Clinical Review

Have you ever looked at the operating room (OR) trash bin at the end of a case and wondered if all that waste is necessary? Since I started my residency, not a day goes by that I have not asked myself this question.

In the mid-1990s, John Elkington introduced the concept of the triple bottom line—that is, people, planet, and profit—for implementation and measurement of sustainability in businesses.¹ The health care sector is no exception when it comes to the bottom line! However, “people” remain the priority. What is our role, as ObGyns, in protecting the “planet” while keeping the “people” safe?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), climate change remains the single biggest health threat to humanity.² The health care system is both the victim and the culprit. Studies suggest that the health care system, second to the food industry, is the biggest contributor to waste production in the United States. This sector generates more than 6,000 metric tons of waste each day and nearly 4 million tons (3.6 million metric tons) of solid waste each year.³ The health care system is responsible for an estimated 8% to 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States; the US health care system alone contributes to more than one-fourth of the global health care carbon footprint. If it were a country, the US health care system would rank 13th among all countries in emissions.⁴In turn, pollution produced by the health sector negatively impacts population health, further burdening the health care system. According to 2013 study data, the annual health damage caused by health care pollution was comparable to that of the deaths caused by preventable medical error.⁴

Aside from the environmental aspects, hospital waste disposal is expensive; reducing this cost is a potential area of interest for institutions.

As ObGyns, what is our role in reducing our waste generation and carbon footprint while keeping patients safe?

Defining health care waste, and disposal considerations

The WHO defines health care waste as including “the waste generated by health-care establishments, research facilities, and laboratories” as well as waste from scattered sources such as home dialysis and insulin injections.⁵ Despite representing a relatively small physical area of hospitals, labor and delivery units combined with ORs account for approximately 70% of all hospital waste.³ Operating room waste consists of disposable surgical supplies, personal protective equipment, drapes, plastic wrappers, sterile blue wraps, glass, cardboard, packaging material, medications, fluids, and other materials (FIGURE 1).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

The WHO also notes that of all the waste generated by health care activities, about 85% is general, nonhazardous waste that is comparable to domestic waste.⁶ Hazardous waste is any material that poses a health risk, including potentially infectious materials, such as blood-soaked gauze, sharps, pharmaceuticals, or radioactive materials.⁶

Disposal of hazardous waste is expensiveand energy consuming as it is typically incinerated rather than disposed of in a landfill. This process produces substantial greenhouse gases, about 3 kg of carbon dioxide for every 1 kg of hazardous waste.⁷

Red bags are used for hazardous waste disposal, while clear bags are used for general waste. Operating rooms produce about two-thirds of the hospital red-bag waste.⁸ Waste segregation unfortunately is not accurate, and as much as 90% of OR general waste is improperly designated as hazardous waste.³ Drapes and uncontaminated, needleless syringes, for example, should be disposed of in clear bags, but often they are instead directed to the red-bag and sharps container (FIGURE 2).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

Recycling in the OR

Recycling has become an established practice in many health care facilities and ORs. Studies suggest that introducing recycling programs in ORs not only reduces carbon footprints but also reduces costs.³ One study reported that US academic medical centers consume 2 million lb ($15 million) each year of recoverable medical supplies.⁹

Single-stream recycling, a system in which all recyclable material—including plastics, paper, metal, and glass—are placed in a single bin without segregation at the collection site, has gained in popularity. Recycling can be implemented both in ORs and in other perioperative areas where regular trash bins are located.

In a study done at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom, introducing recycling bins in every OR, as well as in recovery and staff rest areas, helped improve waste segregation such that approximately 22% of OR waste was recycled.¹⁰ Studies show that recycling programs not only decrease the health care carbon footprint but also have a considerable financial impact. Albert and colleagues demonstrated that introducing a single-stream recycling program to a 9-OR day (or ambulatory) surgery center could redirect more than 4 tons of waste each month and saved thousands of dollars.¹¹

Despite continued improvement in recycling programs, the segregation process is still far from optimal. In a survey done at the Mayo Clinic by Azouz and colleagues, more than half of the staff reported being unclear about which OR items are recyclable and nearly half reported that lack of knowledge was the barrier to proper recycling.¹² That study also showed that after implementation of a recycling education program, costs decreased 10% relative to the same time period in prior years.¹²

Blue wraps. One example of recycling optimization is blue wraps, the polypropylene (No. 5 plastic) material used for wrapping surgical instruments. Blue wraps account for approximately 19% of OR waste and 5% of all hospital waste.¹¹ Blue wraps are not biodegradable and also are not widely recycled. In recent years, a resale market has emerged for blue wraps, as they can be used for production of other No. 5 plastic items.⁹ By reselling blue wraps, revenue can be generated by recycling a necessary packing material that would otherwise require payment for disposal.

Sterility considerations. While recycling in ORs may raise concern due to the absolute sterility required in procedural settings, technologic developments have been promising in advancing safe recycling to reduce carbon footprints and health care costs without compromising patients’ safety. Segregation of waste from recyclable packaging material prior to the case, as well as directing trash to the correct bin (regular vs red bin), is one example. Moreover, because about 80% of all OR waste is generated during the set up before the patient arrives in the OR, it is not contaminated and can be safely recycled.¹³

Continue to: Packaging material...

 

 

Packaging material

A substantial part of OR waste consists of packaging material; of all OR waste, 26% consists of plastics and 7%, paper and cartons.¹⁴ Increasing use of disposable or “single use” medical products in ORs, along with the intention to safeguard sterility, contributes significantly to the generation of medical waste in operating units. Containers, wraps and overwraps, cardboard, and plastic packaging are all composed of materials that when clean, can be recycled; however, these items often end up in the landfill (FIGURE 3).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

Although the segregation of packaging material to recycling versus regular trash versus red bin is of paramount importance, packaging design plays a significant role as well. In 2018, Boston Scientific introduced a new packaging design for ureteral stents that reduced plastic use in packaging by 120,000 lb each year.¹⁵ Despite the advances in the medical packaging industry to increase sustainability while safeguarding sterility for medical devices, there is still room for innovation in this area.

Reducing overage by judicious selection of surgical devices, instruments, and supplies

Overage is the term used to describe surgical inventory that is opened and prepared for surgery but ultimately not used and therefore discarded. Design of surgical carts and instrument and supply selection requires direct input from ObGyns. Opening only the needed instruments while ensuring ready availability of potentially needed supplies can significantly reduce OR waste generation as well as decrease chemical pollution generated by instrument sterilization. Decreasing OR overage reduces overall costs as well (FIGURE 4).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

In a pilot study at the University of Massachusetts, Albert and colleagues examined the sets of disposable items and instruments designated for common plastic and hand surgery procedures.¹¹ They identified the supplies and instruments that are routinely opened and wasted, based on surgeons’ interview responses, and redesigned the sets. Fifteen items were removed from disposable plastic surgery packs and 7 items from hand surgery packs. The authors reported saving thousands of dollars per year with these changes alone, as well as reducing waste.¹¹ This same concept easily could be implemented in obstetrics and gynecology. We must ask ourselves: Do we always need, for example, a complete dilation and curettage kit to place the uterine manipulator prior to a minimally invasive hysterectomy?

In another pilot study, Greenberg and colleagues investigated whether cesarean deliveries consistently could be performed in a safe manner with only 20 instruments in the surgical kit.¹⁶ Obstetricians rated the 20-instrument kit an 8.7 out of 10 for performing cesarean deliveries safely.¹⁶

In addition to instrument selection, surgeons have a role in other supply use and waste generation: for instance, opening multiple pairs of surgical gloves and surgical gowns in advance when most of them will not be used during the case. Furthermore, many ObGyn surgeons routinely change gloves or even gowns during gynecologic procedures when they go back and forth between the vaginal and abdominal fields. Is the perineum “dirty” after application of a surgical prep solution?

In an observational study, Shockley and colleagues investigated the type and quantity of bacteria found intraoperatively on the abdomen, vagina, surgical gloves, instrument tips, and uterus at distinct time points during total laparoscopic hysterectomy.¹⁷ They showed that in 98.9% of cultures, the overall bacterial concentrations did not exceed the threshold for infection. There was no bacterial growth from vaginal cultures, and the only samples with some bacterial growth belonged to the surgeon’s gloves after specimen extraction; about one-third of samples showed growth after specimen extraction, but only 1 sample had a bacterial load above the infectious threshold of 5,000 colony-forming units per mL. The authors therefore suggested that if a surgeon changes gloves, doing so after specimen extraction and before turning attention back to the abdomen for vaginal cuff closure may be most effective in reducing bacterial load.¹⁷

Surgical site infection contributes to medical cost and likely medical waste as well. For example, surgical site infection may require prolonged treatments, tests, and medical instruments. In severe cases with abscesses, treatment entails hospitalization with prolonged antibiotic therapy with or without procedures to drain the collections. Further research therefore is warranted to investigate safe and environmentally friendly practices.

Myriad products are introduced to the medical system each day, some of which replace conventional tools. For instance, low-density polyethylene, or LDPE, transfer sheet is advertised for lateral patient transfer from the OR table to the bed or stretcher. This No. 4–coded plastic, while recyclable, is routinely discarded as trash in ORs. One ergonomic study found that reusable slide boards are as effective for reducing friction and staff muscle activities and are noninferior to the plastic sheets.¹⁸

Steps to making an impact

Operating rooms and labor and delivery units are responsible for a large proportion of hospital waste, and therefore they are of paramount importance in reducing waste and carbon footprint at the individual and institutional level. Reduction of OR waste not only is environmentally conscious but also decreases cost. Steps as small as individual practices to as big as changing infrastructures can make an impact. For instance:

• redesigning surgical carts
• reformulating surgeon-specific supply lists
• raising awareness about surgical overage
• encouraging recycling through education and audit
• optimizing surgical waste segregation through educational posters.

These are all simple steps that could significantly reduce waste and carbon footprint.

Bottom line

Although waste reduction is the responsibility of all health care providers, as leaders in their workplace physicians can serve as role models by implementing “green” practices in procedural units. Raising awareness and using a team approach is critical to succeed in our endeavors to move toward an environmentally friendly future. ●

Have you ever looked at the operating room (OR) trash bin at the end of a case and wondered if all that waste is necessary? Since I started my residency, not a day goes by that I have not asked myself this question.

In the mid-1990s, John Elkington introduced the concept of the triple bottom line—that is, people, planet, and profit—for implementation and measurement of sustainability in businesses.¹ The health care sector is no exception when it comes to the bottom line! However, “people” remain the priority. What is our role, as ObGyns, in protecting the “planet” while keeping the “people” safe?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), climate change remains the single biggest health threat to humanity.² The health care system is both the victim and the culprit. Studies suggest that the health care system, second to the food industry, is the biggest contributor to waste production in the United States. This sector generates more than 6,000 metric tons of waste each day and nearly 4 million tons (3.6 million metric tons) of solid waste each year.³ The health care system is responsible for an estimated 8% to 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States; the US health care system alone contributes to more than one-fourth of the global health care carbon footprint. If it were a country, the US health care system would rank 13th among all countries in emissions.⁴In turn, pollution produced by the health sector negatively impacts population health, further burdening the health care system. According to 2013 study data, the annual health damage caused by health care pollution was comparable to that of the deaths caused by preventable medical error.⁴

Aside from the environmental aspects, hospital waste disposal is expensive; reducing this cost is a potential area of interest for institutions.

As ObGyns, what is our role in reducing our waste generation and carbon footprint while keeping patients safe?

Defining health care waste, and disposal considerations

The WHO defines health care waste as including “the waste generated by health-care establishments, research facilities, and laboratories” as well as waste from scattered sources such as home dialysis and insulin injections.⁵ Despite representing a relatively small physical area of hospitals, labor and delivery units combined with ORs account for approximately 70% of all hospital waste.³ Operating room waste consists of disposable surgical supplies, personal protective equipment, drapes, plastic wrappers, sterile blue wraps, glass, cardboard, packaging material, medications, fluids, and other materials (FIGURE 1).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

The WHO also notes that of all the waste generated by health care activities, about 85% is general, nonhazardous waste that is comparable to domestic waste.⁶ Hazardous waste is any material that poses a health risk, including potentially infectious materials, such as blood-soaked gauze, sharps, pharmaceuticals, or radioactive materials.⁶

Disposal of hazardous waste is expensiveand energy consuming as it is typically incinerated rather than disposed of in a landfill. This process produces substantial greenhouse gases, about 3 kg of carbon dioxide for every 1 kg of hazardous waste.⁷

Red bags are used for hazardous waste disposal, while clear bags are used for general waste. Operating rooms produce about two-thirds of the hospital red-bag waste.⁸ Waste segregation unfortunately is not accurate, and as much as 90% of OR general waste is improperly designated as hazardous waste.³ Drapes and uncontaminated, needleless syringes, for example, should be disposed of in clear bags, but often they are instead directed to the red-bag and sharps container (FIGURE 2).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

Recycling in the OR

Recycling has become an established practice in many health care facilities and ORs. Studies suggest that introducing recycling programs in ORs not only reduces carbon footprints but also reduces costs.³ One study reported that US academic medical centers consume 2 million lb ($15 million) each year of recoverable medical supplies.⁹

Single-stream recycling, a system in which all recyclable material—including plastics, paper, metal, and glass—are placed in a single bin without segregation at the collection site, has gained in popularity. Recycling can be implemented both in ORs and in other perioperative areas where regular trash bins are located.

In a study done at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom, introducing recycling bins in every OR, as well as in recovery and staff rest areas, helped improve waste segregation such that approximately 22% of OR waste was recycled.¹⁰ Studies show that recycling programs not only decrease the health care carbon footprint but also have a considerable financial impact. Albert and colleagues demonstrated that introducing a single-stream recycling program to a 9-OR day (or ambulatory) surgery center could redirect more than 4 tons of waste each month and saved thousands of dollars.¹¹

Despite continued improvement in recycling programs, the segregation process is still far from optimal. In a survey done at the Mayo Clinic by Azouz and colleagues, more than half of the staff reported being unclear about which OR items are recyclable and nearly half reported that lack of knowledge was the barrier to proper recycling.¹² That study also showed that after implementation of a recycling education program, costs decreased 10% relative to the same time period in prior years.¹²

Blue wraps. One example of recycling optimization is blue wraps, the polypropylene (No. 5 plastic) material used for wrapping surgical instruments. Blue wraps account for approximately 19% of OR waste and 5% of all hospital waste.¹¹ Blue wraps are not biodegradable and also are not widely recycled. In recent years, a resale market has emerged for blue wraps, as they can be used for production of other No. 5 plastic items.⁹ By reselling blue wraps, revenue can be generated by recycling a necessary packing material that would otherwise require payment for disposal.

Sterility considerations. While recycling in ORs may raise concern due to the absolute sterility required in procedural settings, technologic developments have been promising in advancing safe recycling to reduce carbon footprints and health care costs without compromising patients’ safety. Segregation of waste from recyclable packaging material prior to the case, as well as directing trash to the correct bin (regular vs red bin), is one example. Moreover, because about 80% of all OR waste is generated during the set up before the patient arrives in the OR, it is not contaminated and can be safely recycled.¹³

Continue to: Packaging material...

 

 

Packaging material

A substantial part of OR waste consists of packaging material; of all OR waste, 26% consists of plastics and 7%, paper and cartons.¹⁴ Increasing use of disposable or “single use” medical products in ORs, along with the intention to safeguard sterility, contributes significantly to the generation of medical waste in operating units. Containers, wraps and overwraps, cardboard, and plastic packaging are all composed of materials that when clean, can be recycled; however, these items often end up in the landfill (FIGURE 3).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

Although the segregation of packaging material to recycling versus regular trash versus red bin is of paramount importance, packaging design plays a significant role as well. In 2018, Boston Scientific introduced a new packaging design for ureteral stents that reduced plastic use in packaging by 120,000 lb each year.¹⁵ Despite the advances in the medical packaging industry to increase sustainability while safeguarding sterility for medical devices, there is still room for innovation in this area.

Reducing overage by judicious selection of surgical devices, instruments, and supplies

Overage is the term used to describe surgical inventory that is opened and prepared for surgery but ultimately not used and therefore discarded. Design of surgical carts and instrument and supply selection requires direct input from ObGyns. Opening only the needed instruments while ensuring ready availability of potentially needed supplies can significantly reduce OR waste generation as well as decrease chemical pollution generated by instrument sterilization. Decreasing OR overage reduces overall costs as well (FIGURE 4).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

In a pilot study at the University of Massachusetts, Albert and colleagues examined the sets of disposable items and instruments designated for common plastic and hand surgery procedures.¹¹ They identified the supplies and instruments that are routinely opened and wasted, based on surgeons’ interview responses, and redesigned the sets. Fifteen items were removed from disposable plastic surgery packs and 7 items from hand surgery packs. The authors reported saving thousands of dollars per year with these changes alone, as well as reducing waste.¹¹ This same concept easily could be implemented in obstetrics and gynecology. We must ask ourselves: Do we always need, for example, a complete dilation and curettage kit to place the uterine manipulator prior to a minimally invasive hysterectomy?

In another pilot study, Greenberg and colleagues investigated whether cesarean deliveries consistently could be performed in a safe manner with only 20 instruments in the surgical kit.¹⁶ Obstetricians rated the 20-instrument kit an 8.7 out of 10 for performing cesarean deliveries safely.¹⁶

In addition to instrument selection, surgeons have a role in other supply use and waste generation: for instance, opening multiple pairs of surgical gloves and surgical gowns in advance when most of them will not be used during the case. Furthermore, many ObGyn surgeons routinely change gloves or even gowns during gynecologic procedures when they go back and forth between the vaginal and abdominal fields. Is the perineum “dirty” after application of a surgical prep solution?

In an observational study, Shockley and colleagues investigated the type and quantity of bacteria found intraoperatively on the abdomen, vagina, surgical gloves, instrument tips, and uterus at distinct time points during total laparoscopic hysterectomy.¹⁷ They showed that in 98.9% of cultures, the overall bacterial concentrations did not exceed the threshold for infection. There was no bacterial growth from vaginal cultures, and the only samples with some bacterial growth belonged to the surgeon’s gloves after specimen extraction; about one-third of samples showed growth after specimen extraction, but only 1 sample had a bacterial load above the infectious threshold of 5,000 colony-forming units per mL. The authors therefore suggested that if a surgeon changes gloves, doing so after specimen extraction and before turning attention back to the abdomen for vaginal cuff closure may be most effective in reducing bacterial load.¹⁷

Surgical site infection contributes to medical cost and likely medical waste as well. For example, surgical site infection may require prolonged treatments, tests, and medical instruments. In severe cases with abscesses, treatment entails hospitalization with prolonged antibiotic therapy with or without procedures to drain the collections. Further research therefore is warranted to investigate safe and environmentally friendly practices.

Myriad products are introduced to the medical system each day, some of which replace conventional tools. For instance, low-density polyethylene, or LDPE, transfer sheet is advertised for lateral patient transfer from the OR table to the bed or stretcher. This No. 4–coded plastic, while recyclable, is routinely discarded as trash in ORs. One ergonomic study found that reusable slide boards are as effective for reducing friction and staff muscle activities and are noninferior to the plastic sheets.¹⁸

Steps to making an impact

Operating rooms and labor and delivery units are responsible for a large proportion of hospital waste, and therefore they are of paramount importance in reducing waste and carbon footprint at the individual and institutional level. Reduction of OR waste not only is environmentally conscious but also decreases cost. Steps as small as individual practices to as big as changing infrastructures can make an impact. For instance:

• redesigning surgical carts
• reformulating surgeon-specific supply lists
• raising awareness about surgical overage
• encouraging recycling through education and audit
• optimizing surgical waste segregation through educational posters.

These are all simple steps that could significantly reduce waste and carbon footprint.

Bottom line

Although waste reduction is the responsibility of all health care providers, as leaders in their workplace physicians can serve as role models by implementing “green” practices in procedural units. Raising awareness and using a team approach is critical to succeed in our endeavors to move toward an environmentally friendly future. ●

Have you ever looked at the operating room (OR) trash bin at the end of a case and wondered if all that waste is necessary? Since I started my residency, not a day goes by that I have not asked myself this question.

In the mid-1990s, John Elkington introduced the concept of the triple bottom line—that is, people, planet, and profit—for implementation and measurement of sustainability in businesses.¹ The health care sector is no exception when it comes to the bottom line! However, “people” remain the priority. What is our role, as ObGyns, in protecting the “planet” while keeping the “people” safe?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), climate change remains the single biggest health threat to humanity.² The health care system is both the victim and the culprit. Studies suggest that the health care system, second to the food industry, is the biggest contributor to waste production in the United States. This sector generates more than 6,000 metric tons of waste each day and nearly 4 million tons (3.6 million metric tons) of solid waste each year.³ The health care system is responsible for an estimated 8% to 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States; the US health care system alone contributes to more than one-fourth of the global health care carbon footprint. If it were a country, the US health care system would rank 13th among all countries in emissions.⁴In turn, pollution produced by the health sector negatively impacts population health, further burdening the health care system. According to 2013 study data, the annual health damage caused by health care pollution was comparable to that of the deaths caused by preventable medical error.⁴

Aside from the environmental aspects, hospital waste disposal is expensive; reducing this cost is a potential area of interest for institutions.

As ObGyns, what is our role in reducing our waste generation and carbon footprint while keeping patients safe?

Defining health care waste, and disposal considerations

The WHO defines health care waste as including “the waste generated by health-care establishments, research facilities, and laboratories” as well as waste from scattered sources such as home dialysis and insulin injections.⁵ Despite representing a relatively small physical area of hospitals, labor and delivery units combined with ORs account for approximately 70% of all hospital waste.³ Operating room waste consists of disposable surgical supplies, personal protective equipment, drapes, plastic wrappers, sterile blue wraps, glass, cardboard, packaging material, medications, fluids, and other materials (FIGURE 1).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

The WHO also notes that of all the waste generated by health care activities, about 85% is general, nonhazardous waste that is comparable to domestic waste.⁶ Hazardous waste is any material that poses a health risk, including potentially infectious materials, such as blood-soaked gauze, sharps, pharmaceuticals, or radioactive materials.⁶

Disposal of hazardous waste is expensiveand energy consuming as it is typically incinerated rather than disposed of in a landfill. This process produces substantial greenhouse gases, about 3 kg of carbon dioxide for every 1 kg of hazardous waste.⁷

Red bags are used for hazardous waste disposal, while clear bags are used for general waste. Operating rooms produce about two-thirds of the hospital red-bag waste.⁸ Waste segregation unfortunately is not accurate, and as much as 90% of OR general waste is improperly designated as hazardous waste.³ Drapes and uncontaminated, needleless syringes, for example, should be disposed of in clear bags, but often they are instead directed to the red-bag and sharps container (FIGURE 2).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

Recycling in the OR

Recycling has become an established practice in many health care facilities and ORs. Studies suggest that introducing recycling programs in ORs not only reduces carbon footprints but also reduces costs.³ One study reported that US academic medical centers consume 2 million lb ($15 million) each year of recoverable medical supplies.⁹

Single-stream recycling, a system in which all recyclable material—including plastics, paper, metal, and glass—are placed in a single bin without segregation at the collection site, has gained in popularity. Recycling can be implemented both in ORs and in other perioperative areas where regular trash bins are located.

In a study done at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom, introducing recycling bins in every OR, as well as in recovery and staff rest areas, helped improve waste segregation such that approximately 22% of OR waste was recycled.¹⁰ Studies show that recycling programs not only decrease the health care carbon footprint but also have a considerable financial impact. Albert and colleagues demonstrated that introducing a single-stream recycling program to a 9-OR day (or ambulatory) surgery center could redirect more than 4 tons of waste each month and saved thousands of dollars.¹¹

Despite continued improvement in recycling programs, the segregation process is still far from optimal. In a survey done at the Mayo Clinic by Azouz and colleagues, more than half of the staff reported being unclear about which OR items are recyclable and nearly half reported that lack of knowledge was the barrier to proper recycling.¹² That study also showed that after implementation of a recycling education program, costs decreased 10% relative to the same time period in prior years.¹²

Blue wraps. One example of recycling optimization is blue wraps, the polypropylene (No. 5 plastic) material used for wrapping surgical instruments. Blue wraps account for approximately 19% of OR waste and 5% of all hospital waste.¹¹ Blue wraps are not biodegradable and also are not widely recycled. In recent years, a resale market has emerged for blue wraps, as they can be used for production of other No. 5 plastic items.⁹ By reselling blue wraps, revenue can be generated by recycling a necessary packing material that would otherwise require payment for disposal.

Sterility considerations. While recycling in ORs may raise concern due to the absolute sterility required in procedural settings, technologic developments have been promising in advancing safe recycling to reduce carbon footprints and health care costs without compromising patients’ safety. Segregation of waste from recyclable packaging material prior to the case, as well as directing trash to the correct bin (regular vs red bin), is one example. Moreover, because about 80% of all OR waste is generated during the set up before the patient arrives in the OR, it is not contaminated and can be safely recycled.¹³

Continue to: Packaging material...

 

 

Packaging material

A substantial part of OR waste consists of packaging material; of all OR waste, 26% consists of plastics and 7%, paper and cartons.¹⁴ Increasing use of disposable or “single use” medical products in ORs, along with the intention to safeguard sterility, contributes significantly to the generation of medical waste in operating units. Containers, wraps and overwraps, cardboard, and plastic packaging are all composed of materials that when clean, can be recycled; however, these items often end up in the landfill (FIGURE 3).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

Although the segregation of packaging material to recycling versus regular trash versus red bin is of paramount importance, packaging design plays a significant role as well. In 2018, Boston Scientific introduced a new packaging design for ureteral stents that reduced plastic use in packaging by 120,000 lb each year.¹⁵ Despite the advances in the medical packaging industry to increase sustainability while safeguarding sterility for medical devices, there is still room for innovation in this area.

Reducing overage by judicious selection of surgical devices, instruments, and supplies

Overage is the term used to describe surgical inventory that is opened and prepared for surgery but ultimately not used and therefore discarded. Design of surgical carts and instrument and supply selection requires direct input from ObGyns. Opening only the needed instruments while ensuring ready availability of potentially needed supplies can significantly reduce OR waste generation as well as decrease chemical pollution generated by instrument sterilization. Decreasing OR overage reduces overall costs as well (FIGURE 4).

Photo: Courtesy of Golnaz Namazi, MD

In a pilot study at the University of Massachusetts, Albert and colleagues examined the sets of disposable items and instruments designated for common plastic and hand surgery procedures.¹¹ They identified the supplies and instruments that are routinely opened and wasted, based on surgeons’ interview responses, and redesigned the sets. Fifteen items were removed from disposable plastic surgery packs and 7 items from hand surgery packs. The authors reported saving thousands of dollars per year with these changes alone, as well as reducing waste.¹¹ This same concept easily could be implemented in obstetrics and gynecology. We must ask ourselves: Do we always need, for example, a complete dilation and curettage kit to place the uterine manipulator prior to a minimally invasive hysterectomy?

In another pilot study, Greenberg and colleagues investigated whether cesarean deliveries consistently could be performed in a safe manner with only 20 instruments in the surgical kit.¹⁶ Obstetricians rated the 20-instrument kit an 8.7 out of 10 for performing cesarean deliveries safely.¹⁶

In addition to instrument selection, surgeons have a role in other supply use and waste generation: for instance, opening multiple pairs of surgical gloves and surgical gowns in advance when most of them will not be used during the case. Furthermore, many ObGyn surgeons routinely change gloves or even gowns during gynecologic procedures when they go back and forth between the vaginal and abdominal fields. Is the perineum “dirty” after application of a surgical prep solution?

In an observational study, Shockley and colleagues investigated the type and quantity of bacteria found intraoperatively on the abdomen, vagina, surgical gloves, instrument tips, and uterus at distinct time points during total laparoscopic hysterectomy.¹⁷ They showed that in 98.9% of cultures, the overall bacterial concentrations did not exceed the threshold for infection. There was no bacterial growth from vaginal cultures, and the only samples with some bacterial growth belonged to the surgeon’s gloves after specimen extraction; about one-third of samples showed growth after specimen extraction, but only 1 sample had a bacterial load above the infectious threshold of 5,000 colony-forming units per mL. The authors therefore suggested that if a surgeon changes gloves, doing so after specimen extraction and before turning attention back to the abdomen for vaginal cuff closure may be most effective in reducing bacterial load.¹⁷

Surgical site infection contributes to medical cost and likely medical waste as well. For example, surgical site infection may require prolonged treatments, tests, and medical instruments. In severe cases with abscesses, treatment entails hospitalization with prolonged antibiotic therapy with or without procedures to drain the collections. Further research therefore is warranted to investigate safe and environmentally friendly practices.

Myriad products are introduced to the medical system each day, some of which replace conventional tools. For instance, low-density polyethylene, or LDPE, transfer sheet is advertised for lateral patient transfer from the OR table to the bed or stretcher. This No. 4–coded plastic, while recyclable, is routinely discarded as trash in ORs. One ergonomic study found that reusable slide boards are as effective for reducing friction and staff muscle activities and are noninferior to the plastic sheets.¹⁸

Steps to making an impact

Operating rooms and labor and delivery units are responsible for a large proportion of hospital waste, and therefore they are of paramount importance in reducing waste and carbon footprint at the individual and institutional level. Reduction of OR waste not only is environmentally conscious but also decreases cost. Steps as small as individual practices to as big as changing infrastructures can make an impact. For instance:

• redesigning surgical carts
• reformulating surgeon-specific supply lists
• raising awareness about surgical overage
• encouraging recycling through education and audit
• optimizing surgical waste segregation through educational posters.

These are all simple steps that could significantly reduce waste and carbon footprint.

Bottom line

Although waste reduction is the responsibility of all health care providers, as leaders in their workplace physicians can serve as role models by implementing “green” practices in procedural units. Raising awareness and using a team approach is critical to succeed in our endeavors to move toward an environmentally friendly future. ●

Erythema ab igne (EAI)(also known as toasted skin syndrome) was first described in the British Journal of Dermatology in the 20th century, ¹ though it was known by physicians long before. Reticular netlike skin changes were seen in association with patients who spent extended time directly next to a heat source. This association led to the name of this condition, which literally means “redness by fire.” Indeed, EAI induced by chronic heat exposure has been described across the world for centuries. For example, in the cold regions of northern China, people used to sleep on beds of hot bricks called kang to stay warm at night. The people of India’s Kashmir district carried pots of hot coals called kangri next to the skin under large woven shawls to stay warm. In the past, Irish women often spent much time by a turf- or peat-burning fire. Chronic heat exposure in these cases can lead not only to EAI but also to aggressive types of cancer, often with a latency of 30 years or more. ²

More recently, the invention of home central heating led to a stark decrease in the number of cases associated with combustion-based heat, with a transition to etiologies such as use of hot water bottles, electric blankets, and electric space heaters. Over time, technological advances led to ever-increasing potential causes for EAI, such as laptops or cell phones, car heaters and heated seats, heated blankets,^3,4 infrared lamps for food, and even medical devices such as ultrasound-based heating products and convective temperature management systems for hospitalized patients. As technology evolves, so do the potential causes of EAI, requiring clinicians to diagnose and deduce the cause through a thorough social and medical history as well as a workup on the present illness with considerations for the anatomical location.^5-7 Herein, we describe the etiology of EAI, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Clinical Characteristics

Erythema ab igne begins as mild, transient, and erythematous macules and patches in a reticular pattern that resolve minutes to hours after removal of the heat source. With weeks to months of continued or repeated application of the heat source, the affected area eventually becomes hyperpigmented where there once was erythema (Figures 1 and 2). Sometimes papules, bullae, telangiectasia, and hyperkeratosis also form. The rash usually is asymptomatic, though pain, pruritus, and dysesthesia have been reported.⁷ Dermoscopy of EAI in the hyperpigmented stage can reveal diffuse superficial dark pigmentation, telangiectasia, and mild whitish scaling.⁸ Although the pathogenesis has remained elusive over the years, lesions do seem to be mostly associated with cumulative exposure to heat rather than length of exposure.⁷

Etiology of EAI

Anatomic Location—The affected site depends on the source of heat (Table). Classic examples of this condition include a patient with EAI presenting on the anterior thighs after working in front of a hot oven or a patient with chronic back pain presenting with lower-back EAI secondary to frequent use of a hot water bottle or heating pad.⁷ With evolving technology over the last few decades, new etiologies have become more common—teenagers are presenting with anterior thigh EAI secondary to frequent laptop use^2-29; patients are holding warm cell phones in their pant pockets, leading to unilateral geometric EAI on the anterior thigh (front pocket) or buttock (back pocket)³⁰; plug-in radiators under computer desks are causing EAI on the lower legs^31-34; and automobile seat heaters have been shown to cause EAI on the posterior legs.^5,35-37 Clinicians should consider anatomic location a critical clue for etiology.

Social History—There are rarer and more highly specific causes of EAI than simple heat exposure that can be parsed from a patient’s social history. Occupational exposure has been documented, such as bakers with exposure to ovens, foundry workers with exposure to heated metals, or fast-food workers with chronic exposure to infrared food lamps.^6,7 There also are cultural practices that can cause EAI. For example, the practice of cupping with moxibustion was shown to create a specific pattern in the shape of the cultural tool used.³⁸ When footbaths with Chinese herbal remedies are performed frequently with high heat, they can lead to EAI on the feet with a linear border at the ankles. There also have been reports of kotatsu (heated tables in Japan) leading to lower-body EAI.^39,40 These cultural practices also are more common in patients with darker skin types, which can lead to hyperpigmentation that is difficult to treat, making early diagnosis important.⁷

Medical History—Case reports have shown EAI caused by patients attempting to use heat-based methods for pain relief of an underlying serious disease such as cancer, bowel pathology (abdominal EAI), spinal disc prolapse (midline back EAI),⁴¹ sickle cell anemia, and renal pathology (posterior upper flank EAI).^6,7,40-49 Patients with hypothyroidism or anorexia have been noted to have generalized EAI sparing the face secondary to repeated and extended hot baths or showers.^50-53 One patient with schizophrenia was shown to have associated thermophilia due to a delusion that led the patient to soak in hot baths for long periods of time, leading to EAI.⁵⁴ Finally, all physicians should be aware of iatrogenic causes of EAI, such as use of warming devices, ultrasound-based warming techniques, and laser therapy for lipolysis. Inquire about the patient’s surgical history or intensive care unit stays as well as alternative medicine or chiropractic visits. Obtaining a history of medical procedures can be enlightening when an etiology is not immediately clear.^7,55,56

Diagnosis

Erythema ab igne is a clinical diagnosis based on recognizable cutaneous findings and a clear history of moderate heat exposure. However, when a clinical diagnosis of EAI is not certain (eg, when unable to obtain a clear history from the patient) or when malignant transformation is suspected, a biopsy can be performed. Pathologically, hematoxylin and eosin staining of EAI classically reveals dilated small vascular channels in the superficial dermis, hence a clinically reticular rash; interface dermatitis clinically manifesting as erythema; and pigment incontinence with melanin-laden macrophages consistent with clinical hyperpigmentation. Finally, for unclear reasons, increased numbers of elastic fibers classically are seen in biopsies of EAI.⁷

 

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for a reticular patch includes livedo reticularis (Figure 3), which usually manifests as a more generalized rash in patients with chronic disease or coagulopathy such as systemic lupus erythematosus, cryoglobulinemia, or Raynaud phenomenon. When differentiating EAI from livedo reticularis or cutis marmorata, consider that both alternative diagnoses are more vascular appearing and are associated with cold exposure rather than heat exposure. In cases that are less reticular, livedo racemosa can be considered in the differential diagnosis. Finally, poikiloderma of Civatte can be reticular, particularly on dermoscopy, but the distribution on the neck with submental sparing should help to distinguish it from EAI unless a heat source around the neck is identified while taking the patient’s history.⁷

In babies, a reticular generalized rash is most likely to be cutis marmorata (Figure 4), which is a physiologic response to cold exposure that resolves with rewarming of the skin. A more serious condition—cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita (Figure 5)—usually is present at birth, most frequently involves a single extremity, and notably does not resolve with rewarming. This is an important differential for EAI in children because it can be associated with vascular and neurologic anomalies as well as limb asymmetry. Finally, port-wine stains can sometimes be reticular in appearance and can mimic the early erythematous stages of EAI. However, unlike the erythematous stage of EAI, the port-wine stains will be present at birth.⁷

Emerging in 2020, an important differential diagnosis to consider is a cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19 infection. An erythematous, reticular, chilblainlike or transient livedo reticularis–like rash has been described as a cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19. Although the pathophysiology is still being elucidated, it is suspected that this is caused by a major vaso-occlusive crisis secondary to COVID-19–induced thrombotic vasculopathy. Interestingly, the majority of patients with this COVID-related exanthem also displayed symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, cough) at the time of presentation,^57-60 but there also have been cases in patients who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁶⁰

In some cases, EAI is an indication to screen for an underlying disease. For example, uncontrolled pain is an opportunity to improve interventions such as modifying the patient’s pain-control regimen, placing a palliative care pain consultation, or checking if the patient has had age-appropriate screenings for malignancy. New focal pain in a patient with a prior diagnosis of cancer may be a sign of a new metastasis. A thermophilic patient leaves opportunity to assess for underlying medical causes such as thyroid abnormalities or social/psychological issues. Geriatric patients who are diagnosed with EAI may need to be assessed for dementia or home safety issues. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus can unknowingly develop EAI on the lower extremities, which may signal a need to assess the patient for peripheral neuropathy. Patients with gastroparesis secondary to diabetes also may develop EAI on the abdomen secondary to heating pad use for discomfort. These examples are a reminder to consider possible secondary comorbidities in all diagnoses of EAI.⁷ 

Prognosis

Although the prognosis of EAI is excellent if caught early, failure to diagnose this condition can lead to permanent discoloration of the skin and even malignancy.⁶ A rare sequela includes squamous cell carcinoma, most commonly seen in chronic cases of the lower leg, which is likely related to chronic inflammation of the skin.^61-65 Rare cases of poorly differentiated carcinoma,⁶⁶ cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma,⁶⁷ and Merkel cell carcinoma⁶⁸ have been reported. Patients diagnosed with EAI should receive normal periodic surveillance of the skin based on their medical history, though the physician should have an increased suspicion and plan for biopsy of any nodules or ulcerations found on the skin of the affected area.⁷

Treatments

Once the diagnosis of EAI is made, treatment starts with removal of the heat source causing the rash. Because the rash usually is asymptomatic, further treatment typically is not required. The discoloration can resolve over months or years, but permanent hyperpigmentation is not uncommon. If hyperpigmentation persists despite removal of the heat source and the patient desires further treatment for discoloration, there are few treatment options, none of which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for this condition.⁷ There is some evidence for the use of Nd:YAG lasers to reduce hyperpigmentation in EAI.⁶⁹ There have been some reports of treatment using topical hydroquinone and topical tretinoin in an attempt to lighten the skin. If associated hyperkeratosis or other epithelial atypia is present, the use of 5-fluorouracil may show some improvement.⁷⁰ One case report has been published of successful treatment with systemic mesoglycan and topical bioflavonoids.⁷¹ It also is conceivable that medications used to treat postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may be helpful in this condition (eg, kojic acid, arbutin, mild topical steroids, azelaic acid). Patients with darker skin may experience permanent discoloration and may not be good candidates for alternative treatments such as laser therapy due to the risk for inducible hyperpigmentation.⁷

Conclusion

No matter the etiology, EAI usually is a benign skin condition that is treated by removal of the causative heat source. Once a diagnosis is made, the clinician must work with the patient to determine the etiology. Care must be taken to ensure that there are no underlying signs, such as chronic pain or psychiatric illness, that could point to associated conditions. Rarely, sequalae such as cancers have been documented in areas of chronic EAI. Once the heat source is identified and removed, any remaining hyperpigmentation usually will self-resolve over months to years, though this may take longer in patients with darker skin types. If more aggressive treatment is preferred by the patient, laser therapy, topical medications, and oral over-the-counter vitamins have been tried with minimal responses. 

Erythema ab igne (EAI)(also known as toasted skin syndrome) was first described in the British Journal of Dermatology in the 20th century, ¹ though it was known by physicians long before. Reticular netlike skin changes were seen in association with patients who spent extended time directly next to a heat source. This association led to the name of this condition, which literally means “redness by fire.” Indeed, EAI induced by chronic heat exposure has been described across the world for centuries. For example, in the cold regions of northern China, people used to sleep on beds of hot bricks called kang to stay warm at night. The people of India’s Kashmir district carried pots of hot coals called kangri next to the skin under large woven shawls to stay warm. In the past, Irish women often spent much time by a turf- or peat-burning fire. Chronic heat exposure in these cases can lead not only to EAI but also to aggressive types of cancer, often with a latency of 30 years or more. ²

More recently, the invention of home central heating led to a stark decrease in the number of cases associated with combustion-based heat, with a transition to etiologies such as use of hot water bottles, electric blankets, and electric space heaters. Over time, technological advances led to ever-increasing potential causes for EAI, such as laptops or cell phones, car heaters and heated seats, heated blankets,^3,4 infrared lamps for food, and even medical devices such as ultrasound-based heating products and convective temperature management systems for hospitalized patients. As technology evolves, so do the potential causes of EAI, requiring clinicians to diagnose and deduce the cause through a thorough social and medical history as well as a workup on the present illness with considerations for the anatomical location.^5-7 Herein, we describe the etiology of EAI, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Clinical Characteristics

Erythema ab igne begins as mild, transient, and erythematous macules and patches in a reticular pattern that resolve minutes to hours after removal of the heat source. With weeks to months of continued or repeated application of the heat source, the affected area eventually becomes hyperpigmented where there once was erythema (Figures 1 and 2). Sometimes papules, bullae, telangiectasia, and hyperkeratosis also form. The rash usually is asymptomatic, though pain, pruritus, and dysesthesia have been reported.⁷ Dermoscopy of EAI in the hyperpigmented stage can reveal diffuse superficial dark pigmentation, telangiectasia, and mild whitish scaling.⁸ Although the pathogenesis has remained elusive over the years, lesions do seem to be mostly associated with cumulative exposure to heat rather than length of exposure.⁷

Etiology of EAI

Anatomic Location—The affected site depends on the source of heat (Table). Classic examples of this condition include a patient with EAI presenting on the anterior thighs after working in front of a hot oven or a patient with chronic back pain presenting with lower-back EAI secondary to frequent use of a hot water bottle or heating pad.⁷ With evolving technology over the last few decades, new etiologies have become more common—teenagers are presenting with anterior thigh EAI secondary to frequent laptop use^2-29; patients are holding warm cell phones in their pant pockets, leading to unilateral geometric EAI on the anterior thigh (front pocket) or buttock (back pocket)³⁰; plug-in radiators under computer desks are causing EAI on the lower legs^31-34; and automobile seat heaters have been shown to cause EAI on the posterior legs.^5,35-37 Clinicians should consider anatomic location a critical clue for etiology.

Social History—There are rarer and more highly specific causes of EAI than simple heat exposure that can be parsed from a patient’s social history. Occupational exposure has been documented, such as bakers with exposure to ovens, foundry workers with exposure to heated metals, or fast-food workers with chronic exposure to infrared food lamps.^6,7 There also are cultural practices that can cause EAI. For example, the practice of cupping with moxibustion was shown to create a specific pattern in the shape of the cultural tool used.³⁸ When footbaths with Chinese herbal remedies are performed frequently with high heat, they can lead to EAI on the feet with a linear border at the ankles. There also have been reports of kotatsu (heated tables in Japan) leading to lower-body EAI.^39,40 These cultural practices also are more common in patients with darker skin types, which can lead to hyperpigmentation that is difficult to treat, making early diagnosis important.⁷

Medical History—Case reports have shown EAI caused by patients attempting to use heat-based methods for pain relief of an underlying serious disease such as cancer, bowel pathology (abdominal EAI), spinal disc prolapse (midline back EAI),⁴¹ sickle cell anemia, and renal pathology (posterior upper flank EAI).^6,7,40-49 Patients with hypothyroidism or anorexia have been noted to have generalized EAI sparing the face secondary to repeated and extended hot baths or showers.^50-53 One patient with schizophrenia was shown to have associated thermophilia due to a delusion that led the patient to soak in hot baths for long periods of time, leading to EAI.⁵⁴ Finally, all physicians should be aware of iatrogenic causes of EAI, such as use of warming devices, ultrasound-based warming techniques, and laser therapy for lipolysis. Inquire about the patient’s surgical history or intensive care unit stays as well as alternative medicine or chiropractic visits. Obtaining a history of medical procedures can be enlightening when an etiology is not immediately clear.^7,55,56

Diagnosis

Erythema ab igne is a clinical diagnosis based on recognizable cutaneous findings and a clear history of moderate heat exposure. However, when a clinical diagnosis of EAI is not certain (eg, when unable to obtain a clear history from the patient) or when malignant transformation is suspected, a biopsy can be performed. Pathologically, hematoxylin and eosin staining of EAI classically reveals dilated small vascular channels in the superficial dermis, hence a clinically reticular rash; interface dermatitis clinically manifesting as erythema; and pigment incontinence with melanin-laden macrophages consistent with clinical hyperpigmentation. Finally, for unclear reasons, increased numbers of elastic fibers classically are seen in biopsies of EAI.⁷

 

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for a reticular patch includes livedo reticularis (Figure 3), which usually manifests as a more generalized rash in patients with chronic disease or coagulopathy such as systemic lupus erythematosus, cryoglobulinemia, or Raynaud phenomenon. When differentiating EAI from livedo reticularis or cutis marmorata, consider that both alternative diagnoses are more vascular appearing and are associated with cold exposure rather than heat exposure. In cases that are less reticular, livedo racemosa can be considered in the differential diagnosis. Finally, poikiloderma of Civatte can be reticular, particularly on dermoscopy, but the distribution on the neck with submental sparing should help to distinguish it from EAI unless a heat source around the neck is identified while taking the patient’s history.⁷

In babies, a reticular generalized rash is most likely to be cutis marmorata (Figure 4), which is a physiologic response to cold exposure that resolves with rewarming of the skin. A more serious condition—cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita (Figure 5)—usually is present at birth, most frequently involves a single extremity, and notably does not resolve with rewarming. This is an important differential for EAI in children because it can be associated with vascular and neurologic anomalies as well as limb asymmetry. Finally, port-wine stains can sometimes be reticular in appearance and can mimic the early erythematous stages of EAI. However, unlike the erythematous stage of EAI, the port-wine stains will be present at birth.⁷

Emerging in 2020, an important differential diagnosis to consider is a cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19 infection. An erythematous, reticular, chilblainlike or transient livedo reticularis–like rash has been described as a cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19. Although the pathophysiology is still being elucidated, it is suspected that this is caused by a major vaso-occlusive crisis secondary to COVID-19–induced thrombotic vasculopathy. Interestingly, the majority of patients with this COVID-related exanthem also displayed symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, cough) at the time of presentation,^57-60 but there also have been cases in patients who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁶⁰

In some cases, EAI is an indication to screen for an underlying disease. For example, uncontrolled pain is an opportunity to improve interventions such as modifying the patient’s pain-control regimen, placing a palliative care pain consultation, or checking if the patient has had age-appropriate screenings for malignancy. New focal pain in a patient with a prior diagnosis of cancer may be a sign of a new metastasis. A thermophilic patient leaves opportunity to assess for underlying medical causes such as thyroid abnormalities or social/psychological issues. Geriatric patients who are diagnosed with EAI may need to be assessed for dementia or home safety issues. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus can unknowingly develop EAI on the lower extremities, which may signal a need to assess the patient for peripheral neuropathy. Patients with gastroparesis secondary to diabetes also may develop EAI on the abdomen secondary to heating pad use for discomfort. These examples are a reminder to consider possible secondary comorbidities in all diagnoses of EAI.⁷ 

Prognosis

Although the prognosis of EAI is excellent if caught early, failure to diagnose this condition can lead to permanent discoloration of the skin and even malignancy.⁶ A rare sequela includes squamous cell carcinoma, most commonly seen in chronic cases of the lower leg, which is likely related to chronic inflammation of the skin.^61-65 Rare cases of poorly differentiated carcinoma,⁶⁶ cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma,⁶⁷ and Merkel cell carcinoma⁶⁸ have been reported. Patients diagnosed with EAI should receive normal periodic surveillance of the skin based on their medical history, though the physician should have an increased suspicion and plan for biopsy of any nodules or ulcerations found on the skin of the affected area.⁷

Treatments

Once the diagnosis of EAI is made, treatment starts with removal of the heat source causing the rash. Because the rash usually is asymptomatic, further treatment typically is not required. The discoloration can resolve over months or years, but permanent hyperpigmentation is not uncommon. If hyperpigmentation persists despite removal of the heat source and the patient desires further treatment for discoloration, there are few treatment options, none of which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for this condition.⁷ There is some evidence for the use of Nd:YAG lasers to reduce hyperpigmentation in EAI.⁶⁹ There have been some reports of treatment using topical hydroquinone and topical tretinoin in an attempt to lighten the skin. If associated hyperkeratosis or other epithelial atypia is present, the use of 5-fluorouracil may show some improvement.⁷⁰ One case report has been published of successful treatment with systemic mesoglycan and topical bioflavonoids.⁷¹ It also is conceivable that medications used to treat postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may be helpful in this condition (eg, kojic acid, arbutin, mild topical steroids, azelaic acid). Patients with darker skin may experience permanent discoloration and may not be good candidates for alternative treatments such as laser therapy due to the risk for inducible hyperpigmentation.⁷

Conclusion

No matter the etiology, EAI usually is a benign skin condition that is treated by removal of the causative heat source. Once a diagnosis is made, the clinician must work with the patient to determine the etiology. Care must be taken to ensure that there are no underlying signs, such as chronic pain or psychiatric illness, that could point to associated conditions. Rarely, sequalae such as cancers have been documented in areas of chronic EAI. Once the heat source is identified and removed, any remaining hyperpigmentation usually will self-resolve over months to years, though this may take longer in patients with darker skin types. If more aggressive treatment is preferred by the patient, laser therapy, topical medications, and oral over-the-counter vitamins have been tried with minimal responses. 

Erythema ab igne (EAI)(also known as toasted skin syndrome) was first described in the British Journal of Dermatology in the 20th century, ¹ though it was known by physicians long before. Reticular netlike skin changes were seen in association with patients who spent extended time directly next to a heat source. This association led to the name of this condition, which literally means “redness by fire.” Indeed, EAI induced by chronic heat exposure has been described across the world for centuries. For example, in the cold regions of northern China, people used to sleep on beds of hot bricks called kang to stay warm at night. The people of India’s Kashmir district carried pots of hot coals called kangri next to the skin under large woven shawls to stay warm. In the past, Irish women often spent much time by a turf- or peat-burning fire. Chronic heat exposure in these cases can lead not only to EAI but also to aggressive types of cancer, often with a latency of 30 years or more. ²

More recently, the invention of home central heating led to a stark decrease in the number of cases associated with combustion-based heat, with a transition to etiologies such as use of hot water bottles, electric blankets, and electric space heaters. Over time, technological advances led to ever-increasing potential causes for EAI, such as laptops or cell phones, car heaters and heated seats, heated blankets,^3,4 infrared lamps for food, and even medical devices such as ultrasound-based heating products and convective temperature management systems for hospitalized patients. As technology evolves, so do the potential causes of EAI, requiring clinicians to diagnose and deduce the cause through a thorough social and medical history as well as a workup on the present illness with considerations for the anatomical location.^5-7 Herein, we describe the etiology of EAI, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Clinical Characteristics

Erythema ab igne begins as mild, transient, and erythematous macules and patches in a reticular pattern that resolve minutes to hours after removal of the heat source. With weeks to months of continued or repeated application of the heat source, the affected area eventually becomes hyperpigmented where there once was erythema (Figures 1 and 2). Sometimes papules, bullae, telangiectasia, and hyperkeratosis also form. The rash usually is asymptomatic, though pain, pruritus, and dysesthesia have been reported.⁷ Dermoscopy of EAI in the hyperpigmented stage can reveal diffuse superficial dark pigmentation, telangiectasia, and mild whitish scaling.⁸ Although the pathogenesis has remained elusive over the years, lesions do seem to be mostly associated with cumulative exposure to heat rather than length of exposure.⁷

Etiology of EAI

Anatomic Location—The affected site depends on the source of heat (Table). Classic examples of this condition include a patient with EAI presenting on the anterior thighs after working in front of a hot oven or a patient with chronic back pain presenting with lower-back EAI secondary to frequent use of a hot water bottle or heating pad.⁷ With evolving technology over the last few decades, new etiologies have become more common—teenagers are presenting with anterior thigh EAI secondary to frequent laptop use^2-29; patients are holding warm cell phones in their pant pockets, leading to unilateral geometric EAI on the anterior thigh (front pocket) or buttock (back pocket)³⁰; plug-in radiators under computer desks are causing EAI on the lower legs^31-34; and automobile seat heaters have been shown to cause EAI on the posterior legs.^5,35-37 Clinicians should consider anatomic location a critical clue for etiology.

Social History—There are rarer and more highly specific causes of EAI than simple heat exposure that can be parsed from a patient’s social history. Occupational exposure has been documented, such as bakers with exposure to ovens, foundry workers with exposure to heated metals, or fast-food workers with chronic exposure to infrared food lamps.^6,7 There also are cultural practices that can cause EAI. For example, the practice of cupping with moxibustion was shown to create a specific pattern in the shape of the cultural tool used.³⁸ When footbaths with Chinese herbal remedies are performed frequently with high heat, they can lead to EAI on the feet with a linear border at the ankles. There also have been reports of kotatsu (heated tables in Japan) leading to lower-body EAI.^39,40 These cultural practices also are more common in patients with darker skin types, which can lead to hyperpigmentation that is difficult to treat, making early diagnosis important.⁷

Medical History—Case reports have shown EAI caused by patients attempting to use heat-based methods for pain relief of an underlying serious disease such as cancer, bowel pathology (abdominal EAI), spinal disc prolapse (midline back EAI),⁴¹ sickle cell anemia, and renal pathology (posterior upper flank EAI).^6,7,40-49 Patients with hypothyroidism or anorexia have been noted to have generalized EAI sparing the face secondary to repeated and extended hot baths or showers.^50-53 One patient with schizophrenia was shown to have associated thermophilia due to a delusion that led the patient to soak in hot baths for long periods of time, leading to EAI.⁵⁴ Finally, all physicians should be aware of iatrogenic causes of EAI, such as use of warming devices, ultrasound-based warming techniques, and laser therapy for lipolysis. Inquire about the patient’s surgical history or intensive care unit stays as well as alternative medicine or chiropractic visits. Obtaining a history of medical procedures can be enlightening when an etiology is not immediately clear.^7,55,56

Diagnosis

Erythema ab igne is a clinical diagnosis based on recognizable cutaneous findings and a clear history of moderate heat exposure. However, when a clinical diagnosis of EAI is not certain (eg, when unable to obtain a clear history from the patient) or when malignant transformation is suspected, a biopsy can be performed. Pathologically, hematoxylin and eosin staining of EAI classically reveals dilated small vascular channels in the superficial dermis, hence a clinically reticular rash; interface dermatitis clinically manifesting as erythema; and pigment incontinence with melanin-laden macrophages consistent with clinical hyperpigmentation. Finally, for unclear reasons, increased numbers of elastic fibers classically are seen in biopsies of EAI.⁷

 

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for a reticular patch includes livedo reticularis (Figure 3), which usually manifests as a more generalized rash in patients with chronic disease or coagulopathy such as systemic lupus erythematosus, cryoglobulinemia, or Raynaud phenomenon. When differentiating EAI from livedo reticularis or cutis marmorata, consider that both alternative diagnoses are more vascular appearing and are associated with cold exposure rather than heat exposure. In cases that are less reticular, livedo racemosa can be considered in the differential diagnosis. Finally, poikiloderma of Civatte can be reticular, particularly on dermoscopy, but the distribution on the neck with submental sparing should help to distinguish it from EAI unless a heat source around the neck is identified while taking the patient’s history.⁷

In babies, a reticular generalized rash is most likely to be cutis marmorata (Figure 4), which is a physiologic response to cold exposure that resolves with rewarming of the skin. A more serious condition—cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita (Figure 5)—usually is present at birth, most frequently involves a single extremity, and notably does not resolve with rewarming. This is an important differential for EAI in children because it can be associated with vascular and neurologic anomalies as well as limb asymmetry. Finally, port-wine stains can sometimes be reticular in appearance and can mimic the early erythematous stages of EAI. However, unlike the erythematous stage of EAI, the port-wine stains will be present at birth.⁷

Emerging in 2020, an important differential diagnosis to consider is a cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19 infection. An erythematous, reticular, chilblainlike or transient livedo reticularis–like rash has been described as a cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19. Although the pathophysiology is still being elucidated, it is suspected that this is caused by a major vaso-occlusive crisis secondary to COVID-19–induced thrombotic vasculopathy. Interestingly, the majority of patients with this COVID-related exanthem also displayed symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, cough) at the time of presentation,^57-60 but there also have been cases in patients who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁶⁰

In some cases, EAI is an indication to screen for an underlying disease. For example, uncontrolled pain is an opportunity to improve interventions such as modifying the patient’s pain-control regimen, placing a palliative care pain consultation, or checking if the patient has had age-appropriate screenings for malignancy. New focal pain in a patient with a prior diagnosis of cancer may be a sign of a new metastasis. A thermophilic patient leaves opportunity to assess for underlying medical causes such as thyroid abnormalities or social/psychological issues. Geriatric patients who are diagnosed with EAI may need to be assessed for dementia or home safety issues. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus can unknowingly develop EAI on the lower extremities, which may signal a need to assess the patient for peripheral neuropathy. Patients with gastroparesis secondary to diabetes also may develop EAI on the abdomen secondary to heating pad use for discomfort. These examples are a reminder to consider possible secondary comorbidities in all diagnoses of EAI.⁷ 

Prognosis

Although the prognosis of EAI is excellent if caught early, failure to diagnose this condition can lead to permanent discoloration of the skin and even malignancy.⁶ A rare sequela includes squamous cell carcinoma, most commonly seen in chronic cases of the lower leg, which is likely related to chronic inflammation of the skin.^61-65 Rare cases of poorly differentiated carcinoma,⁶⁶ cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma,⁶⁷ and Merkel cell carcinoma⁶⁸ have been reported. Patients diagnosed with EAI should receive normal periodic surveillance of the skin based on their medical history, though the physician should have an increased suspicion and plan for biopsy of any nodules or ulcerations found on the skin of the affected area.⁷

Treatments

Once the diagnosis of EAI is made, treatment starts with removal of the heat source causing the rash. Because the rash usually is asymptomatic, further treatment typically is not required. The discoloration can resolve over months or years, but permanent hyperpigmentation is not uncommon. If hyperpigmentation persists despite removal of the heat source and the patient desires further treatment for discoloration, there are few treatment options, none of which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for this condition.⁷ There is some evidence for the use of Nd:YAG lasers to reduce hyperpigmentation in EAI.⁶⁹ There have been some reports of treatment using topical hydroquinone and topical tretinoin in an attempt to lighten the skin. If associated hyperkeratosis or other epithelial atypia is present, the use of 5-fluorouracil may show some improvement.⁷⁰ One case report has been published of successful treatment with systemic mesoglycan and topical bioflavonoids.⁷¹ It also is conceivable that medications used to treat postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may be helpful in this condition (eg, kojic acid, arbutin, mild topical steroids, azelaic acid). Patients with darker skin may experience permanent discoloration and may not be good candidates for alternative treatments such as laser therapy due to the risk for inducible hyperpigmentation.⁷

Conclusion

No matter the etiology, EAI usually is a benign skin condition that is treated by removal of the causative heat source. Once a diagnosis is made, the clinician must work with the patient to determine the etiology. Care must be taken to ensure that there are no underlying signs, such as chronic pain or psychiatric illness, that could point to associated conditions. Rarely, sequalae such as cancers have been documented in areas of chronic EAI. Once the heat source is identified and removed, any remaining hyperpigmentation usually will self-resolve over months to years, though this may take longer in patients with darker skin types. If more aggressive treatment is preferred by the patient, laser therapy, topical medications, and oral over-the-counter vitamins have been tried with minimal responses. 

COVID-19 is a potentially severe systemic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) caused fatal epidemics in Asia in 2002 to 2003 and in the Arabian Peninsula in 2012, respectively. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in patients with severe, sometimes fatal pneumonia of previously unknown origin; it rapidly spread around the world, and the World Health Organization declared the disease a pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a β-coronavirus that is genetically related to the bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV; it is a single-stranded RNA virus of which several variants and subvariants exist. The SARS-CoV-2 viral particles bind via their surface spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor present on the membrane of several cell types, including epidermal and adnexal keratinocytes.^1,2 The α and δ variants, predominant from 2020 to 2021, mainly affected the lower respiratory tract and caused severe, potentially fatal pneumonia, especially in patients older than 65 years and/or with comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and (iatrogenic) immunosuppression. The ο variant, which appeared in late 2021, is more contagious than the initial variants, but it causes a less severe disease preferentially affecting the upper respiratory airways.³ As of April 5, 2023, more than 762,000,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, causing more than 6,800,000 deaths.⁴

Early studies from China describing the symptoms of COVID-19 reported a low frequency of skin manifestations (0.2%), probably because they were focused on the most severe disease symptoms.⁵ Subsequently, when COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world, an increasing number of skin manifestations were reported in association with the disease. After the first publication from northern Italy in spring 2020, which was specifically devoted to skin manifestations of COVID-19,⁶ an explosive number of publications reported a large number of skin manifestations, and national registries were established in several countries to record these manifestations, such as the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies registry,^7,8 the COVIDSKIN registry of the French Dermatology Society,⁹ and the Italian registry.¹⁰ Highlighting the unprecedented number of scientific articles published on this new disease, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE search using the terms SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, on April 6, 2023, revealed 351,596 articles; that is more than 300 articles published every day in this database alone, with a large number of them concerning the skin.

SKIN DISEASSES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19

There are several types of COVID-19–related skin manifestations, depending on the circumstances of onset and the evolution of the pandemic.

Skin Manifestations Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The estimated incidence varies greatly according to the published series of patients, possibly depending on the geographic location. The estimated incidence seems lower in Asian countries, such as China (0.2%)⁵ and Japan (0.56%),¹¹ compared with Europe (up to 20%).⁶ Skin manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection affect individuals of all ages, slightly more females, and are clinically polymorphous; some of them are associated with the severity of the infection.¹² They may precede, accompany, or appear after the symptoms of COVID-19, most often within a month of the infection, of which they rarely are the only manifestation; however, their precise relationship to SARS-CoV-2 is not always well known. They have been classified according to their clinical presentation into several forms.^13-15

Morbilliform Maculopapular Eruption—Representing 16% to 53% of skin manifestations, morbilliform and maculopapular eruptions usually appear within 15 days of infection; they manifest with more or less confluent erythematous macules that may be hemorrhagic/petechial, and usually are asymptomatic and rarely pruritic. The rash mainly affects the trunk and limbs, sparing the face, palmoplantar regions, and mucous membranes; it appears concomitantly with or a few days after the first symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, respiratory symptoms), regresses within a few days, and does not appear to be associated with disease severity. The distinction from maculopapular drug eruptions may be subtle. Histologically, the rash manifests with a spongiform dermatitis (ie, variable parakeratosis; spongiosis; and a mixed dermal perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes, eosinophils and histiocytes, depending on the lesion age)(Figure 1). The etiopathogenesis is unknown; it may involve immune complexes to SARS-CoV-2 deposited on skin vessels. Treatment is not mandatory; if necessary, local or systemic corticosteroids may be used.

Vesicular (Pseudovaricella) Rash—This rash accounts for 11% to 18% of all skin manifestations and usually appears within 15 days of COVID-19 onset. It manifests with small monomorphous or varicellalike (pseudopolymorphic) vesicles appearing on the trunk, usually in young patients. The vesicles may be herpetiform, hemorrhagic, or pruritic, and appear before or within 3 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms; they regress within a few days without scarring. Histologically, the lesions show basal cell vacuolization; multinucleated, dyskeratotic/apoptotic or ballooning/acantholytic epidermal keratinocytes; reticular degeneration of the epidermis; intraepidermal vesicles sometimes resembling herpetic vesicular infections or Grover disease; and mild dermal inflammation. There is no specific treatment.

Urticaria—Urticarial rash, or urticaria, represents 5% to 16% of skin manifestations; usually appears within 15 days of disease onset; and manifests with pruritic, migratory, edematous papules appearing mainly on the trunk and occasionally the face and limbs. The urticarial rash tends to be associated with more severe forms of the disease and regresses within a week, responding to antihistamines. Of note, clinically similar rashes can be caused by drugs. Histologically, the lesions show dermal edema and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes admixed with eosinophils.

Chilblainlike Lesions—Chilblainlike lesions (CBLLs) account for 19% of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19¹³ and present as erythematous-purplish, edematous lesions that can be mildly pruritic or painful, appearing on the toes—COVID toes—and more rarely the fingers (Figure 2). They were seen epidemically during the first pandemic wave (2020 lockdown) in several countries, and clinically are very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, idiopathic chilblains, but are not necessarily associated with cold exposure. They appear in young, generally healthy patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms 2 to 4 weeks after symptom onset. They regress spontaneously or under local corticosteroid treatment within a few days or weeks. Histologically, CBLLs are indistinguishable from chilblains of other origins, namely idiopathic (seasonal) ones. They manifest with necrosis of epidermal keratinocytes; dermal edema that may be severe, leading to the development of subepidermal pseudobullae; a rather dense perivascular and perieccrine gland lymphocytic infiltrate; and sometimes with vascular lesions (eg, edema of endothelial cells, microthromboses of dermal capillaries and venules, fibrinoid deposits within the wall of dermal venules)(Figure 3).^16-18 Most patients (>80%) with CBLLs have negative serologic or polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁹ which generated a lively debate about the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the genesis of CBLLs. According to some authors, SARS-CoV-2 plays no direct role, and CBLLs would occur in young people who sit or walk barefoot on cold floors at home during confinement.^20-23 Remarkably, CBLLs appeared in patients with no history of chilblains during a season that was not particularly cold, namely in France or in southern California, where their incidence was much higher compared to the same time period of prior years. Some reports have supported a direct role for the virus based on questionable observations of the virus within skin lesions (eg, sweat glands, endothelial cells) by immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, and/or in situ hybridization.^17,24,25 A more satisfactory hypothesis would involve the role of a strong innate immunity leading to elimination of the virus before the development of specific antibodies via the increased production of type 1 interferon (IFN-1); this would affect the vessels, causing CBLLs. This mechanism would be similar to the one observed in some interferonopathies (eg, Aicardi-Goutières syndrome), also characterized by IFN-1 hypersecretion and chilblains.^26-29 According to this hypothesis, CBLLs should be considered a paraviral rash similar to other skin manifestations associated with COVID-19.³⁰

Acro-ischemia—Acro-ischemia livedoid lesions account for 1% to 6% of skin manifestations and comprise lesions of livedo (either reticulated or racemosa); necrotic acral bullae; and gangrenous necrosis of the extremities, especially the toes. The livedoid lesions most often appear within 15 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, and the purpuric lesions somewhat later (2–4 weeks); they mainly affect adult patients, last about 10 days, and are the hallmark of severe infection, presumably related to microthromboses of the cutaneous capillaries (endothelial dysfunction, prothrombotic state, elevated D-dimers). Histologically, they show capillary thrombosis and dermoepidermal necrosis (Figure 4).

Other Reported Polymorphic or Atypical Rashes—Erythema multiforme–like eruptions may appear before other COVID-19 symptoms and manifest as reddish-purple, nearly symmetric, diffuse, occasionally targetoid bullous or necrotic macules. The eruptions mainly affect adults and most often are seen on the palms, elbows, knees, and sometimes the mucous membranes. The rash regresses in 1 to 3 weeks without scarring and represents a delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. Histologically, the lesions show vacuolization of basal epidermal keratinocytes, keratinocyte necrosis, dermoepidermal detachment, a variably dense dermal T-lymphocytic infiltrate, and red blood cell extravasation (Figure 5).

Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be generalized or localized. It manifests clinically by petechial/purpuric maculopapules, especially on the legs, mainly in elderly patients with COVID-19. Histologically, the lesions show necrotizing changes of dermal postcapillary venules, neutrophilic perivascular inflammation, red blood cell extravasation, and occasionally vascular IgA deposits by direct immunofluorescence examination. The course usually is benign.

The incidence of pityriasis rosea and of clinically similar rashes (referred to as “pityriasis rosea–like”) increased 5-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 These dermatoses manifest with erythematous, scaly, circinate plaques, typically with an initial herald lesion followed a few days later by smaller erythematous macules. Histologically, the lesions comprise a spongiform dermatitis with intraepidermal exocytosis of red blood cells and a mild to moderate dermal lymphocytic infiltrate.

Erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome, manifests with edematous erythema and palmoplantar desquamation accompanied by a burning sensation or pain. This syndrome is known as an adverse effect of some chemotherapies because of the associated drug toxicity and sweat gland inflammation; it was observed in 40% of 666 COVID-19–positive patients with mild to moderate pneumonitis.³³

“COVID nose” is a rare cutaneous manifestation characterized by nasal pigmentation comprising multiple coalescent frecklelike macules on the tip and wings of the nose and sometimes the malar areas. These lesions predominantly appear in women aged 25 to 65 years and show on average 23 days after onset of COVID-19, which is usually mild. This pigmentation is similar to pigmentary changes after infection with chikungunya; it can be treated with depigmenting products such as azelaic acid and hydroquinone cream with sunscreen use, and it regresses in 2 to 4 months.³⁴

Telogen effluvium (excessive and temporary shedding of normal telogen club hairs of the entire scalp due to the disturbance of the hair cycle) is reportedly frequent in patients (48%) 1 month after COVID-19 infection, but it may appear later (after 12 weeks).³⁵ Alopecia also is frequently reported during long (or postacute) COVID-19 (ie, the symptomatic disease phase past the acute 4 weeks’ stage of the infection) and shows a female predominance³⁶; it likely represents the telogen effluvium seen 90 days after a severe illness. Trichodynia (pruritus, burning, pain, or paresthesia of the scalp) also is reportedly common (developing in more than 58% of patients) and is associated with telogen effluvium in 44% of cases. Several cases of alopecia areata (AA) triggered or aggravated by COVID-19 also have been reported^37,38; they could be explained by the “cytokine storm” triggered by the infection, involving T and B lymphocytes; plasmacytoid dendritic cells; natural killer cells with oversecretion of IL-6, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor α, and IFN type I; and a cytotoxic reaction associated with loss of the immune privilege of hair follicles.

Nail Manifestations

The red half-moon nail sign is an asymptomatic purplish-red band around the distal margin of the lunula that affects some adult patients with COVID-19.³⁹ It appears shortly after onset of symptoms, likely the manifestation of vascular inflammation in the nail bed, and regresses slowly after approximately 1 week.⁴⁰ Beau lines are transverse grooves in the nail plate due to the temporary arrest of the proximal nail matrix growth accompanying systemic illnesses; they appear approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19.⁴¹ Furthermore, nail alterations can be caused by drugs used to treat COVID-19, such as longitudinal melanonychia due to treatment with hydroxychloroquine or fluorescence of the lunula or nail plate due to treatment with favipiravir.⁴²

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is clinically similar to Kawasaki disease; it typically affects children⁴³ and more rarely adults with COVID-19. It manifests with fever, weakness, and biological inflammation and also frequently with skin lesions (72%), which are polymorphous and include morbilliform rash (27%); urticaria (24%); periorbital edema (24%); nonspecific erythema (21.2%); retiform purpura (18%); targetoid lesions (15%); malar rash (15.2%); and periareolar erythema (6%).⁴⁴ Compared to Kawasaki disease, MIS affects slightly older children (mean age, 8.5 vs 3 years) and more frequently includes cardiac and gastrointestinal manifestations; the mortality rate also is slightly higher (2% vs 0.17%).⁴⁵

Confirmed COVID-19 Infection

At the beginning of the pandemic, skin manifestations were reported in patients who were suspected of having COVID-19 but did not always have biological confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the unavailability of diagnostic tests or the physical impossibility of testing. However, subsequent studies have confirmed that most of these dermatoses were indeed associated with COVID-19 infection.^9,46 For example, a study of 655 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection reported maculopapular (38%), vascular (22%), urticarial (15%), and vesicular (15%) rashes; erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson–like syndrome (3%, often related to the use of hydroxychloroquine); generalized pruritus (1%); and MIS (0.5%). The study confirmed that CBLLs were mostly seen in young patients with mild disease, whereas livedo (fixed rash) and retiform purpura occurred in older patients with a guarded prognosis.⁴⁶

Remarkably, most dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported during the initial waves of the pandemic, which were due to the α and δ viral variants. These manifestations were reported more rarely when the ο variant was predominant, even though most patients (63%) who developed CBLLs in the first wave also developed them during the second pandemic wave.⁴⁷ This decrease in the incidence of COVID-19–associated dermatoses could be because of the lower pathogenicity of the o variant,³ a lower tropism for the skin, and variations in SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity that would induce a different immunologic response, combined with an increasingly stronger herd immunity compared to the first pandemic waves achieved through vaccination and spontaneous infections in the population. Additional reasons may include different baseline characteristics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (regarding comorbidities, disease severity, and received treatments), and the possibility that some of the initially reported COVID-19–associated skin manifestations could have been produced by different etiologic agents.⁴⁸ In the last 2 years, COVID-19–related skin manifestations have been reported mainly as adverse events to COVID-19 vaccination.

CUTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DRUGS USED TO TREAT COVID-19

Prior to the advent of vaccines and specific treatments for SARS-CoV-2, various drugs were used—namely hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and tocilizumab—that did not prove efficacious and caused diverse adverse effects, including cutaneous eruptions such as urticaria, maculopapular eruptions, erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, longitudinal melanonychia, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^49,50 Nirmatrelvir 150 mg–ritonavir 100 mg, which was authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, is a viral protease inhibitor blocking the replication of the virus. Ritonavir can induce pruritus, maculopapular rash, acne, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis; of note, these effects have been observed following administration of ritonavir for treatment of HIV at higher daily doses and for much longer periods of time compared with treatment of COVID-19 (600–1200 mg vs 200 mg/d, respectively). These cutaneous drug side effects are clinically similar to the manifestations caused either directly or indirectly by SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate them.

DERMATOSES DUE TO PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Dermatoses due to personal protective equipment such as masks or face shields affected the general population and mostly health care professionals⁵¹; 54.4% of 879 health care professionals in one study reported such events.⁵² These dermatoses mainly include contact dermatitis of the face (nose, forehead, and cheeks) of irritant or allergic nature (eg, from preservatives releasing formaldehyde contained in masks and protective goggles). They manifest with skin dryness; desquamation; maceration; fissures; or erosions or ulcerations of the cheeks, forehead, and nose. Cases of pressure urticaria also have been reported. Irritant dermatitis induced by the frequent use of disinfectants (eg, soaps, hydroalcoholic sanitizing gels) also can affect the hands. Allergic hand dermatitis can be caused by medical gloves.

The term maskne (or mask acne) refers to a variety of mechanical acne due to the prolonged use of surgical masks (>4 hours per day for ≥6 weeks); it includes cases of de novo acne and cases of pre-existing acne aggravated by wearing a mask. Maskne is characterized by acne lesions located on the facial area covered by the mask (Figure 6). It is caused by follicular occlusion; increased sebum secretion; mechanical stress (pressure, friction); and dysbiosis of the microbiome induced by changes in heat, pH, and humidity. Preventive measures include application of noncomedogenic moisturizers or gauze before wearing the mask as well as facial cleansing with appropriate nonalcoholic products. Similar to acne, rosacea often is aggravated by prolonged wearing of surgical masks (mask rosacea).^53,54

DERMATOSES REVEALED OR AGGRAVATED BY COVID-19

Exacerbation of various skin diseases has been reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2.⁵⁵ Psoriasis and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau,⁵⁶ which may progress into generalized, pustular, or erythrodermic forms,⁵⁷ have been reported; the role of hydroxychloroquine and oral corticosteroids used for the treatment of COVID-19 has been suspected.⁵⁷ Atopic dermatitis patients—26% to 43%—have experienced worsening of their disease after symptomatic COVID-19 infection.⁵⁸ The incidence of herpesvirus infections, including herpes zoster, increased during the pandemic.⁵⁹ Alopecia areata relapses occurred in 42.5% of 392 patients with preexisting disease within 2 months of COVID-19 onset in one study,⁶⁰ possibly favored by the psychological stress; however, some studies have not confirmed the aggravating role of COVID-19 on alopecia areata.⁶¹ Lupus erythematosus, which may relapse in the form of Rowell syndrome,⁶² and livedoid vasculopathy⁶³ also have been reported following COVID-19 infection.

SKIN MANIFESTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 VACCINES

In parallel with the rapid spread of COVID-19 vaccination,⁴ an increasing number of skin manifestations has been observed following vaccination; these dermatoses now are more frequently reported than those related to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.^64-70 Vaccine-induced skin manifestations have a reported incidence of approximately 4% and show a female predominance.⁶⁵ Most of them (79%) have been reported in association with messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines, which have been the most widely used; however, the frequency of side effects would be lower after mRNA vaccines than after inactivated virus-based vaccines. Eighteen percent occurred after the adenoviral vector vaccine, and 3% after the inactivated virus vaccine.⁷⁰ Fifty-nine percent were observed after the first dose. They are clinically polymorphous and generally benign, regressing spontaneously after a few days, and they should not constitute a contraindication to vaccination.Interestingly, many skin manifestations are similar to those associated with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their frequency and severity does not seem to depend on whether the patients had developed skin reactions during prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. These reactions have been classified into several types:

• Immediate local reactions at the injection site: pain, erythema, or edema represent the vast majority (96%) of reactions to vaccines. They appear within 7 days after vaccination (average, 1 day), slightly more frequently (59%) after the first dose. They concern mostly young patients and are benign, regressing in 2 to 3 days.⁷⁰
 

• Delayed local reactions: characterized by pain or pruritus, erythema, and skin induration mimicking cellulitis (COVID arm) and represent 1.7% of postvaccination reactions. They correspond to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction and appear approximately 7 days after vaccination, most often after the first vaccine dose (75% of cases), which is almost invariably mRNA based.⁷⁰

• Urticarial reactions corresponding to an immediate (type 1) hypersensitivity reaction: constitute 1% of postvaccination reactions, probably due to an allergy to vaccine ingredients. They appear on average 1 day after vaccination, almost always with mRNA vaccines.⁷⁰

• Angioedema: characterized by mucosal or subcutaneous edema and constitutes 0.5% of postvaccination reactions. It is a potentially serious reaction that appears on average 12 hours after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Morbilliform rash: represents delayed hypersensitivity reactions (0.1% of postvaccination reactions) that appear mostly after the first dose (72%), on average 3 days after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Herpes zoster: usually develops after the first vaccine dose in elderly patients (69% of cases) on average 4 days after vaccination and constitutes 0.1% of postvaccination reactions.⁷¹

• Bullous diseases: mainly bullous pemphigoid (90%) and more rarely pemphigus (5%) or bullous erythema pigmentosum (5%). They appear in elderly patients on average 7 days after vaccination and constitute 0.04% of postvaccination reactions.⁷²

• Chilblainlike lesions: several such cases have been reported so far⁷³; they constitute 0.03% of postvaccination reactions.⁷⁰ Clinically, they are similar to those associated with natural COVID-19; they appear mostly after the first dose (64%), on average 5 days after vaccination with the mRNA or adenovirus vaccine, and show a female predominance. The appearance of these lesions in vaccinated patients, who are a priori not carriers of the virus, strongly suggests that CBLLs are due to the immune reaction against SARS-CoV-2 rather than to a direct effect of this virus on the skin, which also is a likely scenario with regards to other skin manifestations seen during the successive COVID-19 epidemic waves.^73-75

• Reactions to hyaluronic acid–containing cosmetic fillers: erythema, edema, and potentially painful induration at the filler injection sites. They constitute 0.04% of postvaccination skin reactions and appear 24 hours after vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines, equally after the first or second dose.⁷⁶

• Pityriasis rosea–like rash: most occur after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines (0.023% of postvaccination skin reactions).⁷⁰

• Severe reactions: these include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis⁷⁷ and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.⁷⁸ One case of each has been reported after the adenoviral vector vaccine 3 days after vaccination.

Other more rarely observed manifestations include reactivation/aggravation or de novo appearance of inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis,^79,80 leukocytoclastic vasculitis,^81,82 lymphocytic⁸³ or urticarial⁸⁴ vasculitis, Sweet syndrome,⁸⁵ lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis,^86,87 alopecia,^37,88 infection with Trichophyton rubrum,⁸⁹ Grover disease,⁹⁰ and lymphomatoid reactions (such as recurrences of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [CD30⁺], and de novo development of lymphomatoid papulosis).⁹¹

FINAL THOUGHTS

COVID-19 is associated with several skin manifestations, even though the causative role of SARS-CoV-2 has remained elusive. These dermatoses are highly polymorphous, mostly benign, and usually spontaneously regressive, but some of them reflect severe infection. They mostly were described during the first pandemic waves, reported in several national and international registries, which allowed for their morphological classification. Currently, cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines are the most frequently reported dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that they will continue to be observed while COVID-19 vaccination lasts. Hopefully the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is near. In January 2023, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point, and even though the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the higher levels of population immunity achieved globally through infection and/or vaccination may limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on morbidity and mortality. However, there is little doubt that this virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future.⁹² Therefore, physicians—especially dermatologists—should be aware of the various skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 so they can more efficiently manage their patients.

COVID-19 is a potentially severe systemic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) caused fatal epidemics in Asia in 2002 to 2003 and in the Arabian Peninsula in 2012, respectively. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in patients with severe, sometimes fatal pneumonia of previously unknown origin; it rapidly spread around the world, and the World Health Organization declared the disease a pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a β-coronavirus that is genetically related to the bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV; it is a single-stranded RNA virus of which several variants and subvariants exist. The SARS-CoV-2 viral particles bind via their surface spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor present on the membrane of several cell types, including epidermal and adnexal keratinocytes.^1,2 The α and δ variants, predominant from 2020 to 2021, mainly affected the lower respiratory tract and caused severe, potentially fatal pneumonia, especially in patients older than 65 years and/or with comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and (iatrogenic) immunosuppression. The ο variant, which appeared in late 2021, is more contagious than the initial variants, but it causes a less severe disease preferentially affecting the upper respiratory airways.³ As of April 5, 2023, more than 762,000,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, causing more than 6,800,000 deaths.⁴

Early studies from China describing the symptoms of COVID-19 reported a low frequency of skin manifestations (0.2%), probably because they were focused on the most severe disease symptoms.⁵ Subsequently, when COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world, an increasing number of skin manifestations were reported in association with the disease. After the first publication from northern Italy in spring 2020, which was specifically devoted to skin manifestations of COVID-19,⁶ an explosive number of publications reported a large number of skin manifestations, and national registries were established in several countries to record these manifestations, such as the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies registry,^7,8 the COVIDSKIN registry of the French Dermatology Society,⁹ and the Italian registry.¹⁰ Highlighting the unprecedented number of scientific articles published on this new disease, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE search using the terms SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, on April 6, 2023, revealed 351,596 articles; that is more than 300 articles published every day in this database alone, with a large number of them concerning the skin.

SKIN DISEASSES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19

There are several types of COVID-19–related skin manifestations, depending on the circumstances of onset and the evolution of the pandemic.

Skin Manifestations Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The estimated incidence varies greatly according to the published series of patients, possibly depending on the geographic location. The estimated incidence seems lower in Asian countries, such as China (0.2%)⁵ and Japan (0.56%),¹¹ compared with Europe (up to 20%).⁶ Skin manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection affect individuals of all ages, slightly more females, and are clinically polymorphous; some of them are associated with the severity of the infection.¹² They may precede, accompany, or appear after the symptoms of COVID-19, most often within a month of the infection, of which they rarely are the only manifestation; however, their precise relationship to SARS-CoV-2 is not always well known. They have been classified according to their clinical presentation into several forms.^13-15

Morbilliform Maculopapular Eruption—Representing 16% to 53% of skin manifestations, morbilliform and maculopapular eruptions usually appear within 15 days of infection; they manifest with more or less confluent erythematous macules that may be hemorrhagic/petechial, and usually are asymptomatic and rarely pruritic. The rash mainly affects the trunk and limbs, sparing the face, palmoplantar regions, and mucous membranes; it appears concomitantly with or a few days after the first symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, respiratory symptoms), regresses within a few days, and does not appear to be associated with disease severity. The distinction from maculopapular drug eruptions may be subtle. Histologically, the rash manifests with a spongiform dermatitis (ie, variable parakeratosis; spongiosis; and a mixed dermal perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes, eosinophils and histiocytes, depending on the lesion age)(Figure 1). The etiopathogenesis is unknown; it may involve immune complexes to SARS-CoV-2 deposited on skin vessels. Treatment is not mandatory; if necessary, local or systemic corticosteroids may be used.

Vesicular (Pseudovaricella) Rash—This rash accounts for 11% to 18% of all skin manifestations and usually appears within 15 days of COVID-19 onset. It manifests with small monomorphous or varicellalike (pseudopolymorphic) vesicles appearing on the trunk, usually in young patients. The vesicles may be herpetiform, hemorrhagic, or pruritic, and appear before or within 3 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms; they regress within a few days without scarring. Histologically, the lesions show basal cell vacuolization; multinucleated, dyskeratotic/apoptotic or ballooning/acantholytic epidermal keratinocytes; reticular degeneration of the epidermis; intraepidermal vesicles sometimes resembling herpetic vesicular infections or Grover disease; and mild dermal inflammation. There is no specific treatment.

Urticaria—Urticarial rash, or urticaria, represents 5% to 16% of skin manifestations; usually appears within 15 days of disease onset; and manifests with pruritic, migratory, edematous papules appearing mainly on the trunk and occasionally the face and limbs. The urticarial rash tends to be associated with more severe forms of the disease and regresses within a week, responding to antihistamines. Of note, clinically similar rashes can be caused by drugs. Histologically, the lesions show dermal edema and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes admixed with eosinophils.

Chilblainlike Lesions—Chilblainlike lesions (CBLLs) account for 19% of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19¹³ and present as erythematous-purplish, edematous lesions that can be mildly pruritic or painful, appearing on the toes—COVID toes—and more rarely the fingers (Figure 2). They were seen epidemically during the first pandemic wave (2020 lockdown) in several countries, and clinically are very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, idiopathic chilblains, but are not necessarily associated with cold exposure. They appear in young, generally healthy patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms 2 to 4 weeks after symptom onset. They regress spontaneously or under local corticosteroid treatment within a few days or weeks. Histologically, CBLLs are indistinguishable from chilblains of other origins, namely idiopathic (seasonal) ones. They manifest with necrosis of epidermal keratinocytes; dermal edema that may be severe, leading to the development of subepidermal pseudobullae; a rather dense perivascular and perieccrine gland lymphocytic infiltrate; and sometimes with vascular lesions (eg, edema of endothelial cells, microthromboses of dermal capillaries and venules, fibrinoid deposits within the wall of dermal venules)(Figure 3).^16-18 Most patients (>80%) with CBLLs have negative serologic or polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁹ which generated a lively debate about the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the genesis of CBLLs. According to some authors, SARS-CoV-2 plays no direct role, and CBLLs would occur in young people who sit or walk barefoot on cold floors at home during confinement.^20-23 Remarkably, CBLLs appeared in patients with no history of chilblains during a season that was not particularly cold, namely in France or in southern California, where their incidence was much higher compared to the same time period of prior years. Some reports have supported a direct role for the virus based on questionable observations of the virus within skin lesions (eg, sweat glands, endothelial cells) by immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, and/or in situ hybridization.^17,24,25 A more satisfactory hypothesis would involve the role of a strong innate immunity leading to elimination of the virus before the development of specific antibodies via the increased production of type 1 interferon (IFN-1); this would affect the vessels, causing CBLLs. This mechanism would be similar to the one observed in some interferonopathies (eg, Aicardi-Goutières syndrome), also characterized by IFN-1 hypersecretion and chilblains.^26-29 According to this hypothesis, CBLLs should be considered a paraviral rash similar to other skin manifestations associated with COVID-19.³⁰

Acro-ischemia—Acro-ischemia livedoid lesions account for 1% to 6% of skin manifestations and comprise lesions of livedo (either reticulated or racemosa); necrotic acral bullae; and gangrenous necrosis of the extremities, especially the toes. The livedoid lesions most often appear within 15 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, and the purpuric lesions somewhat later (2–4 weeks); they mainly affect adult patients, last about 10 days, and are the hallmark of severe infection, presumably related to microthromboses of the cutaneous capillaries (endothelial dysfunction, prothrombotic state, elevated D-dimers). Histologically, they show capillary thrombosis and dermoepidermal necrosis (Figure 4).

Other Reported Polymorphic or Atypical Rashes—Erythema multiforme–like eruptions may appear before other COVID-19 symptoms and manifest as reddish-purple, nearly symmetric, diffuse, occasionally targetoid bullous or necrotic macules. The eruptions mainly affect adults and most often are seen on the palms, elbows, knees, and sometimes the mucous membranes. The rash regresses in 1 to 3 weeks without scarring and represents a delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. Histologically, the lesions show vacuolization of basal epidermal keratinocytes, keratinocyte necrosis, dermoepidermal detachment, a variably dense dermal T-lymphocytic infiltrate, and red blood cell extravasation (Figure 5).

Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be generalized or localized. It manifests clinically by petechial/purpuric maculopapules, especially on the legs, mainly in elderly patients with COVID-19. Histologically, the lesions show necrotizing changes of dermal postcapillary venules, neutrophilic perivascular inflammation, red blood cell extravasation, and occasionally vascular IgA deposits by direct immunofluorescence examination. The course usually is benign.

The incidence of pityriasis rosea and of clinically similar rashes (referred to as “pityriasis rosea–like”) increased 5-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 These dermatoses manifest with erythematous, scaly, circinate plaques, typically with an initial herald lesion followed a few days later by smaller erythematous macules. Histologically, the lesions comprise a spongiform dermatitis with intraepidermal exocytosis of red blood cells and a mild to moderate dermal lymphocytic infiltrate.

Erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome, manifests with edematous erythema and palmoplantar desquamation accompanied by a burning sensation or pain. This syndrome is known as an adverse effect of some chemotherapies because of the associated drug toxicity and sweat gland inflammation; it was observed in 40% of 666 COVID-19–positive patients with mild to moderate pneumonitis.³³

“COVID nose” is a rare cutaneous manifestation characterized by nasal pigmentation comprising multiple coalescent frecklelike macules on the tip and wings of the nose and sometimes the malar areas. These lesions predominantly appear in women aged 25 to 65 years and show on average 23 days after onset of COVID-19, which is usually mild. This pigmentation is similar to pigmentary changes after infection with chikungunya; it can be treated with depigmenting products such as azelaic acid and hydroquinone cream with sunscreen use, and it regresses in 2 to 4 months.³⁴

Telogen effluvium (excessive and temporary shedding of normal telogen club hairs of the entire scalp due to the disturbance of the hair cycle) is reportedly frequent in patients (48%) 1 month after COVID-19 infection, but it may appear later (after 12 weeks).³⁵ Alopecia also is frequently reported during long (or postacute) COVID-19 (ie, the symptomatic disease phase past the acute 4 weeks’ stage of the infection) and shows a female predominance³⁶; it likely represents the telogen effluvium seen 90 days after a severe illness. Trichodynia (pruritus, burning, pain, or paresthesia of the scalp) also is reportedly common (developing in more than 58% of patients) and is associated with telogen effluvium in 44% of cases. Several cases of alopecia areata (AA) triggered or aggravated by COVID-19 also have been reported^37,38; they could be explained by the “cytokine storm” triggered by the infection, involving T and B lymphocytes; plasmacytoid dendritic cells; natural killer cells with oversecretion of IL-6, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor α, and IFN type I; and a cytotoxic reaction associated with loss of the immune privilege of hair follicles.

Nail Manifestations

The red half-moon nail sign is an asymptomatic purplish-red band around the distal margin of the lunula that affects some adult patients with COVID-19.³⁹ It appears shortly after onset of symptoms, likely the manifestation of vascular inflammation in the nail bed, and regresses slowly after approximately 1 week.⁴⁰ Beau lines are transverse grooves in the nail plate due to the temporary arrest of the proximal nail matrix growth accompanying systemic illnesses; they appear approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19.⁴¹ Furthermore, nail alterations can be caused by drugs used to treat COVID-19, such as longitudinal melanonychia due to treatment with hydroxychloroquine or fluorescence of the lunula or nail plate due to treatment with favipiravir.⁴²

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is clinically similar to Kawasaki disease; it typically affects children⁴³ and more rarely adults with COVID-19. It manifests with fever, weakness, and biological inflammation and also frequently with skin lesions (72%), which are polymorphous and include morbilliform rash (27%); urticaria (24%); periorbital edema (24%); nonspecific erythema (21.2%); retiform purpura (18%); targetoid lesions (15%); malar rash (15.2%); and periareolar erythema (6%).⁴⁴ Compared to Kawasaki disease, MIS affects slightly older children (mean age, 8.5 vs 3 years) and more frequently includes cardiac and gastrointestinal manifestations; the mortality rate also is slightly higher (2% vs 0.17%).⁴⁵

Confirmed COVID-19 Infection

At the beginning of the pandemic, skin manifestations were reported in patients who were suspected of having COVID-19 but did not always have biological confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the unavailability of diagnostic tests or the physical impossibility of testing. However, subsequent studies have confirmed that most of these dermatoses were indeed associated with COVID-19 infection.^9,46 For example, a study of 655 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection reported maculopapular (38%), vascular (22%), urticarial (15%), and vesicular (15%) rashes; erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson–like syndrome (3%, often related to the use of hydroxychloroquine); generalized pruritus (1%); and MIS (0.5%). The study confirmed that CBLLs were mostly seen in young patients with mild disease, whereas livedo (fixed rash) and retiform purpura occurred in older patients with a guarded prognosis.⁴⁶

Remarkably, most dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported during the initial waves of the pandemic, which were due to the α and δ viral variants. These manifestations were reported more rarely when the ο variant was predominant, even though most patients (63%) who developed CBLLs in the first wave also developed them during the second pandemic wave.⁴⁷ This decrease in the incidence of COVID-19–associated dermatoses could be because of the lower pathogenicity of the o variant,³ a lower tropism for the skin, and variations in SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity that would induce a different immunologic response, combined with an increasingly stronger herd immunity compared to the first pandemic waves achieved through vaccination and spontaneous infections in the population. Additional reasons may include different baseline characteristics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (regarding comorbidities, disease severity, and received treatments), and the possibility that some of the initially reported COVID-19–associated skin manifestations could have been produced by different etiologic agents.⁴⁸ In the last 2 years, COVID-19–related skin manifestations have been reported mainly as adverse events to COVID-19 vaccination.

CUTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DRUGS USED TO TREAT COVID-19

Prior to the advent of vaccines and specific treatments for SARS-CoV-2, various drugs were used—namely hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and tocilizumab—that did not prove efficacious and caused diverse adverse effects, including cutaneous eruptions such as urticaria, maculopapular eruptions, erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, longitudinal melanonychia, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^49,50 Nirmatrelvir 150 mg–ritonavir 100 mg, which was authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, is a viral protease inhibitor blocking the replication of the virus. Ritonavir can induce pruritus, maculopapular rash, acne, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis; of note, these effects have been observed following administration of ritonavir for treatment of HIV at higher daily doses and for much longer periods of time compared with treatment of COVID-19 (600–1200 mg vs 200 mg/d, respectively). These cutaneous drug side effects are clinically similar to the manifestations caused either directly or indirectly by SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate them.

DERMATOSES DUE TO PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Dermatoses due to personal protective equipment such as masks or face shields affected the general population and mostly health care professionals⁵¹; 54.4% of 879 health care professionals in one study reported such events.⁵² These dermatoses mainly include contact dermatitis of the face (nose, forehead, and cheeks) of irritant or allergic nature (eg, from preservatives releasing formaldehyde contained in masks and protective goggles). They manifest with skin dryness; desquamation; maceration; fissures; or erosions or ulcerations of the cheeks, forehead, and nose. Cases of pressure urticaria also have been reported. Irritant dermatitis induced by the frequent use of disinfectants (eg, soaps, hydroalcoholic sanitizing gels) also can affect the hands. Allergic hand dermatitis can be caused by medical gloves.

The term maskne (or mask acne) refers to a variety of mechanical acne due to the prolonged use of surgical masks (>4 hours per day for ≥6 weeks); it includes cases of de novo acne and cases of pre-existing acne aggravated by wearing a mask. Maskne is characterized by acne lesions located on the facial area covered by the mask (Figure 6). It is caused by follicular occlusion; increased sebum secretion; mechanical stress (pressure, friction); and dysbiosis of the microbiome induced by changes in heat, pH, and humidity. Preventive measures include application of noncomedogenic moisturizers or gauze before wearing the mask as well as facial cleansing with appropriate nonalcoholic products. Similar to acne, rosacea often is aggravated by prolonged wearing of surgical masks (mask rosacea).^53,54

DERMATOSES REVEALED OR AGGRAVATED BY COVID-19

Exacerbation of various skin diseases has been reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2.⁵⁵ Psoriasis and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau,⁵⁶ which may progress into generalized, pustular, or erythrodermic forms,⁵⁷ have been reported; the role of hydroxychloroquine and oral corticosteroids used for the treatment of COVID-19 has been suspected.⁵⁷ Atopic dermatitis patients—26% to 43%—have experienced worsening of their disease after symptomatic COVID-19 infection.⁵⁸ The incidence of herpesvirus infections, including herpes zoster, increased during the pandemic.⁵⁹ Alopecia areata relapses occurred in 42.5% of 392 patients with preexisting disease within 2 months of COVID-19 onset in one study,⁶⁰ possibly favored by the psychological stress; however, some studies have not confirmed the aggravating role of COVID-19 on alopecia areata.⁶¹ Lupus erythematosus, which may relapse in the form of Rowell syndrome,⁶² and livedoid vasculopathy⁶³ also have been reported following COVID-19 infection.

SKIN MANIFESTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 VACCINES

In parallel with the rapid spread of COVID-19 vaccination,⁴ an increasing number of skin manifestations has been observed following vaccination; these dermatoses now are more frequently reported than those related to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.^64-70 Vaccine-induced skin manifestations have a reported incidence of approximately 4% and show a female predominance.⁶⁵ Most of them (79%) have been reported in association with messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines, which have been the most widely used; however, the frequency of side effects would be lower after mRNA vaccines than after inactivated virus-based vaccines. Eighteen percent occurred after the adenoviral vector vaccine, and 3% after the inactivated virus vaccine.⁷⁰ Fifty-nine percent were observed after the first dose. They are clinically polymorphous and generally benign, regressing spontaneously after a few days, and they should not constitute a contraindication to vaccination.Interestingly, many skin manifestations are similar to those associated with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their frequency and severity does not seem to depend on whether the patients had developed skin reactions during prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. These reactions have been classified into several types:

• Immediate local reactions at the injection site: pain, erythema, or edema represent the vast majority (96%) of reactions to vaccines. They appear within 7 days after vaccination (average, 1 day), slightly more frequently (59%) after the first dose. They concern mostly young patients and are benign, regressing in 2 to 3 days.⁷⁰
 

• Delayed local reactions: characterized by pain or pruritus, erythema, and skin induration mimicking cellulitis (COVID arm) and represent 1.7% of postvaccination reactions. They correspond to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction and appear approximately 7 days after vaccination, most often after the first vaccine dose (75% of cases), which is almost invariably mRNA based.⁷⁰

• Urticarial reactions corresponding to an immediate (type 1) hypersensitivity reaction: constitute 1% of postvaccination reactions, probably due to an allergy to vaccine ingredients. They appear on average 1 day after vaccination, almost always with mRNA vaccines.⁷⁰

• Angioedema: characterized by mucosal or subcutaneous edema and constitutes 0.5% of postvaccination reactions. It is a potentially serious reaction that appears on average 12 hours after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Morbilliform rash: represents delayed hypersensitivity reactions (0.1% of postvaccination reactions) that appear mostly after the first dose (72%), on average 3 days after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Herpes zoster: usually develops after the first vaccine dose in elderly patients (69% of cases) on average 4 days after vaccination and constitutes 0.1% of postvaccination reactions.⁷¹

• Bullous diseases: mainly bullous pemphigoid (90%) and more rarely pemphigus (5%) or bullous erythema pigmentosum (5%). They appear in elderly patients on average 7 days after vaccination and constitute 0.04% of postvaccination reactions.⁷²

• Chilblainlike lesions: several such cases have been reported so far⁷³; they constitute 0.03% of postvaccination reactions.⁷⁰ Clinically, they are similar to those associated with natural COVID-19; they appear mostly after the first dose (64%), on average 5 days after vaccination with the mRNA or adenovirus vaccine, and show a female predominance. The appearance of these lesions in vaccinated patients, who are a priori not carriers of the virus, strongly suggests that CBLLs are due to the immune reaction against SARS-CoV-2 rather than to a direct effect of this virus on the skin, which also is a likely scenario with regards to other skin manifestations seen during the successive COVID-19 epidemic waves.^73-75

• Reactions to hyaluronic acid–containing cosmetic fillers: erythema, edema, and potentially painful induration at the filler injection sites. They constitute 0.04% of postvaccination skin reactions and appear 24 hours after vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines, equally after the first or second dose.⁷⁶

• Pityriasis rosea–like rash: most occur after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines (0.023% of postvaccination skin reactions).⁷⁰

• Severe reactions: these include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis⁷⁷ and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.⁷⁸ One case of each has been reported after the adenoviral vector vaccine 3 days after vaccination.

Other more rarely observed manifestations include reactivation/aggravation or de novo appearance of inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis,^79,80 leukocytoclastic vasculitis,^81,82 lymphocytic⁸³ or urticarial⁸⁴ vasculitis, Sweet syndrome,⁸⁵ lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis,^86,87 alopecia,^37,88 infection with Trichophyton rubrum,⁸⁹ Grover disease,⁹⁰ and lymphomatoid reactions (such as recurrences of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [CD30⁺], and de novo development of lymphomatoid papulosis).⁹¹

FINAL THOUGHTS

COVID-19 is associated with several skin manifestations, even though the causative role of SARS-CoV-2 has remained elusive. These dermatoses are highly polymorphous, mostly benign, and usually spontaneously regressive, but some of them reflect severe infection. They mostly were described during the first pandemic waves, reported in several national and international registries, which allowed for their morphological classification. Currently, cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines are the most frequently reported dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that they will continue to be observed while COVID-19 vaccination lasts. Hopefully the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is near. In January 2023, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point, and even though the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the higher levels of population immunity achieved globally through infection and/or vaccination may limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on morbidity and mortality. However, there is little doubt that this virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future.⁹² Therefore, physicians—especially dermatologists—should be aware of the various skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 so they can more efficiently manage their patients.

COVID-19 is a potentially severe systemic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) caused fatal epidemics in Asia in 2002 to 2003 and in the Arabian Peninsula in 2012, respectively. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in patients with severe, sometimes fatal pneumonia of previously unknown origin; it rapidly spread around the world, and the World Health Organization declared the disease a pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a β-coronavirus that is genetically related to the bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV; it is a single-stranded RNA virus of which several variants and subvariants exist. The SARS-CoV-2 viral particles bind via their surface spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor present on the membrane of several cell types, including epidermal and adnexal keratinocytes.^1,2 The α and δ variants, predominant from 2020 to 2021, mainly affected the lower respiratory tract and caused severe, potentially fatal pneumonia, especially in patients older than 65 years and/or with comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and (iatrogenic) immunosuppression. The ο variant, which appeared in late 2021, is more contagious than the initial variants, but it causes a less severe disease preferentially affecting the upper respiratory airways.³ As of April 5, 2023, more than 762,000,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, causing more than 6,800,000 deaths.⁴

Early studies from China describing the symptoms of COVID-19 reported a low frequency of skin manifestations (0.2%), probably because they were focused on the most severe disease symptoms.⁵ Subsequently, when COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world, an increasing number of skin manifestations were reported in association with the disease. After the first publication from northern Italy in spring 2020, which was specifically devoted to skin manifestations of COVID-19,⁶ an explosive number of publications reported a large number of skin manifestations, and national registries were established in several countries to record these manifestations, such as the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies registry,^7,8 the COVIDSKIN registry of the French Dermatology Society,⁹ and the Italian registry.¹⁰ Highlighting the unprecedented number of scientific articles published on this new disease, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE search using the terms SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, on April 6, 2023, revealed 351,596 articles; that is more than 300 articles published every day in this database alone, with a large number of them concerning the skin.

SKIN DISEASSES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19

There are several types of COVID-19–related skin manifestations, depending on the circumstances of onset and the evolution of the pandemic.

Skin Manifestations Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The estimated incidence varies greatly according to the published series of patients, possibly depending on the geographic location. The estimated incidence seems lower in Asian countries, such as China (0.2%)⁵ and Japan (0.56%),¹¹ compared with Europe (up to 20%).⁶ Skin manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection affect individuals of all ages, slightly more females, and are clinically polymorphous; some of them are associated with the severity of the infection.¹² They may precede, accompany, or appear after the symptoms of COVID-19, most often within a month of the infection, of which they rarely are the only manifestation; however, their precise relationship to SARS-CoV-2 is not always well known. They have been classified according to their clinical presentation into several forms.^13-15

Morbilliform Maculopapular Eruption—Representing 16% to 53% of skin manifestations, morbilliform and maculopapular eruptions usually appear within 15 days of infection; they manifest with more or less confluent erythematous macules that may be hemorrhagic/petechial, and usually are asymptomatic and rarely pruritic. The rash mainly affects the trunk and limbs, sparing the face, palmoplantar regions, and mucous membranes; it appears concomitantly with or a few days after the first symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, respiratory symptoms), regresses within a few days, and does not appear to be associated with disease severity. The distinction from maculopapular drug eruptions may be subtle. Histologically, the rash manifests with a spongiform dermatitis (ie, variable parakeratosis; spongiosis; and a mixed dermal perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes, eosinophils and histiocytes, depending on the lesion age)(Figure 1). The etiopathogenesis is unknown; it may involve immune complexes to SARS-CoV-2 deposited on skin vessels. Treatment is not mandatory; if necessary, local or systemic corticosteroids may be used.

Vesicular (Pseudovaricella) Rash—This rash accounts for 11% to 18% of all skin manifestations and usually appears within 15 days of COVID-19 onset. It manifests with small monomorphous or varicellalike (pseudopolymorphic) vesicles appearing on the trunk, usually in young patients. The vesicles may be herpetiform, hemorrhagic, or pruritic, and appear before or within 3 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms; they regress within a few days without scarring. Histologically, the lesions show basal cell vacuolization; multinucleated, dyskeratotic/apoptotic or ballooning/acantholytic epidermal keratinocytes; reticular degeneration of the epidermis; intraepidermal vesicles sometimes resembling herpetic vesicular infections or Grover disease; and mild dermal inflammation. There is no specific treatment.

Urticaria—Urticarial rash, or urticaria, represents 5% to 16% of skin manifestations; usually appears within 15 days of disease onset; and manifests with pruritic, migratory, edematous papules appearing mainly on the trunk and occasionally the face and limbs. The urticarial rash tends to be associated with more severe forms of the disease and regresses within a week, responding to antihistamines. Of note, clinically similar rashes can be caused by drugs. Histologically, the lesions show dermal edema and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes admixed with eosinophils.

Chilblainlike Lesions—Chilblainlike lesions (CBLLs) account for 19% of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19¹³ and present as erythematous-purplish, edematous lesions that can be mildly pruritic or painful, appearing on the toes—COVID toes—and more rarely the fingers (Figure 2). They were seen epidemically during the first pandemic wave (2020 lockdown) in several countries, and clinically are very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, idiopathic chilblains, but are not necessarily associated with cold exposure. They appear in young, generally healthy patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms 2 to 4 weeks after symptom onset. They regress spontaneously or under local corticosteroid treatment within a few days or weeks. Histologically, CBLLs are indistinguishable from chilblains of other origins, namely idiopathic (seasonal) ones. They manifest with necrosis of epidermal keratinocytes; dermal edema that may be severe, leading to the development of subepidermal pseudobullae; a rather dense perivascular and perieccrine gland lymphocytic infiltrate; and sometimes with vascular lesions (eg, edema of endothelial cells, microthromboses of dermal capillaries and venules, fibrinoid deposits within the wall of dermal venules)(Figure 3).^16-18 Most patients (>80%) with CBLLs have negative serologic or polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁹ which generated a lively debate about the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the genesis of CBLLs. According to some authors, SARS-CoV-2 plays no direct role, and CBLLs would occur in young people who sit or walk barefoot on cold floors at home during confinement.^20-23 Remarkably, CBLLs appeared in patients with no history of chilblains during a season that was not particularly cold, namely in France or in southern California, where their incidence was much higher compared to the same time period of prior years. Some reports have supported a direct role for the virus based on questionable observations of the virus within skin lesions (eg, sweat glands, endothelial cells) by immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, and/or in situ hybridization.^17,24,25 A more satisfactory hypothesis would involve the role of a strong innate immunity leading to elimination of the virus before the development of specific antibodies via the increased production of type 1 interferon (IFN-1); this would affect the vessels, causing CBLLs. This mechanism would be similar to the one observed in some interferonopathies (eg, Aicardi-Goutières syndrome), also characterized by IFN-1 hypersecretion and chilblains.^26-29 According to this hypothesis, CBLLs should be considered a paraviral rash similar to other skin manifestations associated with COVID-19.³⁰

Acro-ischemia—Acro-ischemia livedoid lesions account for 1% to 6% of skin manifestations and comprise lesions of livedo (either reticulated or racemosa); necrotic acral bullae; and gangrenous necrosis of the extremities, especially the toes. The livedoid lesions most often appear within 15 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, and the purpuric lesions somewhat later (2–4 weeks); they mainly affect adult patients, last about 10 days, and are the hallmark of severe infection, presumably related to microthromboses of the cutaneous capillaries (endothelial dysfunction, prothrombotic state, elevated D-dimers). Histologically, they show capillary thrombosis and dermoepidermal necrosis (Figure 4).

Other Reported Polymorphic or Atypical Rashes—Erythema multiforme–like eruptions may appear before other COVID-19 symptoms and manifest as reddish-purple, nearly symmetric, diffuse, occasionally targetoid bullous or necrotic macules. The eruptions mainly affect adults and most often are seen on the palms, elbows, knees, and sometimes the mucous membranes. The rash regresses in 1 to 3 weeks without scarring and represents a delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. Histologically, the lesions show vacuolization of basal epidermal keratinocytes, keratinocyte necrosis, dermoepidermal detachment, a variably dense dermal T-lymphocytic infiltrate, and red blood cell extravasation (Figure 5).

Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be generalized or localized. It manifests clinically by petechial/purpuric maculopapules, especially on the legs, mainly in elderly patients with COVID-19. Histologically, the lesions show necrotizing changes of dermal postcapillary venules, neutrophilic perivascular inflammation, red blood cell extravasation, and occasionally vascular IgA deposits by direct immunofluorescence examination. The course usually is benign.

The incidence of pityriasis rosea and of clinically similar rashes (referred to as “pityriasis rosea–like”) increased 5-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 These dermatoses manifest with erythematous, scaly, circinate plaques, typically with an initial herald lesion followed a few days later by smaller erythematous macules. Histologically, the lesions comprise a spongiform dermatitis with intraepidermal exocytosis of red blood cells and a mild to moderate dermal lymphocytic infiltrate.

Erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome, manifests with edematous erythema and palmoplantar desquamation accompanied by a burning sensation or pain. This syndrome is known as an adverse effect of some chemotherapies because of the associated drug toxicity and sweat gland inflammation; it was observed in 40% of 666 COVID-19–positive patients with mild to moderate pneumonitis.³³

“COVID nose” is a rare cutaneous manifestation characterized by nasal pigmentation comprising multiple coalescent frecklelike macules on the tip and wings of the nose and sometimes the malar areas. These lesions predominantly appear in women aged 25 to 65 years and show on average 23 days after onset of COVID-19, which is usually mild. This pigmentation is similar to pigmentary changes after infection with chikungunya; it can be treated with depigmenting products such as azelaic acid and hydroquinone cream with sunscreen use, and it regresses in 2 to 4 months.³⁴

Telogen effluvium (excessive and temporary shedding of normal telogen club hairs of the entire scalp due to the disturbance of the hair cycle) is reportedly frequent in patients (48%) 1 month after COVID-19 infection, but it may appear later (after 12 weeks).³⁵ Alopecia also is frequently reported during long (or postacute) COVID-19 (ie, the symptomatic disease phase past the acute 4 weeks’ stage of the infection) and shows a female predominance³⁶; it likely represents the telogen effluvium seen 90 days after a severe illness. Trichodynia (pruritus, burning, pain, or paresthesia of the scalp) also is reportedly common (developing in more than 58% of patients) and is associated with telogen effluvium in 44% of cases. Several cases of alopecia areata (AA) triggered or aggravated by COVID-19 also have been reported^37,38; they could be explained by the “cytokine storm” triggered by the infection, involving T and B lymphocytes; plasmacytoid dendritic cells; natural killer cells with oversecretion of IL-6, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor α, and IFN type I; and a cytotoxic reaction associated with loss of the immune privilege of hair follicles.

Nail Manifestations

The red half-moon nail sign is an asymptomatic purplish-red band around the distal margin of the lunula that affects some adult patients with COVID-19.³⁹ It appears shortly after onset of symptoms, likely the manifestation of vascular inflammation in the nail bed, and regresses slowly after approximately 1 week.⁴⁰ Beau lines are transverse grooves in the nail plate due to the temporary arrest of the proximal nail matrix growth accompanying systemic illnesses; they appear approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19.⁴¹ Furthermore, nail alterations can be caused by drugs used to treat COVID-19, such as longitudinal melanonychia due to treatment with hydroxychloroquine or fluorescence of the lunula or nail plate due to treatment with favipiravir.⁴²

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is clinically similar to Kawasaki disease; it typically affects children⁴³ and more rarely adults with COVID-19. It manifests with fever, weakness, and biological inflammation and also frequently with skin lesions (72%), which are polymorphous and include morbilliform rash (27%); urticaria (24%); periorbital edema (24%); nonspecific erythema (21.2%); retiform purpura (18%); targetoid lesions (15%); malar rash (15.2%); and periareolar erythema (6%).⁴⁴ Compared to Kawasaki disease, MIS affects slightly older children (mean age, 8.5 vs 3 years) and more frequently includes cardiac and gastrointestinal manifestations; the mortality rate also is slightly higher (2% vs 0.17%).⁴⁵

Confirmed COVID-19 Infection

At the beginning of the pandemic, skin manifestations were reported in patients who were suspected of having COVID-19 but did not always have biological confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the unavailability of diagnostic tests or the physical impossibility of testing. However, subsequent studies have confirmed that most of these dermatoses were indeed associated with COVID-19 infection.^9,46 For example, a study of 655 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection reported maculopapular (38%), vascular (22%), urticarial (15%), and vesicular (15%) rashes; erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson–like syndrome (3%, often related to the use of hydroxychloroquine); generalized pruritus (1%); and MIS (0.5%). The study confirmed that CBLLs were mostly seen in young patients with mild disease, whereas livedo (fixed rash) and retiform purpura occurred in older patients with a guarded prognosis.⁴⁶

Remarkably, most dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported during the initial waves of the pandemic, which were due to the α and δ viral variants. These manifestations were reported more rarely when the ο variant was predominant, even though most patients (63%) who developed CBLLs in the first wave also developed them during the second pandemic wave.⁴⁷ This decrease in the incidence of COVID-19–associated dermatoses could be because of the lower pathogenicity of the o variant,³ a lower tropism for the skin, and variations in SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity that would induce a different immunologic response, combined with an increasingly stronger herd immunity compared to the first pandemic waves achieved through vaccination and spontaneous infections in the population. Additional reasons may include different baseline characteristics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (regarding comorbidities, disease severity, and received treatments), and the possibility that some of the initially reported COVID-19–associated skin manifestations could have been produced by different etiologic agents.⁴⁸ In the last 2 years, COVID-19–related skin manifestations have been reported mainly as adverse events to COVID-19 vaccination.

CUTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DRUGS USED TO TREAT COVID-19

Prior to the advent of vaccines and specific treatments for SARS-CoV-2, various drugs were used—namely hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and tocilizumab—that did not prove efficacious and caused diverse adverse effects, including cutaneous eruptions such as urticaria, maculopapular eruptions, erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, longitudinal melanonychia, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^49,50 Nirmatrelvir 150 mg–ritonavir 100 mg, which was authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, is a viral protease inhibitor blocking the replication of the virus. Ritonavir can induce pruritus, maculopapular rash, acne, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis; of note, these effects have been observed following administration of ritonavir for treatment of HIV at higher daily doses and for much longer periods of time compared with treatment of COVID-19 (600–1200 mg vs 200 mg/d, respectively). These cutaneous drug side effects are clinically similar to the manifestations caused either directly or indirectly by SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate them.

DERMATOSES DUE TO PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Dermatoses due to personal protective equipment such as masks or face shields affected the general population and mostly health care professionals⁵¹; 54.4% of 879 health care professionals in one study reported such events.⁵² These dermatoses mainly include contact dermatitis of the face (nose, forehead, and cheeks) of irritant or allergic nature (eg, from preservatives releasing formaldehyde contained in masks and protective goggles). They manifest with skin dryness; desquamation; maceration; fissures; or erosions or ulcerations of the cheeks, forehead, and nose. Cases of pressure urticaria also have been reported. Irritant dermatitis induced by the frequent use of disinfectants (eg, soaps, hydroalcoholic sanitizing gels) also can affect the hands. Allergic hand dermatitis can be caused by medical gloves.

The term maskne (or mask acne) refers to a variety of mechanical acne due to the prolonged use of surgical masks (>4 hours per day for ≥6 weeks); it includes cases of de novo acne and cases of pre-existing acne aggravated by wearing a mask. Maskne is characterized by acne lesions located on the facial area covered by the mask (Figure 6). It is caused by follicular occlusion; increased sebum secretion; mechanical stress (pressure, friction); and dysbiosis of the microbiome induced by changes in heat, pH, and humidity. Preventive measures include application of noncomedogenic moisturizers or gauze before wearing the mask as well as facial cleansing with appropriate nonalcoholic products. Similar to acne, rosacea often is aggravated by prolonged wearing of surgical masks (mask rosacea).^53,54

DERMATOSES REVEALED OR AGGRAVATED BY COVID-19

Exacerbation of various skin diseases has been reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2.⁵⁵ Psoriasis and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau,⁵⁶ which may progress into generalized, pustular, or erythrodermic forms,⁵⁷ have been reported; the role of hydroxychloroquine and oral corticosteroids used for the treatment of COVID-19 has been suspected.⁵⁷ Atopic dermatitis patients—26% to 43%—have experienced worsening of their disease after symptomatic COVID-19 infection.⁵⁸ The incidence of herpesvirus infections, including herpes zoster, increased during the pandemic.⁵⁹ Alopecia areata relapses occurred in 42.5% of 392 patients with preexisting disease within 2 months of COVID-19 onset in one study,⁶⁰ possibly favored by the psychological stress; however, some studies have not confirmed the aggravating role of COVID-19 on alopecia areata.⁶¹ Lupus erythematosus, which may relapse in the form of Rowell syndrome,⁶² and livedoid vasculopathy⁶³ also have been reported following COVID-19 infection.

SKIN MANIFESTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 VACCINES

In parallel with the rapid spread of COVID-19 vaccination,⁴ an increasing number of skin manifestations has been observed following vaccination; these dermatoses now are more frequently reported than those related to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.^64-70 Vaccine-induced skin manifestations have a reported incidence of approximately 4% and show a female predominance.⁶⁵ Most of them (79%) have been reported in association with messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines, which have been the most widely used; however, the frequency of side effects would be lower after mRNA vaccines than after inactivated virus-based vaccines. Eighteen percent occurred after the adenoviral vector vaccine, and 3% after the inactivated virus vaccine.⁷⁰ Fifty-nine percent were observed after the first dose. They are clinically polymorphous and generally benign, regressing spontaneously after a few days, and they should not constitute a contraindication to vaccination.Interestingly, many skin manifestations are similar to those associated with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their frequency and severity does not seem to depend on whether the patients had developed skin reactions during prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. These reactions have been classified into several types:

• Immediate local reactions at the injection site: pain, erythema, or edema represent the vast majority (96%) of reactions to vaccines. They appear within 7 days after vaccination (average, 1 day), slightly more frequently (59%) after the first dose. They concern mostly young patients and are benign, regressing in 2 to 3 days.⁷⁰
 

• Delayed local reactions: characterized by pain or pruritus, erythema, and skin induration mimicking cellulitis (COVID arm) and represent 1.7% of postvaccination reactions. They correspond to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction and appear approximately 7 days after vaccination, most often after the first vaccine dose (75% of cases), which is almost invariably mRNA based.⁷⁰

• Urticarial reactions corresponding to an immediate (type 1) hypersensitivity reaction: constitute 1% of postvaccination reactions, probably due to an allergy to vaccine ingredients. They appear on average 1 day after vaccination, almost always with mRNA vaccines.⁷⁰

• Angioedema: characterized by mucosal or subcutaneous edema and constitutes 0.5% of postvaccination reactions. It is a potentially serious reaction that appears on average 12 hours after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Morbilliform rash: represents delayed hypersensitivity reactions (0.1% of postvaccination reactions) that appear mostly after the first dose (72%), on average 3 days after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Herpes zoster: usually develops after the first vaccine dose in elderly patients (69% of cases) on average 4 days after vaccination and constitutes 0.1% of postvaccination reactions.⁷¹

• Bullous diseases: mainly bullous pemphigoid (90%) and more rarely pemphigus (5%) or bullous erythema pigmentosum (5%). They appear in elderly patients on average 7 days after vaccination and constitute 0.04% of postvaccination reactions.⁷²

• Chilblainlike lesions: several such cases have been reported so far⁷³; they constitute 0.03% of postvaccination reactions.⁷⁰ Clinically, they are similar to those associated with natural COVID-19; they appear mostly after the first dose (64%), on average 5 days after vaccination with the mRNA or adenovirus vaccine, and show a female predominance. The appearance of these lesions in vaccinated patients, who are a priori not carriers of the virus, strongly suggests that CBLLs are due to the immune reaction against SARS-CoV-2 rather than to a direct effect of this virus on the skin, which also is a likely scenario with regards to other skin manifestations seen during the successive COVID-19 epidemic waves.^73-75

• Reactions to hyaluronic acid–containing cosmetic fillers: erythema, edema, and potentially painful induration at the filler injection sites. They constitute 0.04% of postvaccination skin reactions and appear 24 hours after vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines, equally after the first or second dose.⁷⁶

• Pityriasis rosea–like rash: most occur after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines (0.023% of postvaccination skin reactions).⁷⁰

• Severe reactions: these include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis⁷⁷ and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.⁷⁸ One case of each has been reported after the adenoviral vector vaccine 3 days after vaccination.

Other more rarely observed manifestations include reactivation/aggravation or de novo appearance of inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis,^79,80 leukocytoclastic vasculitis,^81,82 lymphocytic⁸³ or urticarial⁸⁴ vasculitis, Sweet syndrome,⁸⁵ lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis,^86,87 alopecia,^37,88 infection with Trichophyton rubrum,⁸⁹ Grover disease,⁹⁰ and lymphomatoid reactions (such as recurrences of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [CD30⁺], and de novo development of lymphomatoid papulosis).⁹¹

FINAL THOUGHTS

COVID-19 is associated with several skin manifestations, even though the causative role of SARS-CoV-2 has remained elusive. These dermatoses are highly polymorphous, mostly benign, and usually spontaneously regressive, but some of them reflect severe infection. They mostly were described during the first pandemic waves, reported in several national and international registries, which allowed for their morphological classification. Currently, cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines are the most frequently reported dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that they will continue to be observed while COVID-19 vaccination lasts. Hopefully the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is near. In January 2023, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point, and even though the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the higher levels of population immunity achieved globally through infection and/or vaccination may limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on morbidity and mortality. However, there is little doubt that this virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future.⁹² Therefore, physicians—especially dermatologists—should be aware of the various skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 so they can more efficiently manage their patients.

Possibly. Elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk for stillbirth (strength of recommendation (SOR), B; Cohort studies and meta-analysis of cohort studies). Three studies found an association between elevated BMI and stillbirth and one did not. However, no studies demonstrate that antenatal testing in pregnant people with higher BMIs decreases stillbirth rates, or that no harm is caused by unnecessary testing or resultant interventions.

Still, in 2021, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggested weekly antenatal testing may be considered from 34 weeks' 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² and from 37 weeks' 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m² (SOR, C; consensus guideline). Thus, doing the antenatal testing recommended in the ACOG guideline in an attempt to prevent stillbirth is reasonable, given evidence that elevated BMI is associated with stillbirth.

Evidence summary

Association between higher maternal BMI and increased risk for stillbirth

The purpose of antenatal testing is to decrease the risk for stillbirth between visits. Because of the resources involved and the risk for false-positives when testing low-risk patients, antenatal testing is reserved for pregnant people with higher risk for stillbirth.

In a retrospective cohort study of more than 2.8 million singleton births including 9,030 stillbirths, pregnant people with an elevated BMI had an increased risk for stillbirth compared with those with a normal BMI. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62-1.83) for those with a BMI of 30.0 to 34.9 kg/m²; 2.04 (95% CI, 1.8-2.21) for those with a BMI of 35.0 to 39.9 kg/m²; and 2.50 (95% CI, 2.28-2.74) for those with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m².¹

A meta-analysis of 38 studies, which included data on 16,274 stillbirths, found that a 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk for stillbirth (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30).²

Another meta-analysis included 6 cohort studies involving more than 1 million pregnancies and 3 case-control studies involving 2,530 stillbirths and 2,837 controls from 1980-2005. There was an association between increasing BMI and stillbirth: the odds ratio (OR) was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.08-1.94) for those with a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m² and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.59-2.74) for those with a BMI ≥ 30.0, compared with those with a normal BMI.³

However, a retrospective cohort study of 182,362 singleton births including 442 stillbirths found no association between stillbirth and increasing BMI. The OR was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.90-1.36) for those with a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.87-1.37) for those with a BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2, compared with those with a normal BMI.⁴ However, this cohort study may have been underpowered to detect an association between stillbirth and BMI.

Recommendations from others

In 2021, ACOG suggested that weekly antenatal testing may be considered from 34 weeks' and 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² and from 37 weeks' and 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m².⁵ The 2021 ACOG Practice Bulletin on obesity in pregnancy rates this recommendation as Level C—based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.⁶

A 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Green-top Guideline recognizes “definitive recommendations for fetal surveillance are hampered by the lack of randomized controlled trials demonstrating that antepartum fetal surveillance decreases perinatal morbidity or mortality in late-term and post-term gestations…. There are no definitive studies determining the optimal type or frequency of such testing and no evidence specific for women with obesity.”⁷

A 2019 Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada practice guideline states “stillbirth is more common with maternal obesity” and recommends “increased fetal surveillance … in the third trimester if reduced fetal movements are reported.” The guideline notes “the role for non-stress tests … in surveillance of well-being in this population is uncertain.” Also, for pregnant people with a BMI > 30 kg/m², “assessment of fetal well-being is … recommended weekly from 37 weeks until delivery.” Finally, increased fetal surveillance is recommended in the setting of increased BMI and an abnormal pulsatility index of the umbilical artery and/or maternal uterine artery.⁸

Editor’s takeaway

Evidence demonstrates that increased maternal BMI is associated with increased stillbirths. However, evidence has not shown that third-trimester antenatal testing decreases this morbidity and mortality. Expert opinion varies, with ACOG recommending weekly antenatal testing from 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation, respectively, for pregnant people with BMIs of ≥ 40 kg/m² and of 35 to 39.9 kg/m². ●

Possibly. Elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk for stillbirth (strength of recommendation (SOR), B; Cohort studies and meta-analysis of cohort studies). Three studies found an association between elevated BMI and stillbirth and one did not. However, no studies demonstrate that antenatal testing in pregnant people with higher BMIs decreases stillbirth rates, or that no harm is caused by unnecessary testing or resultant interventions.

Still, in 2021, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggested weekly antenatal testing may be considered from 34 weeks' 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² and from 37 weeks' 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m² (SOR, C; consensus guideline). Thus, doing the antenatal testing recommended in the ACOG guideline in an attempt to prevent stillbirth is reasonable, given evidence that elevated BMI is associated with stillbirth.

Evidence summary

Association between higher maternal BMI and increased risk for stillbirth

The purpose of antenatal testing is to decrease the risk for stillbirth between visits. Because of the resources involved and the risk for false-positives when testing low-risk patients, antenatal testing is reserved for pregnant people with higher risk for stillbirth.

In a retrospective cohort study of more than 2.8 million singleton births including 9,030 stillbirths, pregnant people with an elevated BMI had an increased risk for stillbirth compared with those with a normal BMI. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62-1.83) for those with a BMI of 30.0 to 34.9 kg/m²; 2.04 (95% CI, 1.8-2.21) for those with a BMI of 35.0 to 39.9 kg/m²; and 2.50 (95% CI, 2.28-2.74) for those with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m².¹

A meta-analysis of 38 studies, which included data on 16,274 stillbirths, found that a 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk for stillbirth (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30).²

Another meta-analysis included 6 cohort studies involving more than 1 million pregnancies and 3 case-control studies involving 2,530 stillbirths and 2,837 controls from 1980-2005. There was an association between increasing BMI and stillbirth: the odds ratio (OR) was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.08-1.94) for those with a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m² and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.59-2.74) for those with a BMI ≥ 30.0, compared with those with a normal BMI.³

However, a retrospective cohort study of 182,362 singleton births including 442 stillbirths found no association between stillbirth and increasing BMI. The OR was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.90-1.36) for those with a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.87-1.37) for those with a BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2, compared with those with a normal BMI.⁴ However, this cohort study may have been underpowered to detect an association between stillbirth and BMI.

Recommendations from others

In 2021, ACOG suggested that weekly antenatal testing may be considered from 34 weeks' and 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² and from 37 weeks' and 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m².⁵ The 2021 ACOG Practice Bulletin on obesity in pregnancy rates this recommendation as Level C—based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.⁶

A 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Green-top Guideline recognizes “definitive recommendations for fetal surveillance are hampered by the lack of randomized controlled trials demonstrating that antepartum fetal surveillance decreases perinatal morbidity or mortality in late-term and post-term gestations…. There are no definitive studies determining the optimal type or frequency of such testing and no evidence specific for women with obesity.”⁷

A 2019 Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada practice guideline states “stillbirth is more common with maternal obesity” and recommends “increased fetal surveillance … in the third trimester if reduced fetal movements are reported.” The guideline notes “the role for non-stress tests … in surveillance of well-being in this population is uncertain.” Also, for pregnant people with a BMI > 30 kg/m², “assessment of fetal well-being is … recommended weekly from 37 weeks until delivery.” Finally, increased fetal surveillance is recommended in the setting of increased BMI and an abnormal pulsatility index of the umbilical artery and/or maternal uterine artery.⁸

Editor’s takeaway

Evidence demonstrates that increased maternal BMI is associated with increased stillbirths. However, evidence has not shown that third-trimester antenatal testing decreases this morbidity and mortality. Expert opinion varies, with ACOG recommending weekly antenatal testing from 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation, respectively, for pregnant people with BMIs of ≥ 40 kg/m² and of 35 to 39.9 kg/m². ●

Possibly. Elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk for stillbirth (strength of recommendation (SOR), B; Cohort studies and meta-analysis of cohort studies). Three studies found an association between elevated BMI and stillbirth and one did not. However, no studies demonstrate that antenatal testing in pregnant people with higher BMIs decreases stillbirth rates, or that no harm is caused by unnecessary testing or resultant interventions.

Still, in 2021, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggested weekly antenatal testing may be considered from 34 weeks' 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² and from 37 weeks' 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m² (SOR, C; consensus guideline). Thus, doing the antenatal testing recommended in the ACOG guideline in an attempt to prevent stillbirth is reasonable, given evidence that elevated BMI is associated with stillbirth.

Evidence summary

Association between higher maternal BMI and increased risk for stillbirth

The purpose of antenatal testing is to decrease the risk for stillbirth between visits. Because of the resources involved and the risk for false-positives when testing low-risk patients, antenatal testing is reserved for pregnant people with higher risk for stillbirth.

In a retrospective cohort study of more than 2.8 million singleton births including 9,030 stillbirths, pregnant people with an elevated BMI had an increased risk for stillbirth compared with those with a normal BMI. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62-1.83) for those with a BMI of 30.0 to 34.9 kg/m²; 2.04 (95% CI, 1.8-2.21) for those with a BMI of 35.0 to 39.9 kg/m²; and 2.50 (95% CI, 2.28-2.74) for those with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m².¹

A meta-analysis of 38 studies, which included data on 16,274 stillbirths, found that a 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk for stillbirth (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30).²

Another meta-analysis included 6 cohort studies involving more than 1 million pregnancies and 3 case-control studies involving 2,530 stillbirths and 2,837 controls from 1980-2005. There was an association between increasing BMI and stillbirth: the odds ratio (OR) was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.08-1.94) for those with a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m² and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.59-2.74) for those with a BMI ≥ 30.0, compared with those with a normal BMI.³

However, a retrospective cohort study of 182,362 singleton births including 442 stillbirths found no association between stillbirth and increasing BMI. The OR was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.90-1.36) for those with a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.87-1.37) for those with a BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2, compared with those with a normal BMI.⁴ However, this cohort study may have been underpowered to detect an association between stillbirth and BMI.

Recommendations from others

In 2021, ACOG suggested that weekly antenatal testing may be considered from 34 weeks' and 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² and from 37 weeks' and 0 days' gestation for pregnant people with a BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m².⁵ The 2021 ACOG Practice Bulletin on obesity in pregnancy rates this recommendation as Level C—based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.⁶

A 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Green-top Guideline recognizes “definitive recommendations for fetal surveillance are hampered by the lack of randomized controlled trials demonstrating that antepartum fetal surveillance decreases perinatal morbidity or mortality in late-term and post-term gestations…. There are no definitive studies determining the optimal type or frequency of such testing and no evidence specific for women with obesity.”⁷

A 2019 Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada practice guideline states “stillbirth is more common with maternal obesity” and recommends “increased fetal surveillance … in the third trimester if reduced fetal movements are reported.” The guideline notes “the role for non-stress tests … in surveillance of well-being in this population is uncertain.” Also, for pregnant people with a BMI > 30 kg/m², “assessment of fetal well-being is … recommended weekly from 37 weeks until delivery.” Finally, increased fetal surveillance is recommended in the setting of increased BMI and an abnormal pulsatility index of the umbilical artery and/or maternal uterine artery.⁸

Editor’s takeaway

Evidence demonstrates that increased maternal BMI is associated with increased stillbirths. However, evidence has not shown that third-trimester antenatal testing decreases this morbidity and mortality. Expert opinion varies, with ACOG recommending weekly antenatal testing from 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation, respectively, for pregnant people with BMIs of ≥ 40 kg/m² and of 35 to 39.9 kg/m². ●

The vast majority of symptomatic breast conditions are benign, with the most common symptoms being palpable mass and breast pain. Clinicians, including primary care clinicians and gynecologists, play a crucial role by performing the initial assessment and subsequent therapies and referrals and serve as the mediator between the specialists and by being the patient’s spokesperson. It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of the various possible causes of these breast symptoms, to know which imaging tests to order, and also to understand the indications for biopsies and surgical referral.

Common types of breast lumps: Imaging workup and management

Accounting for 8% of women who present with breast symptoms, breast lump is the second most common symptom after breast pain.¹ The positive likelihood ratio of finding breast cancer is highest among women with breast lumps compared with any other breast symptoms. Therefore, anxiety is related to this symptom, and a thorough evaluation is recommended.¹ Cysts, fibroadenoma, and fat necrosis are 3 common benign causes of breast lumps.²

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management strategies for common types of breast lumps.

CASE 1 Woman with tender breast lump

A 45-year-old woman presents with a breast lump of 6 months’ duration that is associated with a change in size with the menstrual cycle and pain. Clinical examination reveals a 4 x 4.5–cm mass in the right breast in the retroareolar region, which is smooth with some tenderness on palpation.

Breast cyst

According to the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for an adult woman 40 years of age or older who presents with a palpable breast mass, the initial imaging study is diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis, usually followed by a directed ultrasound. If the mammogram is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, or in cases where the mammogram does not show an abnormality, the next recommended step is breast ultrasonography. Any suspicious findings on ultrasound or mammogram should be followed by an image guided biopsy. Ultrasonography also may be appropriate if the mammogram findings are benign or probably benign.

For an adult woman younger than age 30 who presents with a palpable breast mass, breast ultrasonography is the appropriate initial imaging study. If the ultrasound is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, then performing diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis or ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the mass are both considered appropriate. However, no further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign, probably benign, or negative. Breast ultrasonography or mammography is appropriate as the initial imaging test for adult women aged 30 to 39 years who present with a palpable breast mass.^3,4

Approximately 50% of women after age 30 may develop fibrocystic breast disease, and 20% of them can present with pain or lump due to a macrocysts. Simple cysts must be distinguished from complex cysts with the help of ultrasound as the latter are associated with 23% to 31% increased risk of malignancy.

In this 45-year-old patient, the initial mammogram demonstrated a circumscribed mass underneath the area of palpable concern (FIGURE 1a, 1b). Targeted breast ultrasonography was performed for further assessment, which depicted the mass as a benign simple cyst (FIGURE 1c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman...

CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman

A 22-year-old woman presents with a 2-month history of breast lump, which is not associated with pain or nipple discharge. On examination, there is a 2 x 2–cm mass in the right breast at 12 o’clock, 2 cm from the nipple, which is mobile, smooth, and nontender on palpation.

Fibroadenoma

In this 22-year-old, the initial imaging of choice is breast ultrasonography. Breast ultrasonography can differentiate a cystic mass from a solid mass, and it does not involve radiation. Right breast targeted ultrasound showed a circumscribed oval homogeneous hypoechoic mass that is wider than tall (FIGURE 2). The patient desired surgical removal, and a pre-lumpectomy core needle biopsy revealed a fibroadenoma.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fibroadenoma is the most common benign tumor of the breast. It is most often encountered in premenopausal women. Patients present with a painless breast lump, which is smooth and mobile on palpation. Fibroadenoma can be followed expectantly with repeat ultrasound (to assess over time for growth) if it is small and asymptomatic. No further action is needed if it remains stable. If a patient desires surgical excision, a core needle biopsy is usually performed before lumpectomy.

Excisional biopsy or removal of the mass is recommended if the mass is greater than 3 or 4 cm, is symptomatic, or if there is an increase in size that raises clinical concern for phyllodes tumor. Imaging features that are concerning for phyllodes tumors are size greater than 3 cm, indistinct or microlobulated margins, and heterogeneous echo pattern.^7,8 In cases in which the imaging features are concerning for phyllodes tumor and a core needle biopsy is not definitive, wide surgical excision is recommended for definitive diagnosis.⁸

CASE 3 Patient develops breast mass post-surgery

A 45-year-old woman presents with a tender left breast mass that she noticed 2 months after breast reduction surgery. It has been increasing in size since. On clinical examination, a 4 x 4–cm mass is found at the surgical scar site, which is indurated on palpation and tender.

Fat necrosis

In this 45-year-old, the initial test of choice is diagnostic mammography, which showed a somewhat circumscribed area with fat under the palpable marker (FIGURE 3a). Breast ultrasonography was performed for further evaluation, which was inconclusive as the ultrasound showed ill-defined areas of mixed echogenicity (FIGURE 3b). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly demonstrated fat necrosis in the area of the palpable lump (FIGURE 3c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fat necrosis of the breast is an inflammatory process that is seen after breast trauma or surgery. It can present as an incidental mammogram finding or a palpable mass. The patient may give a history of trauma, breast reduction surgery, or breast cancer surgery followed by radiation treatment. On clinical examination, fat necrosis occasionally can present as a firm mass with skin retraction or swelling concerning for cancer. Imaging features are variable depending on the stage of fat necrosis and inflammation.^9-11

A mammogram may demonstrate a circumscribed fat-containing mass, an ill-defined mass, asymmetry or calcified oil cyst, and dystrophic calcifications. On ultrasound, fat necrosis can appear as anechoic or hypoechoic or as a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass. MRI demonstrates a circumscribed or irregular fat-containing mass, with or without enhancement, and architectural distortion.

When the imaging features are clearly benign—for example, a circumscribed fat-containing mass on mammogram or on ultrasound or, on MRI, marked hypointensity of fat in the center of a circumscribed mass when compared with surrounding fat (keyhole sign)—no further follow-up is needed. When the imaging features are indeterminate, however, a short-interval follow-up can be considered. In cases with irregular fat-containing mass with enhancement, core needle biopsy is indicated to exclude cancer. If the workup remains inconclusive and the level of clinical suspicion is high, surgical excision can be performed for a definitive diagnosis.¹²

Continue to: Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management...

Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management

Breast pain, or mastalgia, is the most common concern of women presenting to a breast clinic and accounts for approximately half of such encounters.¹³ Causes of breast pain include hormonal changes, fibrocystic changes, musculoskeletal causes (such as costochondritis), lack of support, infection, and injury. While mastalgia often causes patient concern, the risk of malignancy in a woman presenting with breast pain alone is low. Still, it is essential to rule out other findings suspicious for cancer (mass, skin changes, or nipple discharge) with a thorough history and breast examination.

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management for breast pain.

CASE 4 Woman with noncyclic breast pain

A 26-year-old woman presents to the clinic with mastalgia. The pain is noncyclic and primarily located in the upper outer quadrant of her left breast. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. She has no suspicious findings on the breast examination.

Mastalgia

The test of choice for this 26-year-old with focal left breast pain is targeted breast ultrasound. The patient’s ultrasound image showed no suspicious findings or solid or cystic mass (FIGURE 4).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Two important characteristics of breast pain are whether it is noncyclical and whether it is focal. According to the American College of Radiology, no breast imaging is recommended for clinically insignificant cyclical, nonfocal (greater than 1 quadrant)/diffuse pain, as this type of mastalgia is not associated with malignancy.¹⁴

For patients age 40 or older, if they are not up to date with their annual screening mammogram, then a mammogram should be performed. An imaging workup is warranted for clinically significant mastalgia that is noncyclical and focal. Even then, no malignancy is identified in most patients with clinically significant mastalgia; in patients with breast pain as their only symptom, the prevalence of breast cancer is 0% to 3.0%.^15-19

The initial imaging modality differs by patient age: younger than 30 years, ultrasonography; between 30 and 40 years, mammography or ultrasonography; and older than 40 years, mammography first followed by ultrasonography.¹⁴

Treatment of breast pain is primarily symptomatic, and evidence for specific treatments is generally lacking. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, while noncyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but resolves spontaneously in half of women.²⁰ Reassurance is important and wearing a supportive bra often can alleviate breast pain. In addition, reducing caffeine intake can be helpful.

As a first-line treatment, both topical (diclofenac) and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively can relieve breast pain. Supplements and herbal remedies (for example, evening primrose oil, vitamin E, flaxseed) have varying effectiveness and are of questionable benefit as few have trials to support their effectiveness.⁴ Danazol and tamoxifen have been shown to have some benefits but they also have adverse effects.²⁰ Surgery does not play a role in the treatment of mastalgia.

CASE 5 Breastfeeding woman with breast pain

A 27-year-old postpartum woman presents with concerns for redness and pain in the upper inner left breast. She has been breastfeeding for the past few months. Breast examination demonstrates a 5-cm area of erythema and warmth but no fluctuance or masses.

Lactational mastitis

Targeted ultrasonography is the test of choice for this 27-year-old patient with focal breast pain, and the imaging revealed edema of subcutaneous tissues and ill-defined hypoechoic areas, likely inflamed fat lobules (FIGURE 5). These findings suggest uncomplicated lactational mastitis, which can be treated with antibiotics. Generally, the mastitis will improve within days of starting the antibiotics; if it does not improve, repeat examination and ultrasound should be performed to look for formation of an abscess that may require aspiration.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass...

 

 

CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass

A 42-year-old perimenopausal woman describes having pain near the nipple of her right breast. She is a smoker and has no history of breast cancer in her family. Examination demonstrates a palpable, erythematous, painful, 3-cm periareolar fluctuant mass.

Nonpuerperal periareolar abscess

Appropriate initial imaging for this 42-year-old patient with focal pain is a diagnostic mammogram, which showed skin thickening and a retroareolar mass (FIGURE 6a). Further evaluation with targeted ultrasound showed a thick-walled anechoic collection with echoes compatible with an abscess (FIGURE 6b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Mammographic findings in a patient with mastitis may be normal or demonstrate skin and trabecular thickening. Ultrasound imaging may show dilated ducts and heterogeneous tissue secondary to inflammation and edema without a discrete fluid collection. In cases with breast abscess, in addition to the mammographic findings described above, a mass, or an asymmetry, may be seen, most commonly in a subareolar location. On ultrasound, a hypoechoic collection with mobile debris, no internal flow on Doppler, and thick hypervascular walls can be seen with abscess, occasionally giving the appearance of a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass.

The most important differential for mastitis is inflammatory breast cancer. Most cancers appear solid but can have central necrosis, mimicking a complicated cystic mass on ultrasound. The location for mastitis or abscess is most frequently subareolar. The presence of microcalcifications in a mass indicates the possibility of cancer.

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be helpful to differentiate between infection and cancer, with cancers showing initial early enhancement and washout kinetics compared with infected collections that show no enhancement or peripheral enhancement with a plateau or persistent enhancement curves. When clinical and imaging findings are unchanged after treatment of mastitis and abscesses, a core needle biopsy should be performed.^21,22

There are 2 categories of mastitis and breast abscess: lactational and nonpuerperal (all mastitis that occurs outside the lactational period). The World Health Organization definition of puerperal mastitis includes pain, local redness, warmth and swelling of the breast (usually unilateral), fever, and malaise.⁴ Concerning etiology, epithelial lesions in the nipple area caused by breastfeeding can allow pathogens to enter and cause infection. The most common microorganism is Staphylococcus aureus.⁴ Continued emptying of the breast is important, combined with early antibiotic therapy (dicloxacillin is often the first line; if the patient is penicillin allergic, use a macrolide such as clindamycin). If no improvement is seen in 48 to 72 hours, imaging should be performed.

In most cases, continuation of breastfeeding is possible. If mastitis has evolved into an abscess in a lactating woman, it can be aspirated under ultrasound guidance. Incision and drainage should be avoided unless the abscess persists after multiple aspiration attempts, it is large, or if the overlying skin is thin or otherwise appears nonviable.

Nonpuerperal mastitis includes peripheral, periductal, and idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Peripheral mastitis behaves like infections/abscesses in other soft tissues, responds well to treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage), and is less likely to recur than periductal mastitis and IGM.^21,23

Periductal mastitis and abscess, also known as Zuska disease, has a pathogenesis distinct from other forms of mastitis. Squamous metaplasia of the usual cuboidal epithelium of the breast ducts leads to keratin plugging that can cause infection.²³ Risk factors include obesity, smoking, and macromastia. The typical presentation of Zuska disease is a woman with a history of chronic smoking and/or a congenital cleft in the central nipple.²³ Periareolar signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, warmth) may be accompanied by an abscess. These can recur and lead to chronic fistula formation, especially if there is a history of intervention (such as aspiration, incision, and drainage).

Treatment of Zuska disease includes symptom relief and antibiotics. If S aureus is present, infection with methicillin-resistant S aureus is likely, and treatment with clindamycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is preferred. If abscess is present, aspiration (preferred, often under ultrasound guidance) or incision and drainage (if the skin is compromised) may be required. If disease is recurrent or associated with a chronically draining fistula, surgical intervention may be warranted, in which resolution requires removing the keratin-plugged ducts in and immediately below the central core of the nipple. Given the association between Zuska disease and smoking, cessation should be encouraged, although there is no guarantee that this will resolve the issue.²³

Continue to: CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling...

CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling

A 39-year-old woman presents with left breast swelling and pain of 1 month’s duration. On examination, there is a 6-cm area of edema, induration, and erythema.

Granulomatous mastitis

A diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic mass (FIGURE 7a). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, which showed granulomatous mastitis, negative for fungus and acid-fast bacilli. The patient was treated with prednisone and gradually improved (FIGURE 7b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare benign inflammatory process, with etiologies that include fungal infections, tuberculosis, Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and idiopathic causes. Imaging can be nonspecific and show variable features. Mammograms can appear normal or show asymmetry or mass and skin thickening. Ultrasound can show heterogeneous parenchyma, ill-defined hypoechoic collection, or a mass with margins that can be circumscribed or indistinct or with tubular extensions, with or without overlying skin thickening, fistulas, and reactive lymph nodes.²⁴

In this clinical setting, the differential diagnosis includes infectious mastitis, inflammatory breast cancer, foreign body injection granulomas, and diabetic mastopathy. Treatment involves drainage and fluid culture if there is a collection on imaging. A core biopsy is performed if imaging demonstrates a solid mass or fluid culture is negative and symptoms persist or recur. Oral steroids represent the mainstay of treatment if a core biopsy shows GM. However, immunosuppressants, including methotrexate, and surgery are options if initial treatment is not helpful.^25,26

Conclusion

Breast symptoms are common reasons for patient visits to obstetricians and gynecologists. With a good understanding of the various symptomatic breast diseases and conditions, and by having a close collaboration with radiologists and breast surgeons, clinicians can provide excellent care to these patients and thereby improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. ●

The vast majority of symptomatic breast conditions are benign, with the most common symptoms being palpable mass and breast pain. Clinicians, including primary care clinicians and gynecologists, play a crucial role by performing the initial assessment and subsequent therapies and referrals and serve as the mediator between the specialists and by being the patient’s spokesperson. It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of the various possible causes of these breast symptoms, to know which imaging tests to order, and also to understand the indications for biopsies and surgical referral.

Common types of breast lumps: Imaging workup and management

Accounting for 8% of women who present with breast symptoms, breast lump is the second most common symptom after breast pain.¹ The positive likelihood ratio of finding breast cancer is highest among women with breast lumps compared with any other breast symptoms. Therefore, anxiety is related to this symptom, and a thorough evaluation is recommended.¹ Cysts, fibroadenoma, and fat necrosis are 3 common benign causes of breast lumps.²

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management strategies for common types of breast lumps.

CASE 1 Woman with tender breast lump

A 45-year-old woman presents with a breast lump of 6 months’ duration that is associated with a change in size with the menstrual cycle and pain. Clinical examination reveals a 4 x 4.5–cm mass in the right breast in the retroareolar region, which is smooth with some tenderness on palpation.

Breast cyst

According to the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for an adult woman 40 years of age or older who presents with a palpable breast mass, the initial imaging study is diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis, usually followed by a directed ultrasound. If the mammogram is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, or in cases where the mammogram does not show an abnormality, the next recommended step is breast ultrasonography. Any suspicious findings on ultrasound or mammogram should be followed by an image guided biopsy. Ultrasonography also may be appropriate if the mammogram findings are benign or probably benign.

For an adult woman younger than age 30 who presents with a palpable breast mass, breast ultrasonography is the appropriate initial imaging study. If the ultrasound is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, then performing diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis or ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the mass are both considered appropriate. However, no further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign, probably benign, or negative. Breast ultrasonography or mammography is appropriate as the initial imaging test for adult women aged 30 to 39 years who present with a palpable breast mass.^3,4

Approximately 50% of women after age 30 may develop fibrocystic breast disease, and 20% of them can present with pain or lump due to a macrocysts. Simple cysts must be distinguished from complex cysts with the help of ultrasound as the latter are associated with 23% to 31% increased risk of malignancy.

In this 45-year-old patient, the initial mammogram demonstrated a circumscribed mass underneath the area of palpable concern (FIGURE 1a, 1b). Targeted breast ultrasonography was performed for further assessment, which depicted the mass as a benign simple cyst (FIGURE 1c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman...

CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman

A 22-year-old woman presents with a 2-month history of breast lump, which is not associated with pain or nipple discharge. On examination, there is a 2 x 2–cm mass in the right breast at 12 o’clock, 2 cm from the nipple, which is mobile, smooth, and nontender on palpation.

Fibroadenoma

In this 22-year-old, the initial imaging of choice is breast ultrasonography. Breast ultrasonography can differentiate a cystic mass from a solid mass, and it does not involve radiation. Right breast targeted ultrasound showed a circumscribed oval homogeneous hypoechoic mass that is wider than tall (FIGURE 2). The patient desired surgical removal, and a pre-lumpectomy core needle biopsy revealed a fibroadenoma.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fibroadenoma is the most common benign tumor of the breast. It is most often encountered in premenopausal women. Patients present with a painless breast lump, which is smooth and mobile on palpation. Fibroadenoma can be followed expectantly with repeat ultrasound (to assess over time for growth) if it is small and asymptomatic. No further action is needed if it remains stable. If a patient desires surgical excision, a core needle biopsy is usually performed before lumpectomy.

Excisional biopsy or removal of the mass is recommended if the mass is greater than 3 or 4 cm, is symptomatic, or if there is an increase in size that raises clinical concern for phyllodes tumor. Imaging features that are concerning for phyllodes tumors are size greater than 3 cm, indistinct or microlobulated margins, and heterogeneous echo pattern.^7,8 In cases in which the imaging features are concerning for phyllodes tumor and a core needle biopsy is not definitive, wide surgical excision is recommended for definitive diagnosis.⁸

CASE 3 Patient develops breast mass post-surgery

A 45-year-old woman presents with a tender left breast mass that she noticed 2 months after breast reduction surgery. It has been increasing in size since. On clinical examination, a 4 x 4–cm mass is found at the surgical scar site, which is indurated on palpation and tender.

Fat necrosis

In this 45-year-old, the initial test of choice is diagnostic mammography, which showed a somewhat circumscribed area with fat under the palpable marker (FIGURE 3a). Breast ultrasonography was performed for further evaluation, which was inconclusive as the ultrasound showed ill-defined areas of mixed echogenicity (FIGURE 3b). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly demonstrated fat necrosis in the area of the palpable lump (FIGURE 3c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fat necrosis of the breast is an inflammatory process that is seen after breast trauma or surgery. It can present as an incidental mammogram finding or a palpable mass. The patient may give a history of trauma, breast reduction surgery, or breast cancer surgery followed by radiation treatment. On clinical examination, fat necrosis occasionally can present as a firm mass with skin retraction or swelling concerning for cancer. Imaging features are variable depending on the stage of fat necrosis and inflammation.^9-11

A mammogram may demonstrate a circumscribed fat-containing mass, an ill-defined mass, asymmetry or calcified oil cyst, and dystrophic calcifications. On ultrasound, fat necrosis can appear as anechoic or hypoechoic or as a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass. MRI demonstrates a circumscribed or irregular fat-containing mass, with or without enhancement, and architectural distortion.

When the imaging features are clearly benign—for example, a circumscribed fat-containing mass on mammogram or on ultrasound or, on MRI, marked hypointensity of fat in the center of a circumscribed mass when compared with surrounding fat (keyhole sign)—no further follow-up is needed. When the imaging features are indeterminate, however, a short-interval follow-up can be considered. In cases with irregular fat-containing mass with enhancement, core needle biopsy is indicated to exclude cancer. If the workup remains inconclusive and the level of clinical suspicion is high, surgical excision can be performed for a definitive diagnosis.¹²

Continue to: Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management...

Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management

Breast pain, or mastalgia, is the most common concern of women presenting to a breast clinic and accounts for approximately half of such encounters.¹³ Causes of breast pain include hormonal changes, fibrocystic changes, musculoskeletal causes (such as costochondritis), lack of support, infection, and injury. While mastalgia often causes patient concern, the risk of malignancy in a woman presenting with breast pain alone is low. Still, it is essential to rule out other findings suspicious for cancer (mass, skin changes, or nipple discharge) with a thorough history and breast examination.

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management for breast pain.

CASE 4 Woman with noncyclic breast pain

A 26-year-old woman presents to the clinic with mastalgia. The pain is noncyclic and primarily located in the upper outer quadrant of her left breast. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. She has no suspicious findings on the breast examination.

Mastalgia

The test of choice for this 26-year-old with focal left breast pain is targeted breast ultrasound. The patient’s ultrasound image showed no suspicious findings or solid or cystic mass (FIGURE 4).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Two important characteristics of breast pain are whether it is noncyclical and whether it is focal. According to the American College of Radiology, no breast imaging is recommended for clinically insignificant cyclical, nonfocal (greater than 1 quadrant)/diffuse pain, as this type of mastalgia is not associated with malignancy.¹⁴

For patients age 40 or older, if they are not up to date with their annual screening mammogram, then a mammogram should be performed. An imaging workup is warranted for clinically significant mastalgia that is noncyclical and focal. Even then, no malignancy is identified in most patients with clinically significant mastalgia; in patients with breast pain as their only symptom, the prevalence of breast cancer is 0% to 3.0%.^15-19

The initial imaging modality differs by patient age: younger than 30 years, ultrasonography; between 30 and 40 years, mammography or ultrasonography; and older than 40 years, mammography first followed by ultrasonography.¹⁴

Treatment of breast pain is primarily symptomatic, and evidence for specific treatments is generally lacking. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, while noncyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but resolves spontaneously in half of women.²⁰ Reassurance is important and wearing a supportive bra often can alleviate breast pain. In addition, reducing caffeine intake can be helpful.

As a first-line treatment, both topical (diclofenac) and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively can relieve breast pain. Supplements and herbal remedies (for example, evening primrose oil, vitamin E, flaxseed) have varying effectiveness and are of questionable benefit as few have trials to support their effectiveness.⁴ Danazol and tamoxifen have been shown to have some benefits but they also have adverse effects.²⁰ Surgery does not play a role in the treatment of mastalgia.

CASE 5 Breastfeeding woman with breast pain

A 27-year-old postpartum woman presents with concerns for redness and pain in the upper inner left breast. She has been breastfeeding for the past few months. Breast examination demonstrates a 5-cm area of erythema and warmth but no fluctuance or masses.

Lactational mastitis

Targeted ultrasonography is the test of choice for this 27-year-old patient with focal breast pain, and the imaging revealed edema of subcutaneous tissues and ill-defined hypoechoic areas, likely inflamed fat lobules (FIGURE 5). These findings suggest uncomplicated lactational mastitis, which can be treated with antibiotics. Generally, the mastitis will improve within days of starting the antibiotics; if it does not improve, repeat examination and ultrasound should be performed to look for formation of an abscess that may require aspiration.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass...

 

 

CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass

A 42-year-old perimenopausal woman describes having pain near the nipple of her right breast. She is a smoker and has no history of breast cancer in her family. Examination demonstrates a palpable, erythematous, painful, 3-cm periareolar fluctuant mass.

Nonpuerperal periareolar abscess

Appropriate initial imaging for this 42-year-old patient with focal pain is a diagnostic mammogram, which showed skin thickening and a retroareolar mass (FIGURE 6a). Further evaluation with targeted ultrasound showed a thick-walled anechoic collection with echoes compatible with an abscess (FIGURE 6b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Mammographic findings in a patient with mastitis may be normal or demonstrate skin and trabecular thickening. Ultrasound imaging may show dilated ducts and heterogeneous tissue secondary to inflammation and edema without a discrete fluid collection. In cases with breast abscess, in addition to the mammographic findings described above, a mass, or an asymmetry, may be seen, most commonly in a subareolar location. On ultrasound, a hypoechoic collection with mobile debris, no internal flow on Doppler, and thick hypervascular walls can be seen with abscess, occasionally giving the appearance of a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass.

The most important differential for mastitis is inflammatory breast cancer. Most cancers appear solid but can have central necrosis, mimicking a complicated cystic mass on ultrasound. The location for mastitis or abscess is most frequently subareolar. The presence of microcalcifications in a mass indicates the possibility of cancer.

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be helpful to differentiate between infection and cancer, with cancers showing initial early enhancement and washout kinetics compared with infected collections that show no enhancement or peripheral enhancement with a plateau or persistent enhancement curves. When clinical and imaging findings are unchanged after treatment of mastitis and abscesses, a core needle biopsy should be performed.^21,22

There are 2 categories of mastitis and breast abscess: lactational and nonpuerperal (all mastitis that occurs outside the lactational period). The World Health Organization definition of puerperal mastitis includes pain, local redness, warmth and swelling of the breast (usually unilateral), fever, and malaise.⁴ Concerning etiology, epithelial lesions in the nipple area caused by breastfeeding can allow pathogens to enter and cause infection. The most common microorganism is Staphylococcus aureus.⁴ Continued emptying of the breast is important, combined with early antibiotic therapy (dicloxacillin is often the first line; if the patient is penicillin allergic, use a macrolide such as clindamycin). If no improvement is seen in 48 to 72 hours, imaging should be performed.

In most cases, continuation of breastfeeding is possible. If mastitis has evolved into an abscess in a lactating woman, it can be aspirated under ultrasound guidance. Incision and drainage should be avoided unless the abscess persists after multiple aspiration attempts, it is large, or if the overlying skin is thin or otherwise appears nonviable.

Nonpuerperal mastitis includes peripheral, periductal, and idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Peripheral mastitis behaves like infections/abscesses in other soft tissues, responds well to treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage), and is less likely to recur than periductal mastitis and IGM.^21,23

Periductal mastitis and abscess, also known as Zuska disease, has a pathogenesis distinct from other forms of mastitis. Squamous metaplasia of the usual cuboidal epithelium of the breast ducts leads to keratin plugging that can cause infection.²³ Risk factors include obesity, smoking, and macromastia. The typical presentation of Zuska disease is a woman with a history of chronic smoking and/or a congenital cleft in the central nipple.²³ Periareolar signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, warmth) may be accompanied by an abscess. These can recur and lead to chronic fistula formation, especially if there is a history of intervention (such as aspiration, incision, and drainage).

Treatment of Zuska disease includes symptom relief and antibiotics. If S aureus is present, infection with methicillin-resistant S aureus is likely, and treatment with clindamycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is preferred. If abscess is present, aspiration (preferred, often under ultrasound guidance) or incision and drainage (if the skin is compromised) may be required. If disease is recurrent or associated with a chronically draining fistula, surgical intervention may be warranted, in which resolution requires removing the keratin-plugged ducts in and immediately below the central core of the nipple. Given the association between Zuska disease and smoking, cessation should be encouraged, although there is no guarantee that this will resolve the issue.²³

Continue to: CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling...

CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling

A 39-year-old woman presents with left breast swelling and pain of 1 month’s duration. On examination, there is a 6-cm area of edema, induration, and erythema.

Granulomatous mastitis

A diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic mass (FIGURE 7a). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, which showed granulomatous mastitis, negative for fungus and acid-fast bacilli. The patient was treated with prednisone and gradually improved (FIGURE 7b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare benign inflammatory process, with etiologies that include fungal infections, tuberculosis, Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and idiopathic causes. Imaging can be nonspecific and show variable features. Mammograms can appear normal or show asymmetry or mass and skin thickening. Ultrasound can show heterogeneous parenchyma, ill-defined hypoechoic collection, or a mass with margins that can be circumscribed or indistinct or with tubular extensions, with or without overlying skin thickening, fistulas, and reactive lymph nodes.²⁴

In this clinical setting, the differential diagnosis includes infectious mastitis, inflammatory breast cancer, foreign body injection granulomas, and diabetic mastopathy. Treatment involves drainage and fluid culture if there is a collection on imaging. A core biopsy is performed if imaging demonstrates a solid mass or fluid culture is negative and symptoms persist or recur. Oral steroids represent the mainstay of treatment if a core biopsy shows GM. However, immunosuppressants, including methotrexate, and surgery are options if initial treatment is not helpful.^25,26

Conclusion

Breast symptoms are common reasons for patient visits to obstetricians and gynecologists. With a good understanding of the various symptomatic breast diseases and conditions, and by having a close collaboration with radiologists and breast surgeons, clinicians can provide excellent care to these patients and thereby improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. ●

The vast majority of symptomatic breast conditions are benign, with the most common symptoms being palpable mass and breast pain. Clinicians, including primary care clinicians and gynecologists, play a crucial role by performing the initial assessment and subsequent therapies and referrals and serve as the mediator between the specialists and by being the patient’s spokesperson. It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of the various possible causes of these breast symptoms, to know which imaging tests to order, and also to understand the indications for biopsies and surgical referral.

Common types of breast lumps: Imaging workup and management

Accounting for 8% of women who present with breast symptoms, breast lump is the second most common symptom after breast pain.¹ The positive likelihood ratio of finding breast cancer is highest among women with breast lumps compared with any other breast symptoms. Therefore, anxiety is related to this symptom, and a thorough evaluation is recommended.¹ Cysts, fibroadenoma, and fat necrosis are 3 common benign causes of breast lumps.²

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management strategies for common types of breast lumps.

CASE 1 Woman with tender breast lump

A 45-year-old woman presents with a breast lump of 6 months’ duration that is associated with a change in size with the menstrual cycle and pain. Clinical examination reveals a 4 x 4.5–cm mass in the right breast in the retroareolar region, which is smooth with some tenderness on palpation.

Breast cyst

According to the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for an adult woman 40 years of age or older who presents with a palpable breast mass, the initial imaging study is diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis, usually followed by a directed ultrasound. If the mammogram is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, or in cases where the mammogram does not show an abnormality, the next recommended step is breast ultrasonography. Any suspicious findings on ultrasound or mammogram should be followed by an image guided biopsy. Ultrasonography also may be appropriate if the mammogram findings are benign or probably benign.

For an adult woman younger than age 30 who presents with a palpable breast mass, breast ultrasonography is the appropriate initial imaging study. If the ultrasound is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, then performing diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis or ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the mass are both considered appropriate. However, no further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign, probably benign, or negative. Breast ultrasonography or mammography is appropriate as the initial imaging test for adult women aged 30 to 39 years who present with a palpable breast mass.^3,4

Approximately 50% of women after age 30 may develop fibrocystic breast disease, and 20% of them can present with pain or lump due to a macrocysts. Simple cysts must be distinguished from complex cysts with the help of ultrasound as the latter are associated with 23% to 31% increased risk of malignancy.

In this 45-year-old patient, the initial mammogram demonstrated a circumscribed mass underneath the area of palpable concern (FIGURE 1a, 1b). Targeted breast ultrasonography was performed for further assessment, which depicted the mass as a benign simple cyst (FIGURE 1c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman...

CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman

A 22-year-old woman presents with a 2-month history of breast lump, which is not associated with pain or nipple discharge. On examination, there is a 2 x 2–cm mass in the right breast at 12 o’clock, 2 cm from the nipple, which is mobile, smooth, and nontender on palpation.

Fibroadenoma

In this 22-year-old, the initial imaging of choice is breast ultrasonography. Breast ultrasonography can differentiate a cystic mass from a solid mass, and it does not involve radiation. Right breast targeted ultrasound showed a circumscribed oval homogeneous hypoechoic mass that is wider than tall (FIGURE 2). The patient desired surgical removal, and a pre-lumpectomy core needle biopsy revealed a fibroadenoma.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fibroadenoma is the most common benign tumor of the breast. It is most often encountered in premenopausal women. Patients present with a painless breast lump, which is smooth and mobile on palpation. Fibroadenoma can be followed expectantly with repeat ultrasound (to assess over time for growth) if it is small and asymptomatic. No further action is needed if it remains stable. If a patient desires surgical excision, a core needle biopsy is usually performed before lumpectomy.

Excisional biopsy or removal of the mass is recommended if the mass is greater than 3 or 4 cm, is symptomatic, or if there is an increase in size that raises clinical concern for phyllodes tumor. Imaging features that are concerning for phyllodes tumors are size greater than 3 cm, indistinct or microlobulated margins, and heterogeneous echo pattern.^7,8 In cases in which the imaging features are concerning for phyllodes tumor and a core needle biopsy is not definitive, wide surgical excision is recommended for definitive diagnosis.⁸

CASE 3 Patient develops breast mass post-surgery

A 45-year-old woman presents with a tender left breast mass that she noticed 2 months after breast reduction surgery. It has been increasing in size since. On clinical examination, a 4 x 4–cm mass is found at the surgical scar site, which is indurated on palpation and tender.

Fat necrosis

In this 45-year-old, the initial test of choice is diagnostic mammography, which showed a somewhat circumscribed area with fat under the palpable marker (FIGURE 3a). Breast ultrasonography was performed for further evaluation, which was inconclusive as the ultrasound showed ill-defined areas of mixed echogenicity (FIGURE 3b). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly demonstrated fat necrosis in the area of the palpable lump (FIGURE 3c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fat necrosis of the breast is an inflammatory process that is seen after breast trauma or surgery. It can present as an incidental mammogram finding or a palpable mass. The patient may give a history of trauma, breast reduction surgery, or breast cancer surgery followed by radiation treatment. On clinical examination, fat necrosis occasionally can present as a firm mass with skin retraction or swelling concerning for cancer. Imaging features are variable depending on the stage of fat necrosis and inflammation.^9-11

A mammogram may demonstrate a circumscribed fat-containing mass, an ill-defined mass, asymmetry or calcified oil cyst, and dystrophic calcifications. On ultrasound, fat necrosis can appear as anechoic or hypoechoic or as a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass. MRI demonstrates a circumscribed or irregular fat-containing mass, with or without enhancement, and architectural distortion.

When the imaging features are clearly benign—for example, a circumscribed fat-containing mass on mammogram or on ultrasound or, on MRI, marked hypointensity of fat in the center of a circumscribed mass when compared with surrounding fat (keyhole sign)—no further follow-up is needed. When the imaging features are indeterminate, however, a short-interval follow-up can be considered. In cases with irregular fat-containing mass with enhancement, core needle biopsy is indicated to exclude cancer. If the workup remains inconclusive and the level of clinical suspicion is high, surgical excision can be performed for a definitive diagnosis.¹²

Continue to: Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management...

Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management

Breast pain, or mastalgia, is the most common concern of women presenting to a breast clinic and accounts for approximately half of such encounters.¹³ Causes of breast pain include hormonal changes, fibrocystic changes, musculoskeletal causes (such as costochondritis), lack of support, infection, and injury. While mastalgia often causes patient concern, the risk of malignancy in a woman presenting with breast pain alone is low. Still, it is essential to rule out other findings suspicious for cancer (mass, skin changes, or nipple discharge) with a thorough history and breast examination.

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management for breast pain.

CASE 4 Woman with noncyclic breast pain

A 26-year-old woman presents to the clinic with mastalgia. The pain is noncyclic and primarily located in the upper outer quadrant of her left breast. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. She has no suspicious findings on the breast examination.

Mastalgia

The test of choice for this 26-year-old with focal left breast pain is targeted breast ultrasound. The patient’s ultrasound image showed no suspicious findings or solid or cystic mass (FIGURE 4).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Two important characteristics of breast pain are whether it is noncyclical and whether it is focal. According to the American College of Radiology, no breast imaging is recommended for clinically insignificant cyclical, nonfocal (greater than 1 quadrant)/diffuse pain, as this type of mastalgia is not associated with malignancy.¹⁴

For patients age 40 or older, if they are not up to date with their annual screening mammogram, then a mammogram should be performed. An imaging workup is warranted for clinically significant mastalgia that is noncyclical and focal. Even then, no malignancy is identified in most patients with clinically significant mastalgia; in patients with breast pain as their only symptom, the prevalence of breast cancer is 0% to 3.0%.^15-19

The initial imaging modality differs by patient age: younger than 30 years, ultrasonography; between 30 and 40 years, mammography or ultrasonography; and older than 40 years, mammography first followed by ultrasonography.¹⁴

Treatment of breast pain is primarily symptomatic, and evidence for specific treatments is generally lacking. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, while noncyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but resolves spontaneously in half of women.²⁰ Reassurance is important and wearing a supportive bra often can alleviate breast pain. In addition, reducing caffeine intake can be helpful.

As a first-line treatment, both topical (diclofenac) and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively can relieve breast pain. Supplements and herbal remedies (for example, evening primrose oil, vitamin E, flaxseed) have varying effectiveness and are of questionable benefit as few have trials to support their effectiveness.⁴ Danazol and tamoxifen have been shown to have some benefits but they also have adverse effects.²⁰ Surgery does not play a role in the treatment of mastalgia.

CASE 5 Breastfeeding woman with breast pain

A 27-year-old postpartum woman presents with concerns for redness and pain in the upper inner left breast. She has been breastfeeding for the past few months. Breast examination demonstrates a 5-cm area of erythema and warmth but no fluctuance or masses.

Lactational mastitis

Targeted ultrasonography is the test of choice for this 27-year-old patient with focal breast pain, and the imaging revealed edema of subcutaneous tissues and ill-defined hypoechoic areas, likely inflamed fat lobules (FIGURE 5). These findings suggest uncomplicated lactational mastitis, which can be treated with antibiotics. Generally, the mastitis will improve within days of starting the antibiotics; if it does not improve, repeat examination and ultrasound should be performed to look for formation of an abscess that may require aspiration.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass...

 

 

CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass

A 42-year-old perimenopausal woman describes having pain near the nipple of her right breast. She is a smoker and has no history of breast cancer in her family. Examination demonstrates a palpable, erythematous, painful, 3-cm periareolar fluctuant mass.

Nonpuerperal periareolar abscess

Appropriate initial imaging for this 42-year-old patient with focal pain is a diagnostic mammogram, which showed skin thickening and a retroareolar mass (FIGURE 6a). Further evaluation with targeted ultrasound showed a thick-walled anechoic collection with echoes compatible with an abscess (FIGURE 6b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Mammographic findings in a patient with mastitis may be normal or demonstrate skin and trabecular thickening. Ultrasound imaging may show dilated ducts and heterogeneous tissue secondary to inflammation and edema without a discrete fluid collection. In cases with breast abscess, in addition to the mammographic findings described above, a mass, or an asymmetry, may be seen, most commonly in a subareolar location. On ultrasound, a hypoechoic collection with mobile debris, no internal flow on Doppler, and thick hypervascular walls can be seen with abscess, occasionally giving the appearance of a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass.

The most important differential for mastitis is inflammatory breast cancer. Most cancers appear solid but can have central necrosis, mimicking a complicated cystic mass on ultrasound. The location for mastitis or abscess is most frequently subareolar. The presence of microcalcifications in a mass indicates the possibility of cancer.

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be helpful to differentiate between infection and cancer, with cancers showing initial early enhancement and washout kinetics compared with infected collections that show no enhancement or peripheral enhancement with a plateau or persistent enhancement curves. When clinical and imaging findings are unchanged after treatment of mastitis and abscesses, a core needle biopsy should be performed.^21,22

There are 2 categories of mastitis and breast abscess: lactational and nonpuerperal (all mastitis that occurs outside the lactational period). The World Health Organization definition of puerperal mastitis includes pain, local redness, warmth and swelling of the breast (usually unilateral), fever, and malaise.⁴ Concerning etiology, epithelial lesions in the nipple area caused by breastfeeding can allow pathogens to enter and cause infection. The most common microorganism is Staphylococcus aureus.⁴ Continued emptying of the breast is important, combined with early antibiotic therapy (dicloxacillin is often the first line; if the patient is penicillin allergic, use a macrolide such as clindamycin). If no improvement is seen in 48 to 72 hours, imaging should be performed.

In most cases, continuation of breastfeeding is possible. If mastitis has evolved into an abscess in a lactating woman, it can be aspirated under ultrasound guidance. Incision and drainage should be avoided unless the abscess persists after multiple aspiration attempts, it is large, or if the overlying skin is thin or otherwise appears nonviable.

Nonpuerperal mastitis includes peripheral, periductal, and idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Peripheral mastitis behaves like infections/abscesses in other soft tissues, responds well to treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage), and is less likely to recur than periductal mastitis and IGM.^21,23

Periductal mastitis and abscess, also known as Zuska disease, has a pathogenesis distinct from other forms of mastitis. Squamous metaplasia of the usual cuboidal epithelium of the breast ducts leads to keratin plugging that can cause infection.²³ Risk factors include obesity, smoking, and macromastia. The typical presentation of Zuska disease is a woman with a history of chronic smoking and/or a congenital cleft in the central nipple.²³ Periareolar signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, warmth) may be accompanied by an abscess. These can recur and lead to chronic fistula formation, especially if there is a history of intervention (such as aspiration, incision, and drainage).

Treatment of Zuska disease includes symptom relief and antibiotics. If S aureus is present, infection with methicillin-resistant S aureus is likely, and treatment with clindamycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is preferred. If abscess is present, aspiration (preferred, often under ultrasound guidance) or incision and drainage (if the skin is compromised) may be required. If disease is recurrent or associated with a chronically draining fistula, surgical intervention may be warranted, in which resolution requires removing the keratin-plugged ducts in and immediately below the central core of the nipple. Given the association between Zuska disease and smoking, cessation should be encouraged, although there is no guarantee that this will resolve the issue.²³

Continue to: CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling...

CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling

A 39-year-old woman presents with left breast swelling and pain of 1 month’s duration. On examination, there is a 6-cm area of edema, induration, and erythema.

Granulomatous mastitis

A diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic mass (FIGURE 7a). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, which showed granulomatous mastitis, negative for fungus and acid-fast bacilli. The patient was treated with prednisone and gradually improved (FIGURE 7b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare benign inflammatory process, with etiologies that include fungal infections, tuberculosis, Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and idiopathic causes. Imaging can be nonspecific and show variable features. Mammograms can appear normal or show asymmetry or mass and skin thickening. Ultrasound can show heterogeneous parenchyma, ill-defined hypoechoic collection, or a mass with margins that can be circumscribed or indistinct or with tubular extensions, with or without overlying skin thickening, fistulas, and reactive lymph nodes.²⁴

In this clinical setting, the differential diagnosis includes infectious mastitis, inflammatory breast cancer, foreign body injection granulomas, and diabetic mastopathy. Treatment involves drainage and fluid culture if there is a collection on imaging. A core biopsy is performed if imaging demonstrates a solid mass or fluid culture is negative and symptoms persist or recur. Oral steroids represent the mainstay of treatment if a core biopsy shows GM. However, immunosuppressants, including methotrexate, and surgery are options if initial treatment is not helpful.^25,26

Conclusion

Breast symptoms are common reasons for patient visits to obstetricians and gynecologists. With a good understanding of the various symptomatic breast diseases and conditions, and by having a close collaboration with radiologists and breast surgeons, clinicians can provide excellent care to these patients and thereby improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expand access to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

 

 

Reinforcing the rules

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

 

 

Rules that are evolving

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expand access to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

 

 

Reinforcing the rules

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

 

 

Rules that are evolving

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expand access to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

 

 

Reinforcing the rules

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

 

 

Rules that are evolving

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

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).¹ Likewise, 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.

 

 

Isothiazolinones in Laundry Detergent

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.²⁶ Nonetheless, 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).¹ Likewise, 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.

 

 

Isothiazolinones in Laundry Detergent

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.²⁶ Nonetheless, 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).¹ Likewise, 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.

 

 

Isothiazolinones in Laundry Detergent

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.²⁶ Nonetheless, 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 lip is commonly affected by skin cancer because of increased sun exposure and actinic damage, with basal cell carcinoma typically occurring on the upper lip and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip. The risk for metastatic spread of SCC on the lip is higher than cutaneous SCC on other facial locations but lower than SCC of the oral mucosa.^1,2 If the tumor is operable and the patient has no contraindications to surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery is the preferred treatment, as it allows for maximal healthy tissue preservation and has the lowest recurrence rates.^1-3 Once the tumor is removed and margins are confirmed to be negative, one must consider the options for defect closure, including healing by secondary intention, primary/direct closure, full-thickness skin grafts, local flaps, or free flaps.⁴ Secondary intention may lead to wound contracture and suboptimal functional and cosmetic outcomes. Primary wedge closure can be utilized for optimal functional and cosmetic outcomes when the defect involves less than one-third of the horizontal width of the vermilion. For larger defects, the surgeon must consider a flap or graft. Skin grafts are less favorable than local flaps because they may have different skin color, texture, and hair-bearing properties than the recipient area.^3,5 In addition, grafts require a separate donor site, which means more pain, recovery time, and risk for complications for the patient.³ Free flaps similarly utilize tissue and blood supply from a donor site to repair major tissue loss. Radial forearm free flaps commonly are used for large lip defects but are more extensive, risky, and costly compared to local flaps for smaller defects under local anesthesia or nerve blocks.^6,7 With these considerations, a local lip flap often is the most ideal repair method.

When performing a local lip flap, it is important to consider the functional and aesthetic aspects of the lips. The lower face is more susceptible to distortion and wound contraction after defect repair because it lacks a substantial supportive fibrous network. The dynamics of opposing lip elevator and depressor muscles make the lips a visual focal point and a crucial structure for facial expression, mastication, oral continence, speech phonation, and mouth opening and closing.^2,4,8,9 Aesthetics and symmetry of the lips also are a large part of facial recognition and self-image.⁹

Lip defects are classified as partial thickness involving skin and muscle or full thickness involving skin, muscle, and mucosa. Partial-thickness wounds less than one-third the width of the horizontal lip can be repaired with a primary wedge resection or left to heal by secondary intention if the defect only involves the superficial vermilion.² For defects larger than one-third the width of the horizontal lip, local flaps are favored to allow for closely matched skin and lip mucosa to fill in the defect.⁹ Full-thickness defects are further classified based on defect width compared to total lip width (ie, less than one-third, between one-third and two-thirds, and greater than two-thirds) as well as location (ie, medial, lateral, upper lip, lower lip).^2,10

There are several local lip flap reconstruction options available, and choosing one is based on defect size and location. We provide a succinct review of the indications, risks, and benefits of commonly utilized flaps (Table), as well as artist renderings of all of the flaps (Figure).

Courtesy of Brinda Chellappan, MD (Galveston, Texas).

Vermilion Flaps

Vermilion flaps are used to close partial-thickness defects of the vermilion border, an area that poses unique obstacles of repair with blending distant tissues to match the surroundings.⁸ Goldstein¹¹ developed an adjacent ipsilateral vermilion flap utilizing an arterialized myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of vermilion defects. Later, this technique was modified by Sawada et al¹² into a bilateral adjacent advancement flap for closure of central vermilion defects and may be preferred for defects 2 cm in size or larger. Bilateral flaps are smaller and therefore more viable than unilateral or larger flaps, allowing for a more aesthetic alignment of the vermilion border and preservation of muscle activity because muscle fibers are not cut. This technique also allows for more efficient stretching or medial advancement of the tissue while generating less tension on the distal flap portions. Burow triangles can be utilized if necessary for improved aesthetic outcome.¹

Mucosal Advancement and Split Myomucosal Advancement Flap

The mucosal advancement technique can be considered for tumors that do not involve the adjacent cutaneous skin or the orbicularis oris muscle; thus, the reconstruction involves only the superficial vermilion area.^7,13 Mucosal incisions are made at the gingivobuccal sulcus, and the mucosal flap is elevated off the orbicularis oris muscle and advanced into the defect.¹⁰ A plane of dissection is maintained while preserving the labial artery. Undermining effectively advances wet mucosa into the dry mucosal lip to create a neovermilion. However, the reconstructed lip often appears thinner and will possibly be a different shade compared to the adjacent native lip. These discrepancies become more evident with deeper defects.⁷

There is a risk for cosmetic distortion and scar contraction with advancing the entire mucosa. Eirís et al¹³ described a solution—a bilateral mucosal rotation flap in which the primary incision is made along the entire vermilion border and tissue is undermined to allow advancement of the mucosa. Because the wound closure tension lays across the entire lip, there is less risk for scar contraction, even if the flap movement is unequal on either side of the defect.¹³

Although mucosal advancement flaps are a classic choice for reconstruction following a vermilion defect, other techniques, such as primary closure, should be considered in elderly patients and patients taking anticoagulants because of the risks for flap necrosis, swelling, bruising, hematoma, and dysesthesia, as well as a decrease in the anterior-posterior dimension of the lip. These risks can be attributed to trauma of surrounding tissue and stress secondary to longer overall operating times.¹⁴

Split myomucosal advancement flaps are used in similar scenarios as myomucosal advancement flaps but for larger red lip defects that are less than 50% the length of the upper or lower lip. Split myomucosal advancement flaps utilize an axial flap based on the labial artery, which provides robust vascular supply to the reconstructed area. This vascularity, along with lateral motor innervation of the orbicularis oris, allows for split myomucosal advancement flaps to restore the resected volume, preserve lip function, and minimize postoperative microstomia.⁷

V-Y Advancement Flaps

V-Y advancement flaps are based on a subcutaneous tissue pedicle and are optimal for partial- and full-thickness defects larger than 1 cm on the lateral upper lips, whereas bilateral V-Y advancement flaps are recommended for central lip defects.^15-17 Advantages of V-Y advancement flaps are preserved facial symmetry and maintenance of the oral sphincter and facial nerve function. The undermining portions allow for advancement of a skin flap of similar thickness and contour into the upper or lower lip.¹⁵ Disadvantages include facial asymmetry with larger defects involving the melolabial fold as well as paresthesia after closure. However, in one study, no paresthesia was reported more than 12 months postprocedure.⁴ The biggest disadvantage of the V-Y advancement flap is the kite-shaped scar and possible trapdoor deformity.^5,15 When working medially, the addition of the pincer modification helps avoid blunting of the philtrum and recreates a Cupid’s bow by curling the lateral flap edges medially to resemble a teardrop shape.¹⁷ V-Y advancement flaps for defects of skin and adipose tissue less than 5 mm in size have the highest need for revision surgery; thus, defects of this small size should be repaired primarily.⁴

When using a V-Y advancement flap to correct large defects, there are 3 common complications that may arise: fullness medial to the commissure, a depressed vermilion lip, and a standing cutaneous deformity along the trailing edge of the flap where the Y is formed upon closure of the donor site. To decrease the fullness, a skin excision from the inferior border of the flap along the vermiliocutaneous border can be made to debulk the area. A vermilion advancement can be used to optimize the vermiliocutaneous junction. Potential standing cutaneous deformity is addressed by excising a small ellipse of skin oriented along the axis of the relaxed skin tension lines.¹⁵

Abbé-Estlander Flap

The Abbé-Estlander flap (also known as a transoral cross-lip flap) is a full-thickness myocutaneous interpolation flap with blood supply from the labial artery. It is used for lower lip tumors that have deep invasion into muscle and are 30% to 60% of the horizontal lip.^8,9 Abbé transposition flaps are used for defects medial to the oral commissure and are best suited for philtrum reconstruction, whereas Estlander flaps are for defects that involve the oral commissure.^9,18 Interpolation flaps usually are performed in 2 stages, but some dermatologic surgeons have reported success with single-stage procedures.¹ The second-stage division usually is performed 2 to 3 weeks after flap insetting to allow time for neovascularization, which is crucial for pedicle survival.^8,9,19

Advantages of this type of flap are the preservation of orbicularis oris strength and a functional and aesthetic result with minimal change in appearance for defects sized from one-third to two-thirds the width of the lip.²⁰ This aesthetic effect is particularly notable when the donor flap is taken from the mediolateral upper lip, allowing the scarred area to blend into the nasolabial fold.⁸ Disadvantages of this flap are a risk for microstomia, lip vermilion misalignment, and lip adhesion.²¹ It is important that patients are educated on the need for multiple surgeries when using this type of flap, as patients favor single-step procedures.¹ The Abbé flap requires 2 surgeries, whereas the Estlander flap requires only 1. However, patients commonly require commissuroplasty with the Estlander flap alone.²¹

Gillies Fan Flap, Karapandzic Flap, Bernard-Webster Flap, and Bernard-Burrow-Webster Flap

The Gillies fan flap, Karapandzic flap, Bernard-Webster (BW) flap, and modified Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap are the likely choices for repair of lip defects that encompass more than two-thirds of the lip.^9,10,22 The Karapandzic and BW flaps are the 2 most frequently used for reconstruction of larger lower lip defects and only require 1 surgery.

Upper lip full-thickness defects that are too big for an Abbé-Estlander flap are closed with the Gillies fan flap.¹⁸ These defects involve 70% to 80% of the horizontal lip.⁹ The Gillies fan flap design redistributes the remaining lip to provide similar tissue quality and texture to fill the large defects.^9,23 Compared to Karapandzic and Bernard flaps, Gillies fan incision closures are hidden well in the nasolabial folds, and the degree of microstomy is decreased because of the rotation of the flaps. However, rotation of medial cheek flaps can distort the orbicular muscular fibers and the anatomy of the commissure, which may require repair with commissurotomy. Drawbacks include a risk for denervation that can result in temporary oral sphincter incompetence.²³ The bilateral Gillies fan flap carries a risk for microstomy as well as misalignment of the lip vermilion and round commissures.²¹

The Karapandzic flap is similar to the Gillies fan flap but only involves the skin and mucosa.⁹ This flap can be used for lateral or medial upper lip defects greater than one-third the width of the entire lip. This single-procedure flap allows for labial continuity, preserved sensation, and motor function; however, microstomia and misalignment of the oral commissure are common.^1,18,21 In a retrospective study by Nicholas et al,⁴ the only flap reported to have a poor functional outcome was the Karapandzic flap, with 3 patients reporting altered sensation and 1 patient reporting persistent stiffness while smiling.

The BW flap can be applied for extensive full-thickness defects greater than one-third the lower lip and for defects with limited residual lip. This flap also can be used in cases where only skin is excised, as the flap does not depend on reminiscent lip tissue for reconstruction of the new lower lip. Sensory function is maintained given adequate visualization and preservation of the local vascular, nervous, and muscular systems. Disadvantages of the BW flap include an incision notch in the region of the lower lip; blunting of the alveolobuccal sulcus; and functional deficits, such as lip incontinence to liquids during the postoperative period.²¹

The Bernard-Burrow-Webster flap is used for large lower lip defects and preserves the oral commissures by advancing adjacent cheek tissue and remaining lip tissue medially.¹⁰ It allows for larger site mobilization, but it is possible to see some resulting oral incontinence.^1,10 The Burow wedge flap is a variant of the advancement flap, with the Burow triangle located lateral to the oral commissure. Caution must be taken to avoid intraoperative bleeding from the labial and angular arteries. In addition, there also may be downward displacement of the vermilion border.⁵

How to Choose a Flap

The orbicularis oris is a circular muscle that surrounds both the upper and lower lips. It is pulled into an oval, allowing for sphincter function by radially oriented muscles, all of which are innervated by the facial nerve. Other key anatomical structures of the lips include the tubercle (vermilion prominence), Cupid’s bow and philtrum, nasolabial folds, white roll, hair-bearing area, and vermilion border. The lips are divided into cutaneous, mucosal, and vermilion parts, with the vermilion area divided into dry/external and wet/internal areas. Sensation to the upper lip is provided by the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve via the infraorbital nerve. The lower lip is innervated by the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve via the inferior alveolar nerve. The labial artery, a branch of the facial artery, is responsible for blood supply to the lips.^3,9 Because of the complex anatomy of the lips, careful reconstruction is crucial for functional and aesthetic preservation.

There are a variety of lip defect repairs, but all local flaps aim to preserve aesthetics and function. The Table summarizes the key risks and benefits of each flap. Local flap techniques can be used in combination for more complex defects.³ For example, Nadiminti et al¹⁹ described the combination of the Abbé flap and V-Y advancement flap to restore function and create a new symmetric nasolabial fold. Dermatologic surgeons will determine the most suitable technique based on tumor location, tumor stage or depth of invasion (partial or full thickness), and preservation of function and aesthetics.¹

Other factors to consider when choosing a local flap are the patient’s age, tissue laxity, dentition/need for dentures, and any prior treatments.⁷ Scar revision surgery may be needed after reconstruction, especially with longer vertical scars in areas without other rhytides. In addition, paresthesia is common after Mohs micrographic surgery of the face; however, new neural networks are created postoperatively, and most paresthesia resolves within 1 year of the repair.⁴ Dermabrasion and Z-plasty also may be considered, as they have been shown to be successful in improving final outcomes.⁹ Overall, local flaps have risks for infection, flap necrosis, and bleeding, though the incidence is low in reconstructions of the face.

Final Thoughts

There are several mechanisms to repair upper and lower lip defects resulting from surgical removal of cutaneous cancers. This review of specific flaps used in lip reconstruction provides a comprehensive overview of indications, advantages, and disadvantages of available lip flaps.