4/51 [7.8%]), facial hair (2/51 [3.9%]), vertex scalp (1/51 [2.0%]), and eyelashes (1/51 [2.0%]). Patchy alopecia suggestive of LPP was reported in 2 (3.9%) patients.

Patients frequently presented with scalp pruritus (26/51 [51.0%]), perifollicular papules or pustules (9/51 [17.6%]), and perifollicular hyperpigmentation (9/51 [17.6%]). Other associated symptoms included perifollicular erythema (6/51 [11.8%]), scalp pain (5/51 [9.8%]), hyperkeratosis or flaking (3/51 [5.9%]), and facial papules (2/51 [3.9%]). Loss of follicular ostia, prominent follicular ostia, and the lonely hair sign (Figure 2) was described in 21 (41.2%), 5 (9.8%), and 15 (29.4%) of patients, respectively. Hairstyles that involve scalp traction (19/51 [37.3%]) and/or chemicals (28/51 [54.9%]), such as hair dye or chemical relaxers, commonly were reported in patients prior to the onset of FFA.

The most commonly reported dermatologic comorbidities included traction alopecia (17/51 [33.3%]), followed by lichen planus pigmentosus (LLPigm)(7/51 [13.7%]), LPP (2/51 [3.9%]), psoriasis (1/51 [2.0%]), and morphea (1/51 [2.0%]). Reported comorbid diseases included Sjögren syndrome (2/51 [3.9%]), hypothyroidism (2/51 [3.9%]), HIV (1/51 [2.0%]), and diabetes mellitus (1/51 [2.0%]).

Of available reports (n=32), the most common histologic findings included perifollicular fibrosis (23/32 [71.9%]), lichenoid lymphocytic inflammation (22/23 [95.7%]) primarily affecting the isthmus and infundibular areas of the follicles, and decreased follicular density (21/23 [91.3%]).

The average time interval from treatment initiation to treatment assessment in available reports (n=25) was 1.8 years (range, 0.5–2 years). Response to treatment included regrowth of hair in 5.9% (3/51) of patients, FFA stabilization in 39.2% (20/51), FFA progression in 51.0% (26/51), and not reported in 3.9% (2/51). Combination therapy was used in 84.3% (43/51) of patients, while monotherapy was used in 11.8% (6/51), and 3.9% (2/51) did not have any treatment reported. Response to treatment was highly variable among patients, as were the combinations of therapeutic agents used (Table). Regrowth of hair was rare, occurring in only 2 (100%) patients treated with oral prednisone plus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CHQ), and in 1 (50.0%) patient treated with topical corticosteroids plus antifungal shampoo, while there was no response in the other patient treated with this combination.

Improvement in hair loss, defined as having at least slowed progression of FFA, was observed in 100% (2/2) of patients who had oral steroids as part of their treatment regimen, followed by 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs)(finasteride and dutasteride; 62.5% [5/8]), intralesional steroids (57.1% [8/14]), HCQ/CHQ (42.9% [15/35]), topical steroids (41.5% [17/41]), antifungal shampoo (40.0% [2/5]), topical/oral minoxidil (36.0% [9/25]), and tacrolimus (33.3% [7/21]).

Comment

Frontal fibrosing alopecia is a progressive scarring alopecia and a clinical variant of LPP. First described in 1994 by Kossard,¹ it initially was thought to be a disease of postmenopausal White women. Although still most prevalent in White individuals, there has been a growing number of reports describing FFA in patients with SOC, including Black individuals.¹⁰ Despite the increasing number of cases over the years, studies on the treatment of FFA remain sparse. Without expert guidelines, treatments usually are chosen based on clinician preferences. Few observational studies on these treatment modalities and their clinical outcomes exist, and the cohorts largely are composed of White patients.^10-12 However, Black individuals may respond differently to these treatments, just as they have been shown to exhibit unique features of FFA.³

Demographics of Patients With FFA—Consistent with our findings, prior studies have found that Black patients are more likely to be younger and premenopausal at FFA onset than their White counterparts.^13-15 Among the Black individuals included in our review, the majority were premenopausal (53%) with an average age of FFA onset of 46.7 years. Conversely, only 5% of 60 White females with FFA reported in a retrospective review were premenopausal and had an older mean age of FFA onset of 64 years,¹ substantiating prior reports.

Clinical Findings in Patients With FFA—The clinical findings observed in our cohort were consistent with what has previously been described in Black patients, including loss of follicular ostia (41.2%), lonely hair sign (29.4%), perifollicular erythema (11.8%), perifollicular papules (17.6%), and hyperkeratosis or flaking (5.9%). In comparing these findings with a review of 932 patients, 86% of whom were White, the observed frequencies of follicular ostia loss (38.3%) and lonely hair sign (26.7%) were similar; however, perifollicular erythema (44.2%), and hyperkeratosis (44.4%) were more prevalent in this group, while perifollicular papules (6.2%) were less common compared to our Black cohort.¹⁶ An explanation for this discrepancy in perifollicular erythema may be the increased skin pigmentation diminishing the appearance of erythema in Black individuals. Our cohort of Black individuals noted the presence of follicular hyperpigmentation (17.6%) and a high prevalence of scalp pruritus (51.0%), which appear to be more common in Black patients.^3,17 Although it is unclear why these differences in FFA presentation exist, it may be helpful for clinicians to be aware of these unique features when examining Black patients with suspected FFA.

Concomitant Cutaneous Disorders—A notable proportion of our cohort also had concomitant traction alopecia, which presents with frontotemporal alopecia, similar to FFA, making the diagnosis more challenging; however, the presence of perifollicular hyperpigmentation and facial hyperpigmentation in FFA may aid in differentiating these 2 entities.³ Other concomitant conditions noted in our review included androgenic alopecia, Sjögren syndrome, psoriasis, hypothyroidism, morphea, and HIV, suggesting a potential interplay between autoimmune, genetic, hormonal, and environmental components in the etiology of FFA. In fact, a recent study found that a persistent inflammatory response, loss of immune privilege, and a genetic susceptibility are some of the key processes in the pathogenesis of FFA.¹⁸ Although the authors speculated that there may be other triggers in initiating the onset of FFA, such as steroid hormones, sun exposure, and topical allergens, more evidence and controlled studies are needed

Additionally, concomitant LPPigm occurred in 13.7% of our FFA cohort, which appears to be more common in patients with darker skin types.^5,19-21 Lichen planus pigmentosus is a rare variant of LPP, and previous reports suggest that it may be associated with FFA.⁵ Similar to FFA, the pathogenesis of LPPigm also is unclear, and its treatment may be just as difficult.²² Because LPPigm may occur before, during, or after onset of FFA,²³ it may be helpful for clinicians to search for the signs of LPPigm in patients with darker skin types patients presenting with hair loss both as a diagnostic clue and so that treatment may be tailored to both conditions.

Response to Treatment—Similar to the varying clinical pictures, the response to treatment also can vary between patients of different ethnicities. For Black patients, treatment outcomes did not seem as successful as they did for other patients with SOC described in the literature. A retrospective cohort of 58 Asian individuals with FFA found that up to 90% had improvement or stabilization of FFA after treatment,²³ while only 45.1% (23/51) of the Black patients included in our study had improvement or stabilization. One reason may be that a greater proportion of Black patients are premenopausal at FFA onset (53%) compared to what is reported in Asian patients (28%),²³ and women who are premenopausal at FFA onset often face more severe disease.¹⁵ Although there may be additional explanations for these differences in treatment outcomes between ethnic groups, further investigation is needed.

All patients included in our study received either monotherapy or combination therapy of topical/intralesional/oral steroids, HCQ or CHQ, 5-ARIs, topical/oral minoxidil, antifungal shampoo, and/or a calcineurin inhibitor; however, most patients (51.0%) did not see a response to treatment, while only 45.1% showed slowed or halted progression of FFA. Hair regrowth was rare, occurring in only 3 (5.9%) patients; 2 of them were the only patients treated with oral prednisone, making for a potentially promising therapeutic for Black patients that should be further investigated in larger controlled cohort studies. In a prior study, intramuscular steroids (40 mg every 3 weeks) plus topical minoxidil were unsuccessful in slowing the progression of FFA in 3 postmenopausal women,²⁴ which may be explained by the racial differences in the response to FFA treatments and perhaps also menopausal status. Although not included in any of the regimens in our review, isotretinoin was shown to be effective in an ethnically unspecified group of patients (n=16) and also may be efficacious in Black individuals.²⁵ Although FFA may stabilize with time,²⁶ this was not observed in any of the patients included in our study; however, we only included patients who were treated, making it impossible to discern whether resolution was idiopathic or due to treatment.

Future Research—Research on treatments for FFA is lacking, especially in patients with SOC. Although we observed that there may be differences in the treatment response among Black individuals compared to other patients with SOC, additional studies are needed to delineate these racial differences, which can help guide management. More randomized controlled trials evaluating the various treatment regimens also are required to establish treatment guidelines. Frontal fibrosing alopecia likely is underdiagnosed in Black individuals, contributing to the lack of research in this group. Darker skin can obscure some of the clinical and dermoscopic features that are more visible in fair skin. Furthermore, it may be challenging to distinguish clinical features of FFA in the setting of concomitant traction alopecia, which is more common in Black patients.²⁷ Frontal fibrosing alopecia presenting in Black women also is less likely to be biopsied, contributing to the tendency to miss FFA in favor of traction or androgenic alopecia, which often are assumed to be more common in this population.^2,27 Therefore, histologic evaluation through biopsy is paramount in securing an accurate diagnosis for Black patients with frontotemporal alopecia.

Study Limitations—The studies included in our review were limited by a lack of control comparison groups, especially among the retrospective cohort studies. Additionally, some of the studies included cases refractory to prior treatment modalities, possibly leading to a selection bias of more severe cases that were not representative of FFA in the general population. Thus, further studies involving larger populations of those with SOC are needed to fully evaluate the clinical utility of the current treatment modalities in this group.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a lymphocytic cicatricial alopecia that primarily affects postmenopausal women. Considered a subtype of lichen planopilaris (LPP), FFA is histologically identical but presents as symmetric frontotemporal hairline recession rather than the multifocal distribution typical of LPP (Figure 1). Patients also may experience symptoms such as itching, facial papules, and eyebrow loss. As a progressive and scarring alopecia, early management of FFA is necessary to prevent permanent hair loss; however, there still are no clear guidelines regarding the efficacy of different treatment options for FFA due to a lack of randomized controlled studies in the literature. Patients with skin of color (SOC) also may have varying responses to treatment, further complicating the establishment of any treatment algorithm. Furthermore, symptoms, clinical findings, and demographics of FFA have been observed to vary across different ethnicities, especially among Black individuals. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on FFA in Black patients, with an analysis of demographics, clinical findings, concomitant skin conditions, treatments given, and treatment responses.

Methods

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted of studies investigating FFA in patients with SOC from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2020, using the terms frontal fibrosing alopecia, ethnicity, African, Black, Asian, Indian, Hispanic, and Latino. Articles were included if they were available in English and discussed treatment and clinical outcomes of FFA in Black individuals. The reference lists of included studies also were reviewed. Articles were assessed for quality of evidence using a 4-point scale (1=well-designed randomized controlled trials; 2=controlled trials with limitations or well-designed cohort or case-control studies; 3=case series with or without intervention; 4=case reports). Variables related to study type, patient demographics, treatments, and clinical outcomes were recorded.

Results

Of the 69 search results, 8 studies—2 retrospective cohort studies, 3 case series, and 3 case reports—describing 51 Black individuals with FFA were included in our review (eTable). Of these, 49 (96.1%) were female and 2 (3.9%) were male. Of the 45 females with data available for menopausal status, 24 (53.3%) were premenopausal and 21 (46.7%) were postmenopausal; data were not available for 4 females. Patients identified as African or African American in 27 (52.9%) cases, South African in 19 (37.3%), Black in 3 (5.9%), Indian in 1 (2.0%), and Afro-Caribbean in 1 (2.0%). The average age of FFA onset was 43.8 years in females (raw data available in 24 patients) and 35 years in males (raw data available in 2 patients). A family history of hair loss was reported in 15.7% (8/51) of patients.

Involved areas of hair loss included the frontotemporal hairline (51/51 [100%]), eyebrows (32/51 [62.7%]), limbs (4/51 [7.8%]), occiput (4/51 [7.8%]), facial hair (2/51 [3.9%]), vertex scalp (1/51 [2.0%]), and eyelashes (1/51 [2.0%]). Patchy alopecia suggestive of LPP was reported in 2 (3.9%) patients.

Patients frequently presented with scalp pruritus (26/51 [51.0%]), perifollicular papules or pustules (9/51 [17.6%]), and perifollicular hyperpigmentation (9/51 [17.6%]). Other associated symptoms included perifollicular erythema (6/51 [11.8%]), scalp pain (5/51 [9.8%]), hyperkeratosis or flaking (3/51 [5.9%]), and facial papules (2/51 [3.9%]). Loss of follicular ostia, prominent follicular ostia, and the lonely hair sign (Figure 2) was described in 21 (41.2%), 5 (9.8%), and 15 (29.4%) of patients, respectively. Hairstyles that involve scalp traction (19/51 [37.3%]) and/or chemicals (28/51 [54.9%]), such as hair dye or chemical relaxers, commonly were reported in patients prior to the onset of FFA.

The most commonly reported dermatologic comorbidities included traction alopecia (17/51 [33.3%]), followed by lichen planus pigmentosus (LLPigm)(7/51 [13.7%]), LPP (2/51 [3.9%]), psoriasis (1/51 [2.0%]), and morphea (1/51 [2.0%]). Reported comorbid diseases included Sjögren syndrome (2/51 [3.9%]), hypothyroidism (2/51 [3.9%]), HIV (1/51 [2.0%]), and diabetes mellitus (1/51 [2.0%]).

Of available reports (n=32), the most common histologic findings included perifollicular fibrosis (23/32 [71.9%]), lichenoid lymphocytic inflammation (22/23 [95.7%]) primarily affecting the isthmus and infundibular areas of the follicles, and decreased follicular density (21/23 [91.3%]).

The average time interval from treatment initiation to treatment assessment in available reports (n=25) was 1.8 years (range, 0.5–2 years). Response to treatment included regrowth of hair in 5.9% (3/51) of patients, FFA stabilization in 39.2% (20/51), FFA progression in 51.0% (26/51), and not reported in 3.9% (2/51). Combination therapy was used in 84.3% (43/51) of patients, while monotherapy was used in 11.8% (6/51), and 3.9% (2/51) did not have any treatment reported. Response to treatment was highly variable among patients, as were the combinations of therapeutic agents used (Table). Regrowth of hair was rare, occurring in only 2 (100%) patients treated with oral prednisone plus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CHQ), and in 1 (50.0%) patient treated with topical corticosteroids plus antifungal shampoo, while there was no response in the other patient treated with this combination.

Improvement in hair loss, defined as having at least slowed progression of FFA, was observed in 100% (2/2) of patients who had oral steroids as part of their treatment regimen, followed by 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs)(finasteride and dutasteride; 62.5% [5/8]), intralesional steroids (57.1% [8/14]), HCQ/CHQ (42.9% [15/35]), topical steroids (41.5% [17/41]), antifungal shampoo (40.0% [2/5]), topical/oral minoxidil (36.0% [9/25]), and tacrolimus (33.3% [7/21]).

Comment

Frontal fibrosing alopecia is a progressive scarring alopecia and a clinical variant of LPP. First described in 1994 by Kossard,¹ it initially was thought to be a disease of postmenopausal White women. Although still most prevalent in White individuals, there has been a growing number of reports describing FFA in patients with SOC, including Black individuals.¹⁰ Despite the increasing number of cases over the years, studies on the treatment of FFA remain sparse. Without expert guidelines, treatments usually are chosen based on clinician preferences. Few observational studies on these treatment modalities and their clinical outcomes exist, and the cohorts largely are composed of White patients.^10-12 However, Black individuals may respond differently to these treatments, just as they have been shown to exhibit unique features of FFA.³

Demographics of Patients With FFA—Consistent with our findings, prior studies have found that Black patients are more likely to be younger and premenopausal at FFA onset than their White counterparts.^13-15 Among the Black individuals included in our review, the majority were premenopausal (53%) with an average age of FFA onset of 46.7 years. Conversely, only 5% of 60 White females with FFA reported in a retrospective review were premenopausal and had an older mean age of FFA onset of 64 years,¹ substantiating prior reports.

Clinical Findings in Patients With FFA—The clinical findings observed in our cohort were consistent with what has previously been described in Black patients, including loss of follicular ostia (41.2%), lonely hair sign (29.4%), perifollicular erythema (11.8%), perifollicular papules (17.6%), and hyperkeratosis or flaking (5.9%). In comparing these findings with a review of 932 patients, 86% of whom were White, the observed frequencies of follicular ostia loss (38.3%) and lonely hair sign (26.7%) were similar; however, perifollicular erythema (44.2%), and hyperkeratosis (44.4%) were more prevalent in this group, while perifollicular papules (6.2%) were less common compared to our Black cohort.¹⁶ An explanation for this discrepancy in perifollicular erythema may be the increased skin pigmentation diminishing the appearance of erythema in Black individuals. Our cohort of Black individuals noted the presence of follicular hyperpigmentation (17.6%) and a high prevalence of scalp pruritus (51.0%), which appear to be more common in Black patients.^3,17 Although it is unclear why these differences in FFA presentation exist, it may be helpful for clinicians to be aware of these unique features when examining Black patients with suspected FFA.

Concomitant Cutaneous Disorders—A notable proportion of our cohort also had concomitant traction alopecia, which presents with frontotemporal alopecia, similar to FFA, making the diagnosis more challenging; however, the presence of perifollicular hyperpigmentation and facial hyperpigmentation in FFA may aid in differentiating these 2 entities.³ Other concomitant conditions noted in our review included androgenic alopecia, Sjögren syndrome, psoriasis, hypothyroidism, morphea, and HIV, suggesting a potential interplay between autoimmune, genetic, hormonal, and environmental components in the etiology of FFA. In fact, a recent study found that a persistent inflammatory response, loss of immune privilege, and a genetic susceptibility are some of the key processes in the pathogenesis of FFA.¹⁸ Although the authors speculated that there may be other triggers in initiating the onset of FFA, such as steroid hormones, sun exposure, and topical allergens, more evidence and controlled studies are needed

Additionally, concomitant LPPigm occurred in 13.7% of our FFA cohort, which appears to be more common in patients with darker skin types.^5,19-21 Lichen planus pigmentosus is a rare variant of LPP, and previous reports suggest that it may be associated with FFA.⁵ Similar to FFA, the pathogenesis of LPPigm also is unclear, and its treatment may be just as difficult.²² Because LPPigm may occur before, during, or after onset of FFA,²³ it may be helpful for clinicians to search for the signs of LPPigm in patients with darker skin types patients presenting with hair loss both as a diagnostic clue and so that treatment may be tailored to both conditions.

Response to Treatment—Similar to the varying clinical pictures, the response to treatment also can vary between patients of different ethnicities. For Black patients, treatment outcomes did not seem as successful as they did for other patients with SOC described in the literature. A retrospective cohort of 58 Asian individuals with FFA found that up to 90% had improvement or stabilization of FFA after treatment,²³ while only 45.1% (23/51) of the Black patients included in our study had improvement or stabilization. One reason may be that a greater proportion of Black patients are premenopausal at FFA onset (53%) compared to what is reported in Asian patients (28%),²³ and women who are premenopausal at FFA onset often face more severe disease.¹⁵ Although there may be additional explanations for these differences in treatment outcomes between ethnic groups, further investigation is needed.

All patients included in our study received either monotherapy or combination therapy of topical/intralesional/oral steroids, HCQ or CHQ, 5-ARIs, topical/oral minoxidil, antifungal shampoo, and/or a calcineurin inhibitor; however, most patients (51.0%) did not see a response to treatment, while only 45.1% showed slowed or halted progression of FFA. Hair regrowth was rare, occurring in only 3 (5.9%) patients; 2 of them were the only patients treated with oral prednisone, making for a potentially promising therapeutic for Black patients that should be further investigated in larger controlled cohort studies. In a prior study, intramuscular steroids (40 mg every 3 weeks) plus topical minoxidil were unsuccessful in slowing the progression of FFA in 3 postmenopausal women,²⁴ which may be explained by the racial differences in the response to FFA treatments and perhaps also menopausal status. Although not included in any of the regimens in our review, isotretinoin was shown to be effective in an ethnically unspecified group of patients (n=16) and also may be efficacious in Black individuals.²⁵ Although FFA may stabilize with time,²⁶ this was not observed in any of the patients included in our study; however, we only included patients who were treated, making it impossible to discern whether resolution was idiopathic or due to treatment.

Future Research—Research on treatments for FFA is lacking, especially in patients with SOC. Although we observed that there may be differences in the treatment response among Black individuals compared to other patients with SOC, additional studies are needed to delineate these racial differences, which can help guide management. More randomized controlled trials evaluating the various treatment regimens also are required to establish treatment guidelines. Frontal fibrosing alopecia likely is underdiagnosed in Black individuals, contributing to the lack of research in this group. Darker skin can obscure some of the clinical and dermoscopic features that are more visible in fair skin. Furthermore, it may be challenging to distinguish clinical features of FFA in the setting of concomitant traction alopecia, which is more common in Black patients.²⁷ Frontal fibrosing alopecia presenting in Black women also is less likely to be biopsied, contributing to the tendency to miss FFA in favor of traction or androgenic alopecia, which often are assumed to be more common in this population.^2,27 Therefore, histologic evaluation through biopsy is paramount in securing an accurate diagnosis for Black patients with frontotemporal alopecia.

Study Limitations—The studies included in our review were limited by a lack of control comparison groups, especially among the retrospective cohort studies. Additionally, some of the studies included cases refractory to prior treatment modalities, possibly leading to a selection bias of more severe cases that were not representative of FFA in the general population. Thus, further studies involving larger populations of those with SOC are needed to fully evaluate the clinical utility of the current treatment modalities in this group.

NEW ORLEANS – The sociodemographic characteristics of Black and Hispanic children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appear to play a strong role in influencing the severity of disease in these patients, according to two studies presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

One study showed an association between multiple determinants of health and disease severity among children seen in a large Texas city, and a separate descriptive cross-sectional cohort study of predominantly Black children at two centers in Mississippi and Alabama reinforced the finding of greater severity of disease and social hardships among this racial group.

The findings from both studies supplement existing evidence that the prevalence of childhood-onset SLE is greater among Black and Hispanic children.

“Several demographic and social determinants of health parameters influenced disease severity at levels that reached statistical significance, including insurance status, race/ethnicity, referral source, PCP [primary care provider] availability, primary language, and transportation needs,” Emily Beil, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology. Her team’s goal, she said, was to “better understand our patient population and social disparities that contribute to disease severity.”

Dr. Beil and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 136 children who had been diagnosed with childhood-onset SLE between January 2018 and May 2022 at Texas Children’s Hospital. Only children who were younger than 18 years at the time of diagnosis at Texas Children’s were included. The analysis considered demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance status, social work consultation, access to a primary care provider, transportation needs, primary language, and other parameters related to social determinants of health.

The average age of the patients was 13 years, and most were girls (82%). Just over half were Hispanic (53%), and just over a quarter were Black (26%). Half had Medicaid or participated in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and 1 in 10 were uninsured (10%). Half the diagnoses were made during an inpatient admission; 36% were made on the floor, and 14% were made in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The average Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was 12.5, and 48.5% of patients had severe disease, indicated by a score of at least 12. Only two in three children were documented as having a primary care physician (66%), and 32% preferred a language other than English. Most of the children (80%) had a social work consult.

Black and biracial children had higher SLEDAI scores at presentation. Non-Hispanic White children were less likely to have a social work consult, compared with other racial/ethnic groups (P = .01 for both). Central nervous system involvement was most prevalent among Black patients (P = .004). Cyclophosphamide was used most often for Black and biracial patients.

Uninsured patients were most likely to be diagnosed on an inpatient floor. The highest proportion of ICU admissions was among patients insured by Medicaid (P = .034). Average SLEDAI scores were highest among uninsured patients, followed by Medicaid patients. More than half of the patients who did not have insurance lacked access to a regular primary care provider, compared with 12% of Medicaid patients and 7% of privately insured patients (P = .001). All the uninsured patients had transportation needs, which was a significantly higher rate than among those with Medicaid (13%) or private insurance (15%) (P = .001). The highest percentage of social work consults was among patients who were insured by Medicaid or were without insurance (P = .001).
 

Salient demographics and clinical features

In the second presentation, Anita Dhanrajani, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, began by noting that Alabama and Mississippi are ranked in the top 10 states for the highest poverty rate: Mississippi is No. 1, and Alabama is No. 7. Further, 40% of children in Mississippi and 29% of children in Alabama are of African American ancestry, she said.

“So, we know that this population that we’re dealing with has several high-risk factors that can lead them to have poor outcomes, and yet, we haven’t really ever characterized their clinical features or their social demographic features,” Dr. Dhanrajani told attendees. “My hope is that with this very miniscule first step, we’re able to move towards solutions to decrease health care disparities in this population.”

She presented findings regarding the first of three aims in the study, which was to describe the baseline clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic profiles of childhood lupus patients at the two centers. The two other aims were to examine genetic factors potentially linked to poor outcomes in the cohort and to assess the mental health status of the population.

The study relied on a retrospective chart review for the 17 patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and on Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry data for the 19 patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Most of the patients (86%) were female, Black (78%), and insured by Medicaid (64%). The average age at diagnosis was 13 years. Most (83%) also lived in a ZIP code that met the criteria for a medium-high or high Social Vulnerability Index. The children had to travel an average 75 miles to see a rheumatologist, compared with the national average of 43 miles.

At diagnosis, their average Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) score was 8.8, their average American College of Rheumatology score was 5.2, and their average SLEDAI score was 12.1 – the latter was substantially higher than the average 3.1 score in a multiethnic Canadian cohort (the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Study) with 10% Black children (P < .00001). The SLEDAI score dropped to 6.8 at 6 months and to 4 at 1 year. Nearly half (47%) had a SLICC Damage Index (SDI) greater than 0, and one-third had an SDI of 2 or greater, compared with 16% and 7%, respectively, reported in other recent studies (P < .0001 for both).

“These disparities are very difficult to investigate in terms of causal relationships and [are] likely to be very modifiable,” Coziana Ciurtin, MD, PhD, associate professor of rheumatology at University College London, told this news organization. “I think the socioeconomic status, the level of education, poverty, [type of] medical insurance, and probably genetic variants are all underpinning the presentation, damage, or disease activity being very high, and also organ involvement,” such as the greater CNS involvement seen in non-White patients.

Being mindful of these risk profiles can help doctors in asking about patients’ support at home and their families’ education, beliefs, and cultural practices, Dr. Ciurtin added. “Helping them to engage and be involved in decision-making is probably the most important” aspect of learning this information about families, she said.

Collecting this information should not be the sole responsibility of the physician, added Eve Smith, PhD, MBCHB, an academic clinical lecturer at the University of Liverpool, England, who attended the presentations. Dr. Smith noted a discussion in a work group during the previous day of the conference concerning questionnaires for screening patients regarding the need for social services and for identifying areas in which patients and their families were having difficulties.

“Obviously, if you’re going to do that, you have to have access to someone who can actually help to deal with that. Some hospitals have patient navigators that can help, for example, with a food security issue to highlight resources within the community, so it’s not all on the doctor,” Dr. Smith said. “To really make a difference in this area, it can’t just be down to the doctor. There needs to be social care, there needs to be community-based interventions and things to do about it. Doctors can help identify these patients, or maybe somebody in the [medical] team can help with that, but there needs to be an intervention. Otherwise, you’re left with this problem without a solution that you can’t do anything about.”

The researchers did not note any external funding for either study. Dr. Beil, Dr. Dhanrajani, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Ciurtin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The sociodemographic characteristics of Black and Hispanic children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appear to play a strong role in influencing the severity of disease in these patients, according to two studies presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

One study showed an association between multiple determinants of health and disease severity among children seen in a large Texas city, and a separate descriptive cross-sectional cohort study of predominantly Black children at two centers in Mississippi and Alabama reinforced the finding of greater severity of disease and social hardships among this racial group.

The findings from both studies supplement existing evidence that the prevalence of childhood-onset SLE is greater among Black and Hispanic children.

“Several demographic and social determinants of health parameters influenced disease severity at levels that reached statistical significance, including insurance status, race/ethnicity, referral source, PCP [primary care provider] availability, primary language, and transportation needs,” Emily Beil, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology. Her team’s goal, she said, was to “better understand our patient population and social disparities that contribute to disease severity.”

Dr. Beil and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 136 children who had been diagnosed with childhood-onset SLE between January 2018 and May 2022 at Texas Children’s Hospital. Only children who were younger than 18 years at the time of diagnosis at Texas Children’s were included. The analysis considered demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance status, social work consultation, access to a primary care provider, transportation needs, primary language, and other parameters related to social determinants of health.

The average age of the patients was 13 years, and most were girls (82%). Just over half were Hispanic (53%), and just over a quarter were Black (26%). Half had Medicaid or participated in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and 1 in 10 were uninsured (10%). Half the diagnoses were made during an inpatient admission; 36% were made on the floor, and 14% were made in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The average Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was 12.5, and 48.5% of patients had severe disease, indicated by a score of at least 12. Only two in three children were documented as having a primary care physician (66%), and 32% preferred a language other than English. Most of the children (80%) had a social work consult.

Black and biracial children had higher SLEDAI scores at presentation. Non-Hispanic White children were less likely to have a social work consult, compared with other racial/ethnic groups (P = .01 for both). Central nervous system involvement was most prevalent among Black patients (P = .004). Cyclophosphamide was used most often for Black and biracial patients.

Uninsured patients were most likely to be diagnosed on an inpatient floor. The highest proportion of ICU admissions was among patients insured by Medicaid (P = .034). Average SLEDAI scores were highest among uninsured patients, followed by Medicaid patients. More than half of the patients who did not have insurance lacked access to a regular primary care provider, compared with 12% of Medicaid patients and 7% of privately insured patients (P = .001). All the uninsured patients had transportation needs, which was a significantly higher rate than among those with Medicaid (13%) or private insurance (15%) (P = .001). The highest percentage of social work consults was among patients who were insured by Medicaid or were without insurance (P = .001).
 

Salient demographics and clinical features

In the second presentation, Anita Dhanrajani, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, began by noting that Alabama and Mississippi are ranked in the top 10 states for the highest poverty rate: Mississippi is No. 1, and Alabama is No. 7. Further, 40% of children in Mississippi and 29% of children in Alabama are of African American ancestry, she said.

“So, we know that this population that we’re dealing with has several high-risk factors that can lead them to have poor outcomes, and yet, we haven’t really ever characterized their clinical features or their social demographic features,” Dr. Dhanrajani told attendees. “My hope is that with this very miniscule first step, we’re able to move towards solutions to decrease health care disparities in this population.”

She presented findings regarding the first of three aims in the study, which was to describe the baseline clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic profiles of childhood lupus patients at the two centers. The two other aims were to examine genetic factors potentially linked to poor outcomes in the cohort and to assess the mental health status of the population.

The study relied on a retrospective chart review for the 17 patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and on Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry data for the 19 patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Most of the patients (86%) were female, Black (78%), and insured by Medicaid (64%). The average age at diagnosis was 13 years. Most (83%) also lived in a ZIP code that met the criteria for a medium-high or high Social Vulnerability Index. The children had to travel an average 75 miles to see a rheumatologist, compared with the national average of 43 miles.

At diagnosis, their average Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) score was 8.8, their average American College of Rheumatology score was 5.2, and their average SLEDAI score was 12.1 – the latter was substantially higher than the average 3.1 score in a multiethnic Canadian cohort (the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Study) with 10% Black children (P < .00001). The SLEDAI score dropped to 6.8 at 6 months and to 4 at 1 year. Nearly half (47%) had a SLICC Damage Index (SDI) greater than 0, and one-third had an SDI of 2 or greater, compared with 16% and 7%, respectively, reported in other recent studies (P < .0001 for both).

“These disparities are very difficult to investigate in terms of causal relationships and [are] likely to be very modifiable,” Coziana Ciurtin, MD, PhD, associate professor of rheumatology at University College London, told this news organization. “I think the socioeconomic status, the level of education, poverty, [type of] medical insurance, and probably genetic variants are all underpinning the presentation, damage, or disease activity being very high, and also organ involvement,” such as the greater CNS involvement seen in non-White patients.

Being mindful of these risk profiles can help doctors in asking about patients’ support at home and their families’ education, beliefs, and cultural practices, Dr. Ciurtin added. “Helping them to engage and be involved in decision-making is probably the most important” aspect of learning this information about families, she said.

Collecting this information should not be the sole responsibility of the physician, added Eve Smith, PhD, MBCHB, an academic clinical lecturer at the University of Liverpool, England, who attended the presentations. Dr. Smith noted a discussion in a work group during the previous day of the conference concerning questionnaires for screening patients regarding the need for social services and for identifying areas in which patients and their families were having difficulties.

“Obviously, if you’re going to do that, you have to have access to someone who can actually help to deal with that. Some hospitals have patient navigators that can help, for example, with a food security issue to highlight resources within the community, so it’s not all on the doctor,” Dr. Smith said. “To really make a difference in this area, it can’t just be down to the doctor. There needs to be social care, there needs to be community-based interventions and things to do about it. Doctors can help identify these patients, or maybe somebody in the [medical] team can help with that, but there needs to be an intervention. Otherwise, you’re left with this problem without a solution that you can’t do anything about.”

The researchers did not note any external funding for either study. Dr. Beil, Dr. Dhanrajani, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Ciurtin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The sociodemographic characteristics of Black and Hispanic children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appear to play a strong role in influencing the severity of disease in these patients, according to two studies presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

One study showed an association between multiple determinants of health and disease severity among children seen in a large Texas city, and a separate descriptive cross-sectional cohort study of predominantly Black children at two centers in Mississippi and Alabama reinforced the finding of greater severity of disease and social hardships among this racial group.

The findings from both studies supplement existing evidence that the prevalence of childhood-onset SLE is greater among Black and Hispanic children.

“Several demographic and social determinants of health parameters influenced disease severity at levels that reached statistical significance, including insurance status, race/ethnicity, referral source, PCP [primary care provider] availability, primary language, and transportation needs,” Emily Beil, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology. Her team’s goal, she said, was to “better understand our patient population and social disparities that contribute to disease severity.”

Dr. Beil and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 136 children who had been diagnosed with childhood-onset SLE between January 2018 and May 2022 at Texas Children’s Hospital. Only children who were younger than 18 years at the time of diagnosis at Texas Children’s were included. The analysis considered demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance status, social work consultation, access to a primary care provider, transportation needs, primary language, and other parameters related to social determinants of health.

The average age of the patients was 13 years, and most were girls (82%). Just over half were Hispanic (53%), and just over a quarter were Black (26%). Half had Medicaid or participated in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and 1 in 10 were uninsured (10%). Half the diagnoses were made during an inpatient admission; 36% were made on the floor, and 14% were made in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The average Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was 12.5, and 48.5% of patients had severe disease, indicated by a score of at least 12. Only two in three children were documented as having a primary care physician (66%), and 32% preferred a language other than English. Most of the children (80%) had a social work consult.

Black and biracial children had higher SLEDAI scores at presentation. Non-Hispanic White children were less likely to have a social work consult, compared with other racial/ethnic groups (P = .01 for both). Central nervous system involvement was most prevalent among Black patients (P = .004). Cyclophosphamide was used most often for Black and biracial patients.

Uninsured patients were most likely to be diagnosed on an inpatient floor. The highest proportion of ICU admissions was among patients insured by Medicaid (P = .034). Average SLEDAI scores were highest among uninsured patients, followed by Medicaid patients. More than half of the patients who did not have insurance lacked access to a regular primary care provider, compared with 12% of Medicaid patients and 7% of privately insured patients (P = .001). All the uninsured patients had transportation needs, which was a significantly higher rate than among those with Medicaid (13%) or private insurance (15%) (P = .001). The highest percentage of social work consults was among patients who were insured by Medicaid or were without insurance (P = .001).
 

Salient demographics and clinical features

In the second presentation, Anita Dhanrajani, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, began by noting that Alabama and Mississippi are ranked in the top 10 states for the highest poverty rate: Mississippi is No. 1, and Alabama is No. 7. Further, 40% of children in Mississippi and 29% of children in Alabama are of African American ancestry, she said.

“So, we know that this population that we’re dealing with has several high-risk factors that can lead them to have poor outcomes, and yet, we haven’t really ever characterized their clinical features or their social demographic features,” Dr. Dhanrajani told attendees. “My hope is that with this very miniscule first step, we’re able to move towards solutions to decrease health care disparities in this population.”

She presented findings regarding the first of three aims in the study, which was to describe the baseline clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic profiles of childhood lupus patients at the two centers. The two other aims were to examine genetic factors potentially linked to poor outcomes in the cohort and to assess the mental health status of the population.

The study relied on a retrospective chart review for the 17 patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and on Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry data for the 19 patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Most of the patients (86%) were female, Black (78%), and insured by Medicaid (64%). The average age at diagnosis was 13 years. Most (83%) also lived in a ZIP code that met the criteria for a medium-high or high Social Vulnerability Index. The children had to travel an average 75 miles to see a rheumatologist, compared with the national average of 43 miles.

At diagnosis, their average Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) score was 8.8, their average American College of Rheumatology score was 5.2, and their average SLEDAI score was 12.1 – the latter was substantially higher than the average 3.1 score in a multiethnic Canadian cohort (the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Study) with 10% Black children (P < .00001). The SLEDAI score dropped to 6.8 at 6 months and to 4 at 1 year. Nearly half (47%) had a SLICC Damage Index (SDI) greater than 0, and one-third had an SDI of 2 or greater, compared with 16% and 7%, respectively, reported in other recent studies (P < .0001 for both).

“These disparities are very difficult to investigate in terms of causal relationships and [are] likely to be very modifiable,” Coziana Ciurtin, MD, PhD, associate professor of rheumatology at University College London, told this news organization. “I think the socioeconomic status, the level of education, poverty, [type of] medical insurance, and probably genetic variants are all underpinning the presentation, damage, or disease activity being very high, and also organ involvement,” such as the greater CNS involvement seen in non-White patients.

Being mindful of these risk profiles can help doctors in asking about patients’ support at home and their families’ education, beliefs, and cultural practices, Dr. Ciurtin added. “Helping them to engage and be involved in decision-making is probably the most important” aspect of learning this information about families, she said.

Collecting this information should not be the sole responsibility of the physician, added Eve Smith, PhD, MBCHB, an academic clinical lecturer at the University of Liverpool, England, who attended the presentations. Dr. Smith noted a discussion in a work group during the previous day of the conference concerning questionnaires for screening patients regarding the need for social services and for identifying areas in which patients and their families were having difficulties.

“Obviously, if you’re going to do that, you have to have access to someone who can actually help to deal with that. Some hospitals have patient navigators that can help, for example, with a food security issue to highlight resources within the community, so it’s not all on the doctor,” Dr. Smith said. “To really make a difference in this area, it can’t just be down to the doctor. There needs to be social care, there needs to be community-based interventions and things to do about it. Doctors can help identify these patients, or maybe somebody in the [medical] team can help with that, but there needs to be an intervention. Otherwise, you’re left with this problem without a solution that you can’t do anything about.”

The researchers did not note any external funding for either study. Dr. Beil, Dr. Dhanrajani, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Ciurtin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Laundry detergent, a cleaning agent ubiquitous in the modern household, often is suspected as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In one North American study, 10.7% of 738 patients undergoing patch testing believed that laundry detergent was a contributing factor, whereas their referring physicians had the same concern less often (in 2.3% of cases).¹Likewise, in a 1992 survey of western US households, more than 20% of 3841 respondents reported skin or health problems attributed to a textile and/or laundry product.² The suspicion of laundry detergent as a causative agent of ACD is perpetuated across popular wellness and beauty websites.^3,4 Does the evidence support this degree of suspicion? Or, similar to the well-meaning parent who misguidedly fixates on foods as the cause of their child’s atopic dermatitis and believes elimination diets are the solution,⁵ could a similar desire for control in the face of the unpredictability of eczema drive consumers and health care providers alike to blame laundry detergent—a familiar and modifiable cause?

We provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent–associated ACD.

Allergenic Ingredients in Laundry Detergent

Potential allergens present in laundry detergent include fragrances, preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, bleaches, brighteners, enzymes, and dyes.^6-8 In an analysis of allergens present in laundry detergents available in the United States, fragrances and preservatives were most common (eTable).^7,8 Contact allergy to fragrances occurs in approximately 3.5% of the general population⁹ and is detected in as many as 9.2% of patients referred for patch testing in North America.¹⁰ Preservatives commonly found in laundry detergent include isothiazolinones, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI), MI alone, and benzisothiazolinone (BIT). Methylisothiazolinone has gained attention for causing an ACD epidemic beginning in the early 2000s and peaking in Europe between 2013 and 2014 and decreasing thereafter due to consumer personal care product regulatory changes enacted in the European Union.¹¹ In contrast, rates of MI allergy in North America have continued to increase (reaching as high as 15% of patch tested patients in 2017-2018) due to a lack of similar regulation.^10,12 More recently, the prevalence of positive patch tests to BIT has been rising, though it often is difficult to ascertain relevant sources of exposure, and some cases could represent cross-reactions to MCI/MI.^10,13

Other allergens that may be present in laundry detergent include surfactants and propylene glycol. Alkyl glucosides such as decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside are considered gentle surfactants and often are included in products marketed as safe for sensitive skin,¹⁴ such as “free and gentle” detergents.⁸ However, they actually may pose an increased risk for sensitization in patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁴ In addition to being allergenic, surfactants and emulsifiers are known irritants.^6,15 Although pathologically distinct, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis can be indistinguishable on clinical presentation.

How Commonly Does Laundry Detergent Cause ACD?

The mere presence of a contact allergen in laundry detergent does not necessarily imply that it is likely to cause ACD. To do so, the chemical in question must exceed the exposure thresholds for primary sensitization (ie, induction of contact allergy) and/or elicitation (ie, development of ACD in sensitized individuals). These depend on a complex interplay of product- and patient-specific factors, among them the concentration of the chemical in the detergent, the method of use, and the amount of detergent residue remaining on clothing after washing.

In the 1990s, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) attempted to determine the prevalence of ACD caused by laundry detergent.¹ Among 738 patients patch tested to aqueous dilutions of granular and liquid laundry detergents, only 5 (0.7%) had a possible allergic patch test reaction. It was unclear what the culprit allergens in the detergents may have been; only 1 of the patients also tested positive to fragrance. Two patients underwent further testing to additional detergent dilutions, and the results called into question whether their initial reactions had truly been allergic (positive) or were actually irritant (negative). The investigators concluded that the prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD in this large group of patients was at most 0.7%, and possibly lower.¹

Importantly, patch testing to laundry detergents should not be undertaken in routine clinical practice. Laundry detergents should never be tested “as is” (ie, undiluted) on the skin; they are inherently irritating and have a high likelihood of producing misleading false-positive reactions. Careful dilutions and testing of control subjects are necessary if patch testing with these products is to be appropriately conducted.

The extremely low prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD reported by the NACDG was determined prior to the start of the worldwide MI allergy epidemic, raising the possibility that laundry detergents containing isothiazolinones may be associated with ACD. There is no consensus about the minimum level at which isothiazolinones pose no risk to consumers,^16-19 but the US Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety declared that MI is “safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing.”^18,19 Although ingredient lists do not always reveal when isothiazolinones are present, analyses of commercially available laundry detergents have shown MI concentrations ranging from undetectable to 65.7 ppm.^20-23

Published reports suggest that MCI/MI in laundry detergent can elicit ACD in sensitized individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old girl with chronic truncal dermatitis (atopic history unspecified) was patch tested, revealing a strongly positive reaction to MCI/MI.²⁴ Her laundry detergent was the only personal product found to contain MI. The dermatitis completely resolved after switching detergents and flared after wearing a jacket that had been washed in the implicated detergent, further supporting the relevance of the positive patch test. The investigators suspected initial sensitization to MI from wet wipes used earlier in childhood.²⁴ In another case involving occupational exposure, a 39-year-old nonatopic factory worker was responsible for directly adding MI to laundry detergent.²⁵ Although he wore disposable work gloves, he developed severe hand dermatitis, eczematous pretibial patches, and generalized pruritus. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to MCI/MI and MI, and he experienced improvement when reassigned to different work duties. It was hypothesized that the leg dermatitis and generalized pruritus may have been related to exposure to small concentrations of MI in work clothes washed with an MI-containing detergent.²⁵ Notably, this patient’s level of exposure was much greater than that encountered by individuals in day-to-day life outside of specialized occupational settings.

Regarding other isothiazolinones, a toxicologic study estimated that BIT in laundry detergent would be unlikely to induce sensitization, even at the maximal acceptable concentration, as recommended by preservative manufacturers, and accounting for undiluted detergent spilling directly onto the skin.²⁶Nonetheless, a single European center recently reported that almost half of the 38 patients with positive patch tests to BIT had a potentially relevant exposure attributed to household cleaning products, including laundry detergent.¹³ This emphasizes the need for further examination of sources of exposure to this increasingly common positive patch test allergen.

Does Machine Washing Impact Allergen Concentrations?

Two recent investigations have suggested that machine washing reduces concentrations of isothiazolinones to levels that are likely below clinical relevance. In the first study, 3 fabrics—cotton, polyester, cotton-polyester—were machine washed and line dried.²⁷ A standard detergent was used with MI added at different concentrations: less than 1 ppm, 100 ppm, and 1000 ppm. This process was either performed once or 10 times. Following laundering and line drying, MI was undetectable in all fabrics regardless of MI concentration or number of times washed (detection limit, 0.5 ppm).²⁷ In the second study, 4 fabrics—cotton, wool, polyester, linen—were washed with standard laundry detergent in 1 of 4 ways: handwashing (positive control), standard machine washing, standard machine washing with fabric softener, and standard machine washing with a double rinse.²⁸ After laundering and line drying, concentrations of MI, MCI, and BIT were low or undetectable regardless of fabric type or method of laundering. The highest levels detected were in handwashed garments at a maximum of 0.5 ppm of MI. The study authors postulated that chemical concentrations near these maximum residual levels may pose a risk for eliciting ACD in highly sensitized individuals. Therefore, handwashing can be considered a much higher risk activity for isothiazolinone ACD compared with machine washing.²⁸

It is intriguing that machine washing appears to reduce isothiazolinones to low concentrations that may have limited likelihood of causing ACD. Similar findings have been reported regarding fragrances. A quantitative risk assessment performed on 24 of 26 fragrance allergens regulated by the European Union determined that the amount of fragrance deposited on the skin from laundered garments would be less than the threshold for causing sensitization.²⁹ Although this risk assessment was unable to address the threshold of elicitation, another study conducted in Europe investigated whether fragrance residues present on fabric, such as those deposited from laundry detergent, are present at high enough concentrations to elicit ACD in previously sensitized individuals.³⁰ When 36 individuals were patch tested with increasing concentrations of a fragrance to which they were already sensitized, only 2 (5.6%) had a weakly positive reaction and then only to the highest concentration, which was estimated to be 20-fold higher than the level of skin exposure after normal laundering. No patient reacted at lower concentrations.³⁰

Although machine washing may decrease isothiazolinone and/or fragrance concentrations in laundry detergent to below clinically relevant levels, these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to all chemicals in laundry detergent. Indeed, a prior study observed that after washing cotton cloths in a detergent solution for 10 minutes, detergent residue was present at concentrations ranging from 139 to 2820 ppm and required a subsequent 20 to 22 washes in water to become undetectable.³¹ Another study produced a mathematical model of the residual concentration of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a surfactant and known irritant, in laundered clothing.³² It was estimated that after machine washing, the residual concentration of SDS on clothes would be too low to cause irritation; however, as the clothes dry (ie, as moisture evaporates but solutes remain), the concentration of SDS on the fabric’s surface would increase to potentially irritating levels. The extensive drying that is possible with electric dryers may further enhance this solute-concentrating effect.

Differential Diagnosis of Laundry Detergent ACD

The propensity for laundry detergent to cause ACD is a question that is nowhere near settled, but the prevalence of allergy likely is far less common than is generally suspected. In our experience, many patients presenting for patch testing have already made the change to “free and clear” detergents without noticeable improvement in their dermatitis, which could possibly relate to the ongoing presence of contact allergens in these “gentle” formulations.⁷ However, to avoid anchoring bias, more frequent causes of dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis. Textile ACD presents beneath clothing with accentuation at areas of closest contact with the skin, classically involving the axillary rim but sparing the vault. The most frequently implicated allergens in textile ACD are disperse dyes and less commonly textile resins.^33,34 Between 2017 and 2018, 2.3% of 4882 patients patch tested by the NACDG reacted positively to disperse dye mix.¹⁰ There is evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of disperse dye allergy might be higher due to inadequacy of screening allergens on baseline patch test series.³⁵ Additional diagnoses that should be distinguished from presumed detergent contact dermatitis include atopic dermatitis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Final Interpretation

Although many patients and physicians consider laundry detergent to be a major cause of ACD, there is limited high-quality evidence to support this belief. Contact allergy to laundry detergent is probably much less common than is widely supposed. Although laundry detergents can contain common allergens such as fragrances and preservatives, evidence suggests that they are likely reduced to below clinically relevant levels during routine machine washing; however, we cannot assume that we are in the “free and clear,” as uncertainty remains about the impact of these low concentrationson individuals with strong contact allergy, and large studies of patch testing to modern detergents have yet to be carried out.

Laundry detergent, a cleaning agent ubiquitous in the modern household, often is suspected as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In one North American study, 10.7% of 738 patients undergoing patch testing believed that laundry detergent was a contributing factor, whereas their referring physicians had the same concern less often (in 2.3% of cases).¹Likewise, in a 1992 survey of western US households, more than 20% of 3841 respondents reported skin or health problems attributed to a textile and/or laundry product.² The suspicion of laundry detergent as a causative agent of ACD is perpetuated across popular wellness and beauty websites.^3,4 Does the evidence support this degree of suspicion? Or, similar to the well-meaning parent who misguidedly fixates on foods as the cause of their child’s atopic dermatitis and believes elimination diets are the solution,⁵ could a similar desire for control in the face of the unpredictability of eczema drive consumers and health care providers alike to blame laundry detergent—a familiar and modifiable cause?

We provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent–associated ACD.

Allergenic Ingredients in Laundry Detergent

Potential allergens present in laundry detergent include fragrances, preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, bleaches, brighteners, enzymes, and dyes.^6-8 In an analysis of allergens present in laundry detergents available in the United States, fragrances and preservatives were most common (eTable).^7,8 Contact allergy to fragrances occurs in approximately 3.5% of the general population⁹ and is detected in as many as 9.2% of patients referred for patch testing in North America.¹⁰ Preservatives commonly found in laundry detergent include isothiazolinones, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI), MI alone, and benzisothiazolinone (BIT). Methylisothiazolinone has gained attention for causing an ACD epidemic beginning in the early 2000s and peaking in Europe between 2013 and 2014 and decreasing thereafter due to consumer personal care product regulatory changes enacted in the European Union.¹¹ In contrast, rates of MI allergy in North America have continued to increase (reaching as high as 15% of patch tested patients in 2017-2018) due to a lack of similar regulation.^10,12 More recently, the prevalence of positive patch tests to BIT has been rising, though it often is difficult to ascertain relevant sources of exposure, and some cases could represent cross-reactions to MCI/MI.^10,13

Other allergens that may be present in laundry detergent include surfactants and propylene glycol. Alkyl glucosides such as decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside are considered gentle surfactants and often are included in products marketed as safe for sensitive skin,¹⁴ such as “free and gentle” detergents.⁸ However, they actually may pose an increased risk for sensitization in patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁴ In addition to being allergenic, surfactants and emulsifiers are known irritants.^6,15 Although pathologically distinct, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis can be indistinguishable on clinical presentation.

How Commonly Does Laundry Detergent Cause ACD?

The mere presence of a contact allergen in laundry detergent does not necessarily imply that it is likely to cause ACD. To do so, the chemical in question must exceed the exposure thresholds for primary sensitization (ie, induction of contact allergy) and/or elicitation (ie, development of ACD in sensitized individuals). These depend on a complex interplay of product- and patient-specific factors, among them the concentration of the chemical in the detergent, the method of use, and the amount of detergent residue remaining on clothing after washing.

In the 1990s, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) attempted to determine the prevalence of ACD caused by laundry detergent.¹ Among 738 patients patch tested to aqueous dilutions of granular and liquid laundry detergents, only 5 (0.7%) had a possible allergic patch test reaction. It was unclear what the culprit allergens in the detergents may have been; only 1 of the patients also tested positive to fragrance. Two patients underwent further testing to additional detergent dilutions, and the results called into question whether their initial reactions had truly been allergic (positive) or were actually irritant (negative). The investigators concluded that the prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD in this large group of patients was at most 0.7%, and possibly lower.¹

Importantly, patch testing to laundry detergents should not be undertaken in routine clinical practice. Laundry detergents should never be tested “as is” (ie, undiluted) on the skin; they are inherently irritating and have a high likelihood of producing misleading false-positive reactions. Careful dilutions and testing of control subjects are necessary if patch testing with these products is to be appropriately conducted.

The extremely low prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD reported by the NACDG was determined prior to the start of the worldwide MI allergy epidemic, raising the possibility that laundry detergents containing isothiazolinones may be associated with ACD. There is no consensus about the minimum level at which isothiazolinones pose no risk to consumers,^16-19 but the US Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety declared that MI is “safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing.”^18,19 Although ingredient lists do not always reveal when isothiazolinones are present, analyses of commercially available laundry detergents have shown MI concentrations ranging from undetectable to 65.7 ppm.^20-23

Published reports suggest that MCI/MI in laundry detergent can elicit ACD in sensitized individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old girl with chronic truncal dermatitis (atopic history unspecified) was patch tested, revealing a strongly positive reaction to MCI/MI.²⁴ Her laundry detergent was the only personal product found to contain MI. The dermatitis completely resolved after switching detergents and flared after wearing a jacket that had been washed in the implicated detergent, further supporting the relevance of the positive patch test. The investigators suspected initial sensitization to MI from wet wipes used earlier in childhood.²⁴ In another case involving occupational exposure, a 39-year-old nonatopic factory worker was responsible for directly adding MI to laundry detergent.²⁵ Although he wore disposable work gloves, he developed severe hand dermatitis, eczematous pretibial patches, and generalized pruritus. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to MCI/MI and MI, and he experienced improvement when reassigned to different work duties. It was hypothesized that the leg dermatitis and generalized pruritus may have been related to exposure to small concentrations of MI in work clothes washed with an MI-containing detergent.²⁵ Notably, this patient’s level of exposure was much greater than that encountered by individuals in day-to-day life outside of specialized occupational settings.

Regarding other isothiazolinones, a toxicologic study estimated that BIT in laundry detergent would be unlikely to induce sensitization, even at the maximal acceptable concentration, as recommended by preservative manufacturers, and accounting for undiluted detergent spilling directly onto the skin.²⁶Nonetheless, a single European center recently reported that almost half of the 38 patients with positive patch tests to BIT had a potentially relevant exposure attributed to household cleaning products, including laundry detergent.¹³ This emphasizes the need for further examination of sources of exposure to this increasingly common positive patch test allergen.

Does Machine Washing Impact Allergen Concentrations?

Two recent investigations have suggested that machine washing reduces concentrations of isothiazolinones to levels that are likely below clinical relevance. In the first study, 3 fabrics—cotton, polyester, cotton-polyester—were machine washed and line dried.²⁷ A standard detergent was used with MI added at different concentrations: less than 1 ppm, 100 ppm, and 1000 ppm. This process was either performed once or 10 times. Following laundering and line drying, MI was undetectable in all fabrics regardless of MI concentration or number of times washed (detection limit, 0.5 ppm).²⁷ In the second study, 4 fabrics—cotton, wool, polyester, linen—were washed with standard laundry detergent in 1 of 4 ways: handwashing (positive control), standard machine washing, standard machine washing with fabric softener, and standard machine washing with a double rinse.²⁸ After laundering and line drying, concentrations of MI, MCI, and BIT were low or undetectable regardless of fabric type or method of laundering. The highest levels detected were in handwashed garments at a maximum of 0.5 ppm of MI. The study authors postulated that chemical concentrations near these maximum residual levels may pose a risk for eliciting ACD in highly sensitized individuals. Therefore, handwashing can be considered a much higher risk activity for isothiazolinone ACD compared with machine washing.²⁸

It is intriguing that machine washing appears to reduce isothiazolinones to low concentrations that may have limited likelihood of causing ACD. Similar findings have been reported regarding fragrances. A quantitative risk assessment performed on 24 of 26 fragrance allergens regulated by the European Union determined that the amount of fragrance deposited on the skin from laundered garments would be less than the threshold for causing sensitization.²⁹ Although this risk assessment was unable to address the threshold of elicitation, another study conducted in Europe investigated whether fragrance residues present on fabric, such as those deposited from laundry detergent, are present at high enough concentrations to elicit ACD in previously sensitized individuals.³⁰ When 36 individuals were patch tested with increasing concentrations of a fragrance to which they were already sensitized, only 2 (5.6%) had a weakly positive reaction and then only to the highest concentration, which was estimated to be 20-fold higher than the level of skin exposure after normal laundering. No patient reacted at lower concentrations.³⁰

Although machine washing may decrease isothiazolinone and/or fragrance concentrations in laundry detergent to below clinically relevant levels, these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to all chemicals in laundry detergent. Indeed, a prior study observed that after washing cotton cloths in a detergent solution for 10 minutes, detergent residue was present at concentrations ranging from 139 to 2820 ppm and required a subsequent 20 to 22 washes in water to become undetectable.³¹ Another study produced a mathematical model of the residual concentration of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a surfactant and known irritant, in laundered clothing.³² It was estimated that after machine washing, the residual concentration of SDS on clothes would be too low to cause irritation; however, as the clothes dry (ie, as moisture evaporates but solutes remain), the concentration of SDS on the fabric’s surface would increase to potentially irritating levels. The extensive drying that is possible with electric dryers may further enhance this solute-concentrating effect.

Differential Diagnosis of Laundry Detergent ACD

The propensity for laundry detergent to cause ACD is a question that is nowhere near settled, but the prevalence of allergy likely is far less common than is generally suspected. In our experience, many patients presenting for patch testing have already made the change to “free and clear” detergents without noticeable improvement in their dermatitis, which could possibly relate to the ongoing presence of contact allergens in these “gentle” formulations.⁷ However, to avoid anchoring bias, more frequent causes of dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis. Textile ACD presents beneath clothing with accentuation at areas of closest contact with the skin, classically involving the axillary rim but sparing the vault. The most frequently implicated allergens in textile ACD are disperse dyes and less commonly textile resins.^33,34 Between 2017 and 2018, 2.3% of 4882 patients patch tested by the NACDG reacted positively to disperse dye mix.¹⁰ There is evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of disperse dye allergy might be higher due to inadequacy of screening allergens on baseline patch test series.³⁵ Additional diagnoses that should be distinguished from presumed detergent contact dermatitis include atopic dermatitis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Final Interpretation

Although many patients and physicians consider laundry detergent to be a major cause of ACD, there is limited high-quality evidence to support this belief. Contact allergy to laundry detergent is probably much less common than is widely supposed. Although laundry detergents can contain common allergens such as fragrances and preservatives, evidence suggests that they are likely reduced to below clinically relevant levels during routine machine washing; however, we cannot assume that we are in the “free and clear,” as uncertainty remains about the impact of these low concentrationson individuals with strong contact allergy, and large studies of patch testing to modern detergents have yet to be carried out.

Laundry detergent, a cleaning agent ubiquitous in the modern household, often is suspected as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In one North American study, 10.7% of 738 patients undergoing patch testing believed that laundry detergent was a contributing factor, whereas their referring physicians had the same concern less often (in 2.3% of cases).¹Likewise, in a 1992 survey of western US households, more than 20% of 3841 respondents reported skin or health problems attributed to a textile and/or laundry product.² The suspicion of laundry detergent as a causative agent of ACD is perpetuated across popular wellness and beauty websites.^3,4 Does the evidence support this degree of suspicion? Or, similar to the well-meaning parent who misguidedly fixates on foods as the cause of their child’s atopic dermatitis and believes elimination diets are the solution,⁵ could a similar desire for control in the face of the unpredictability of eczema drive consumers and health care providers alike to blame laundry detergent—a familiar and modifiable cause?

We provide a summary of the evidence for the potential allergenicity of laundry detergent, including common allergens present in laundry detergent, the role of machine washing, and the differential diagnosis for laundry detergent–associated ACD.

Allergenic Ingredients in Laundry Detergent

Potential allergens present in laundry detergent include fragrances, preservatives, surfactants, emulsifiers, bleaches, brighteners, enzymes, and dyes.^6-8 In an analysis of allergens present in laundry detergents available in the United States, fragrances and preservatives were most common (eTable).^7,8 Contact allergy to fragrances occurs in approximately 3.5% of the general population⁹ and is detected in as many as 9.2% of patients referred for patch testing in North America.¹⁰ Preservatives commonly found in laundry detergent include isothiazolinones, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI), MI alone, and benzisothiazolinone (BIT). Methylisothiazolinone has gained attention for causing an ACD epidemic beginning in the early 2000s and peaking in Europe between 2013 and 2014 and decreasing thereafter due to consumer personal care product regulatory changes enacted in the European Union.¹¹ In contrast, rates of MI allergy in North America have continued to increase (reaching as high as 15% of patch tested patients in 2017-2018) due to a lack of similar regulation.^10,12 More recently, the prevalence of positive patch tests to BIT has been rising, though it often is difficult to ascertain relevant sources of exposure, and some cases could represent cross-reactions to MCI/MI.^10,13

Other allergens that may be present in laundry detergent include surfactants and propylene glycol. Alkyl glucosides such as decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside are considered gentle surfactants and often are included in products marketed as safe for sensitive skin,¹⁴ such as “free and gentle” detergents.⁸ However, they actually may pose an increased risk for sensitization in patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁴ In addition to being allergenic, surfactants and emulsifiers are known irritants.^6,15 Although pathologically distinct, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis can be indistinguishable on clinical presentation.

How Commonly Does Laundry Detergent Cause ACD?

The mere presence of a contact allergen in laundry detergent does not necessarily imply that it is likely to cause ACD. To do so, the chemical in question must exceed the exposure thresholds for primary sensitization (ie, induction of contact allergy) and/or elicitation (ie, development of ACD in sensitized individuals). These depend on a complex interplay of product- and patient-specific factors, among them the concentration of the chemical in the detergent, the method of use, and the amount of detergent residue remaining on clothing after washing.

In the 1990s, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) attempted to determine the prevalence of ACD caused by laundry detergent.¹ Among 738 patients patch tested to aqueous dilutions of granular and liquid laundry detergents, only 5 (0.7%) had a possible allergic patch test reaction. It was unclear what the culprit allergens in the detergents may have been; only 1 of the patients also tested positive to fragrance. Two patients underwent further testing to additional detergent dilutions, and the results called into question whether their initial reactions had truly been allergic (positive) or were actually irritant (negative). The investigators concluded that the prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD in this large group of patients was at most 0.7%, and possibly lower.¹

Importantly, patch testing to laundry detergents should not be undertaken in routine clinical practice. Laundry detergents should never be tested “as is” (ie, undiluted) on the skin; they are inherently irritating and have a high likelihood of producing misleading false-positive reactions. Careful dilutions and testing of control subjects are necessary if patch testing with these products is to be appropriately conducted.

The extremely low prevalence of laundry detergent–associated ACD reported by the NACDG was determined prior to the start of the worldwide MI allergy epidemic, raising the possibility that laundry detergents containing isothiazolinones may be associated with ACD. There is no consensus about the minimum level at which isothiazolinones pose no risk to consumers,^16-19 but the US Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety declared that MI is “safe for use in rinse-off cosmetic products at concentrations up to 100 ppm and safe in leave-on cosmetic products when they are formulated to be nonsensitizing.”^18,19 Although ingredient lists do not always reveal when isothiazolinones are present, analyses of commercially available laundry detergents have shown MI concentrations ranging from undetectable to 65.7 ppm.^20-23

Published reports suggest that MCI/MI in laundry detergent can elicit ACD in sensitized individuals. In one case, a 7-year-old girl with chronic truncal dermatitis (atopic history unspecified) was patch tested, revealing a strongly positive reaction to MCI/MI.²⁴ Her laundry detergent was the only personal product found to contain MI. The dermatitis completely resolved after switching detergents and flared after wearing a jacket that had been washed in the implicated detergent, further supporting the relevance of the positive patch test. The investigators suspected initial sensitization to MI from wet wipes used earlier in childhood.²⁴ In another case involving occupational exposure, a 39-year-old nonatopic factory worker was responsible for directly adding MI to laundry detergent.²⁵ Although he wore disposable work gloves, he developed severe hand dermatitis, eczematous pretibial patches, and generalized pruritus. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to MCI/MI and MI, and he experienced improvement when reassigned to different work duties. It was hypothesized that the leg dermatitis and generalized pruritus may have been related to exposure to small concentrations of MI in work clothes washed with an MI-containing detergent.²⁵ Notably, this patient’s level of exposure was much greater than that encountered by individuals in day-to-day life outside of specialized occupational settings.

Regarding other isothiazolinones, a toxicologic study estimated that BIT in laundry detergent would be unlikely to induce sensitization, even at the maximal acceptable concentration, as recommended by preservative manufacturers, and accounting for undiluted detergent spilling directly onto the skin.²⁶Nonetheless, a single European center recently reported that almost half of the 38 patients with positive patch tests to BIT had a potentially relevant exposure attributed to household cleaning products, including laundry detergent.¹³ This emphasizes the need for further examination of sources of exposure to this increasingly common positive patch test allergen.

Does Machine Washing Impact Allergen Concentrations?

Two recent investigations have suggested that machine washing reduces concentrations of isothiazolinones to levels that are likely below clinical relevance. In the first study, 3 fabrics—cotton, polyester, cotton-polyester—were machine washed and line dried.²⁷ A standard detergent was used with MI added at different concentrations: less than 1 ppm, 100 ppm, and 1000 ppm. This process was either performed once or 10 times. Following laundering and line drying, MI was undetectable in all fabrics regardless of MI concentration or number of times washed (detection limit, 0.5 ppm).²⁷ In the second study, 4 fabrics—cotton, wool, polyester, linen—were washed with standard laundry detergent in 1 of 4 ways: handwashing (positive control), standard machine washing, standard machine washing with fabric softener, and standard machine washing with a double rinse.²⁸ After laundering and line drying, concentrations of MI, MCI, and BIT were low or undetectable regardless of fabric type or method of laundering. The highest levels detected were in handwashed garments at a maximum of 0.5 ppm of MI. The study authors postulated that chemical concentrations near these maximum residual levels may pose a risk for eliciting ACD in highly sensitized individuals. Therefore, handwashing can be considered a much higher risk activity for isothiazolinone ACD compared with machine washing.²⁸

It is intriguing that machine washing appears to reduce isothiazolinones to low concentrations that may have limited likelihood of causing ACD. Similar findings have been reported regarding fragrances. A quantitative risk assessment performed on 24 of 26 fragrance allergens regulated by the European Union determined that the amount of fragrance deposited on the skin from laundered garments would be less than the threshold for causing sensitization.²⁹ Although this risk assessment was unable to address the threshold of elicitation, another study conducted in Europe investigated whether fragrance residues present on fabric, such as those deposited from laundry detergent, are present at high enough concentrations to elicit ACD in previously sensitized individuals.³⁰ When 36 individuals were patch tested with increasing concentrations of a fragrance to which they were already sensitized, only 2 (5.6%) had a weakly positive reaction and then only to the highest concentration, which was estimated to be 20-fold higher than the level of skin exposure after normal laundering. No patient reacted at lower concentrations.³⁰

Although machine washing may decrease isothiazolinone and/or fragrance concentrations in laundry detergent to below clinically relevant levels, these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to all chemicals in laundry detergent. Indeed, a prior study observed that after washing cotton cloths in a detergent solution for 10 minutes, detergent residue was present at concentrations ranging from 139 to 2820 ppm and required a subsequent 20 to 22 washes in water to become undetectable.³¹ Another study produced a mathematical model of the residual concentration of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a surfactant and known irritant, in laundered clothing.³² It was estimated that after machine washing, the residual concentration of SDS on clothes would be too low to cause irritation; however, as the clothes dry (ie, as moisture evaporates but solutes remain), the concentration of SDS on the fabric’s surface would increase to potentially irritating levels. The extensive drying that is possible with electric dryers may further enhance this solute-concentrating effect.

Differential Diagnosis of Laundry Detergent ACD

The propensity for laundry detergent to cause ACD is a question that is nowhere near settled, but the prevalence of allergy likely is far less common than is generally suspected. In our experience, many patients presenting for patch testing have already made the change to “free and clear” detergents without noticeable improvement in their dermatitis, which could possibly relate to the ongoing presence of contact allergens in these “gentle” formulations.⁷ However, to avoid anchoring bias, more frequent causes of dermatitis should be included in the differential diagnosis. Textile ACD presents beneath clothing with accentuation at areas of closest contact with the skin, classically involving the axillary rim but sparing the vault. The most frequently implicated allergens in textile ACD are disperse dyes and less commonly textile resins.^33,34 Between 2017 and 2018, 2.3% of 4882 patients patch tested by the NACDG reacted positively to disperse dye mix.¹⁰ There is evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of disperse dye allergy might be higher due to inadequacy of screening allergens on baseline patch test series.³⁵ Additional diagnoses that should be distinguished from presumed detergent contact dermatitis include atopic dermatitis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Final Interpretation

Although many patients and physicians consider laundry detergent to be a major cause of ACD, there is limited high-quality evidence to support this belief. Contact allergy to laundry detergent is probably much less common than is widely supposed. Although laundry detergents can contain common allergens such as fragrances and preservatives, evidence suggests that they are likely reduced to below clinically relevant levels during routine machine washing; however, we cannot assume that we are in the “free and clear,” as uncertainty remains about the impact of these low concentrationson individuals with strong contact allergy, and large studies of patch testing to modern detergents have yet to be carried out.

The 2022 mpox (monkeypox) virus outbreak represents the latest example of how infectious diseases with previously limited reach can spread in a globalized society. More than 86,000 cases have been reported worldwide, with more than 30,000 cases in the United States as of March 15, 2023.¹ Herein, we summarize the key features of mpox infection for the dermatologist.

Mpox Transmission

The mpox virus is a double-stranded DNA virus of the Orthopoxvirus genus and Poxviridae family.^2,3 There are 2 types of the mpox virus: clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). Clade I causes more severe disease (10% mortality rate), while clade II is associated with lower mortality (1%–3%) and has been split into subclades of IIa (exhibits zoonotic transmission) and IIb (exhibits human-to-human spread).^3,4 The current outbreak is caused by clade IIb, and patients typically have no travel history to classic endemic regions.^5,6

In endemic countries, mpox transmission is zoonotic from small forest animals. In nonendemic countries, sporadic cases rarely have been reported, including a cluster in the United States in 2003 related to pet prairie dogs. In stark contrast, human-to-human transmission is occurring in the current epidemic mainly via intimate skin-to-skin contact and possibly via sexual fluids, meeting the criteria for a sexually transmitted infection. However, nonsexual transmission does still occur, though it is less common.⁷ Many of the reported cases so far are in young to middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM).^2,8 However, it is crucial to understand that mpox is not exclusive to the MSM population; the virus has been transmitted to heterosexual males, females, children, and even household pets of infected individuals.^2,9,10 Labeling mpox as exclusive to the MSM community is both inaccurate and inappropriately stigmatizing.

Cutaneous Presentation and Diagnosis of Mpox

Mpox has an incubation time of approximately 9 days (range, 7–21 days), after which affected persons develop macular lesions that evolve over 2 to 4 weeks into papules, vesicles, and deep-seated pustules before crusting over and resolving with possible residual scarring.^{2,3,5,9,11,12} Palmoplantar involvement is a key feature.¹¹ Although in some cases there will be multiple lesions with centrifugal progression, the lesions also may be few in number, with some patients presenting with a single lesion in the anogenital region or on the face, hand, or foot (Figure).^6,9 Systemic symptoms such as prodromal fever, lymphadenopathy, and headache are common but not universal.^9,13 Potential complications include penile edema, proctitis, bacterial superinfection, tonsillitis, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, and pneumonia.^5,9,13

Images used with permission from Roneet Lev, MD (San Diego, California), and VisualDx.

A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose mpox infection. The differential diagnosis includes smallpox; varicella-zoster virus (primary or reactivation); secondary syphilis; measles; herpes simplex virus; molluscum contagiosum; hand, foot, and mouth disease; and disseminated gonococcal infection.^2,3 For lesions confined to the genital area, sexually transmitted infections (eg, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum) as well as non–sexually related acute genital ulcers (Lipschütz ulcers) should be considered.²

Certain clinical features may help in distinguishing mpox from other diseases. Mpox exhibits synchronous progression and centrifugal distribution when multiple lesions are present; in contrast, the lesions of primary varicella (chickenpox) appear in multiple different stages, and those of localized herpes zoster (shingles) exhibit a dermatomal distribution. When these features are present, mpox causes a greater degree of lymphadenopathy and systemic symptoms than primary varicella.³Clinical diagnosis of mpox is more than 90% sensitive but only 9% to 26% specific.³ To confirm the diagnosis, a viral swab vigorously obtained from active skin lesions should be sent in viral transport media for mpox DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction testing, which is available from major laboratories.^2,3 Other supportive tests include serum studies for anti–mpox virus immunoglobulins and immunohistochemical staining for viral antigens on skin biopsy specimens.² When evaluating suspected and confirmed mpox cases, dermatologists should wear a gown, gloves, a fitted N95 mask, and eye protection to prevent infection.⁵

Treating Mpox

Symptomatic mpox infection can last for up to 2 to 5 weeks.³ The patient is no longer infectious once the lesions have crusted over.^3,11 The majority of cases require supportive care only.^2,3,5,14 However, mpox remains a potentially fatal disease, with 38 deaths to date in the current outbreak.¹ High-risk populations include children younger than 8 years, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.¹⁵ Tecovirimat, an antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smallpox, is available via the expanded access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol to treat severe mpox cases but is not widely available in the United States.^6,16-18 Brincidofovir, a prodrug of the antiviral cidofovir, possesses single-patient emergency use Investigational New Drug (e-IND) status for treatment of mpox but also is not widely available in the United States.¹⁷ Intravenous vaccinia immune globulin is under consideration for high-risk individuals, but little is known regarding its efficacy against mpox.^5,16,17

Two smallpox vaccines—JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic) and ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions)—are available for both preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against mpox virus.¹⁹ At this time, only JYNNEOS is FDA approved for the prevention of mpox; ACAM2000 can be used against mpox under the FDA’s EA-IND protocol, which involves additional requirements, including informed consent from the patient.²⁰ ACAM2000 is a live, replication-competent vaccine that carries a warning of increased risk for side effects in patients with cardiac disease, pregnancy, immunocompromise, and a history or presence of eczema and other skin conditions.^3,21,22 JYNNEOS is a live but replication-deficient virus and therefore does not carry these warnings.^3,21,22

Final Thoughts

Mpox is no longer an obscure illness occurring in limited geographic areas. Dermatologists must remain highly vigilant when evaluating any patient for new-onset vesicular or pustular eruptions to combat this ongoing public health threat. This issue of Cutis^® also features a thorough mpox update on the clinical presentation, vaccine guidance, and management.²³

The 2022 mpox (monkeypox) virus outbreak represents the latest example of how infectious diseases with previously limited reach can spread in a globalized society. More than 86,000 cases have been reported worldwide, with more than 30,000 cases in the United States as of March 15, 2023.¹ Herein, we summarize the key features of mpox infection for the dermatologist.

Mpox Transmission

The mpox virus is a double-stranded DNA virus of the Orthopoxvirus genus and Poxviridae family.^2,3 There are 2 types of the mpox virus: clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). Clade I causes more severe disease (10% mortality rate), while clade II is associated with lower mortality (1%–3%) and has been split into subclades of IIa (exhibits zoonotic transmission) and IIb (exhibits human-to-human spread).^3,4 The current outbreak is caused by clade IIb, and patients typically have no travel history to classic endemic regions.^5,6

In endemic countries, mpox transmission is zoonotic from small forest animals. In nonendemic countries, sporadic cases rarely have been reported, including a cluster in the United States in 2003 related to pet prairie dogs. In stark contrast, human-to-human transmission is occurring in the current epidemic mainly via intimate skin-to-skin contact and possibly via sexual fluids, meeting the criteria for a sexually transmitted infection. However, nonsexual transmission does still occur, though it is less common.⁷ Many of the reported cases so far are in young to middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM).^2,8 However, it is crucial to understand that mpox is not exclusive to the MSM population; the virus has been transmitted to heterosexual males, females, children, and even household pets of infected individuals.^2,9,10 Labeling mpox as exclusive to the MSM community is both inaccurate and inappropriately stigmatizing.

Cutaneous Presentation and Diagnosis of Mpox

Mpox has an incubation time of approximately 9 days (range, 7–21 days), after which affected persons develop macular lesions that evolve over 2 to 4 weeks into papules, vesicles, and deep-seated pustules before crusting over and resolving with possible residual scarring.^{2,3,5,9,11,12} Palmoplantar involvement is a key feature.¹¹ Although in some cases there will be multiple lesions with centrifugal progression, the lesions also may be few in number, with some patients presenting with a single lesion in the anogenital region or on the face, hand, or foot (Figure).^6,9 Systemic symptoms such as prodromal fever, lymphadenopathy, and headache are common but not universal.^9,13 Potential complications include penile edema, proctitis, bacterial superinfection, tonsillitis, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, and pneumonia.^5,9,13

Images used with permission from Roneet Lev, MD (San Diego, California), and VisualDx.

A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose mpox infection. The differential diagnosis includes smallpox; varicella-zoster virus (primary or reactivation); secondary syphilis; measles; herpes simplex virus; molluscum contagiosum; hand, foot, and mouth disease; and disseminated gonococcal infection.^2,3 For lesions confined to the genital area, sexually transmitted infections (eg, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum) as well as non–sexually related acute genital ulcers (Lipschütz ulcers) should be considered.²

Certain clinical features may help in distinguishing mpox from other diseases. Mpox exhibits synchronous progression and centrifugal distribution when multiple lesions are present; in contrast, the lesions of primary varicella (chickenpox) appear in multiple different stages, and those of localized herpes zoster (shingles) exhibit a dermatomal distribution. When these features are present, mpox causes a greater degree of lymphadenopathy and systemic symptoms than primary varicella.³Clinical diagnosis of mpox is more than 90% sensitive but only 9% to 26% specific.³ To confirm the diagnosis, a viral swab vigorously obtained from active skin lesions should be sent in viral transport media for mpox DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction testing, which is available from major laboratories.^2,3 Other supportive tests include serum studies for anti–mpox virus immunoglobulins and immunohistochemical staining for viral antigens on skin biopsy specimens.² When evaluating suspected and confirmed mpox cases, dermatologists should wear a gown, gloves, a fitted N95 mask, and eye protection to prevent infection.⁵

Treating Mpox

Symptomatic mpox infection can last for up to 2 to 5 weeks.³ The patient is no longer infectious once the lesions have crusted over.^3,11 The majority of cases require supportive care only.^2,3,5,14 However, mpox remains a potentially fatal disease, with 38 deaths to date in the current outbreak.¹ High-risk populations include children younger than 8 years, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.¹⁵ Tecovirimat, an antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smallpox, is available via the expanded access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol to treat severe mpox cases but is not widely available in the United States.^6,16-18 Brincidofovir, a prodrug of the antiviral cidofovir, possesses single-patient emergency use Investigational New Drug (e-IND) status for treatment of mpox but also is not widely available in the United States.¹⁷ Intravenous vaccinia immune globulin is under consideration for high-risk individuals, but little is known regarding its efficacy against mpox.^5,16,17

Two smallpox vaccines—JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic) and ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions)—are available for both preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against mpox virus.¹⁹ At this time, only JYNNEOS is FDA approved for the prevention of mpox; ACAM2000 can be used against mpox under the FDA’s EA-IND protocol, which involves additional requirements, including informed consent from the patient.²⁰ ACAM2000 is a live, replication-competent vaccine that carries a warning of increased risk for side effects in patients with cardiac disease, pregnancy, immunocompromise, and a history or presence of eczema and other skin conditions.^3,21,22 JYNNEOS is a live but replication-deficient virus and therefore does not carry these warnings.^3,21,22

Final Thoughts

Mpox is no longer an obscure illness occurring in limited geographic areas. Dermatologists must remain highly vigilant when evaluating any patient for new-onset vesicular or pustular eruptions to combat this ongoing public health threat. This issue of Cutis^® also features a thorough mpox update on the clinical presentation, vaccine guidance, and management.²³

The 2022 mpox (monkeypox) virus outbreak represents the latest example of how infectious diseases with previously limited reach can spread in a globalized society. More than 86,000 cases have been reported worldwide, with more than 30,000 cases in the United States as of March 15, 2023.¹ Herein, we summarize the key features of mpox infection for the dermatologist.

Mpox Transmission

The mpox virus is a double-stranded DNA virus of the Orthopoxvirus genus and Poxviridae family.^2,3 There are 2 types of the mpox virus: clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). Clade I causes more severe disease (10% mortality rate), while clade II is associated with lower mortality (1%–3%) and has been split into subclades of IIa (exhibits zoonotic transmission) and IIb (exhibits human-to-human spread).^3,4 The current outbreak is caused by clade IIb, and patients typically have no travel history to classic endemic regions.^5,6

In endemic countries, mpox transmission is zoonotic from small forest animals. In nonendemic countries, sporadic cases rarely have been reported, including a cluster in the United States in 2003 related to pet prairie dogs. In stark contrast, human-to-human transmission is occurring in the current epidemic mainly via intimate skin-to-skin contact and possibly via sexual fluids, meeting the criteria for a sexually transmitted infection. However, nonsexual transmission does still occur, though it is less common.⁷ Many of the reported cases so far are in young to middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM).^2,8 However, it is crucial to understand that mpox is not exclusive to the MSM population; the virus has been transmitted to heterosexual males, females, children, and even household pets of infected individuals.^2,9,10 Labeling mpox as exclusive to the MSM community is both inaccurate and inappropriately stigmatizing.

Cutaneous Presentation and Diagnosis of Mpox

Mpox has an incubation time of approximately 9 days (range, 7–21 days), after which affected persons develop macular lesions that evolve over 2 to 4 weeks into papules, vesicles, and deep-seated pustules before crusting over and resolving with possible residual scarring.^{2,3,5,9,11,12} Palmoplantar involvement is a key feature.¹¹ Although in some cases there will be multiple lesions with centrifugal progression, the lesions also may be few in number, with some patients presenting with a single lesion in the anogenital region or on the face, hand, or foot (Figure).^6,9 Systemic symptoms such as prodromal fever, lymphadenopathy, and headache are common but not universal.^9,13 Potential complications include penile edema, proctitis, bacterial superinfection, tonsillitis, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, and pneumonia.^5,9,13

Images used with permission from Roneet Lev, MD (San Diego, California), and VisualDx.

A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose mpox infection. The differential diagnosis includes smallpox; varicella-zoster virus (primary or reactivation); secondary syphilis; measles; herpes simplex virus; molluscum contagiosum; hand, foot, and mouth disease; and disseminated gonococcal infection.^2,3 For lesions confined to the genital area, sexually transmitted infections (eg, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum) as well as non–sexually related acute genital ulcers (Lipschütz ulcers) should be considered.²

Certain clinical features may help in distinguishing mpox from other diseases. Mpox exhibits synchronous progression and centrifugal distribution when multiple lesions are present; in contrast, the lesions of primary varicella (chickenpox) appear in multiple different stages, and those of localized herpes zoster (shingles) exhibit a dermatomal distribution. When these features are present, mpox causes a greater degree of lymphadenopathy and systemic symptoms than primary varicella.³Clinical diagnosis of mpox is more than 90% sensitive but only 9% to 26% specific.³ To confirm the diagnosis, a viral swab vigorously obtained from active skin lesions should be sent in viral transport media for mpox DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction testing, which is available from major laboratories.^2,3 Other supportive tests include serum studies for anti–mpox virus immunoglobulins and immunohistochemical staining for viral antigens on skin biopsy specimens.² When evaluating suspected and confirmed mpox cases, dermatologists should wear a gown, gloves, a fitted N95 mask, and eye protection to prevent infection.⁵

Treating Mpox

Symptomatic mpox infection can last for up to 2 to 5 weeks.³ The patient is no longer infectious once the lesions have crusted over.^3,11 The majority of cases require supportive care only.^2,3,5,14 However, mpox remains a potentially fatal disease, with 38 deaths to date in the current outbreak.¹ High-risk populations include children younger than 8 years, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.¹⁵ Tecovirimat, an antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smallpox, is available via the expanded access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol to treat severe mpox cases but is not widely available in the United States.^6,16-18 Brincidofovir, a prodrug of the antiviral cidofovir, possesses single-patient emergency use Investigational New Drug (e-IND) status for treatment of mpox but also is not widely available in the United States.¹⁷ Intravenous vaccinia immune globulin is under consideration for high-risk individuals, but little is known regarding its efficacy against mpox.^5,16,17

Two smallpox vaccines—JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic) and ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions)—are available for both preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against mpox virus.¹⁹ At this time, only JYNNEOS is FDA approved for the prevention of mpox; ACAM2000 can be used against mpox under the FDA’s EA-IND protocol, which involves additional requirements, including informed consent from the patient.²⁰ ACAM2000 is a live, replication-competent vaccine that carries a warning of increased risk for side effects in patients with cardiac disease, pregnancy, immunocompromise, and a history or presence of eczema and other skin conditions.^3,21,22 JYNNEOS is a live but replication-deficient virus and therefore does not carry these warnings.^3,21,22

Final Thoughts

Mpox is no longer an obscure illness occurring in limited geographic areas. Dermatologists must remain highly vigilant when evaluating any patient for new-onset vesicular or pustular eruptions to combat this ongoing public health threat. This issue of Cutis^® also features a thorough mpox update on the clinical presentation, vaccine guidance, and management.²³