Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

The Diagnosis: Pseudo-Black Hairy Tongue

Pseudo-black hairy tongue is a benign and painless disorder characterized by transient hyperpigmentation of the tongue with a substance that can be easily scraped off. In this case, the patient's lingual discoloration was secondary to the ingestion of bismuth salicylate. The phenomenon is thought to occur due to a reaction between bismuth and sulfur-containing compounds in the saliva, resulting in the characteristic black substance on the surface of the tongue that nestles between the lingual papillae.¹ An associated feature may include black stools. Other etiologic factors involved in pseudo-black hairy tongue include food coloring, tobacco, and other drugs such antibiotics and antidepressants.²  

The differential diagnosis of lingual hyperpigmentation includes lingua villosa nigra (also known as black hairy tongue), pigmented fungiform papillae of the tongue, acanthosis nigricans, and oral hairy leukoplakia. Lingua villosa nigra is a similar condition in which individuals present with a black tongue; however, the tongue also appears hairy. The tongue may appear as other colors such as brown, yellow, or green. Patients additionally may have symptoms of burning, dysgeusia, halitosis, or gagging. Poor oral hygiene, xerostomia, use of tobacco or alcohol, and different medications including antibiotics and antipsychotic medications increase the risk for developing lingua villosa nigra.^2,3 This condition is distinguished from pseudo-black hairy tongue by proliferation and elongation of the filiform papillae.³ Pigmented fungiform papillae of the tongue is a normal variant of tongue morphology, is more common in individuals with darker skin types, and primarily affects the lateral aspect and apex of the tongue.⁴ Acanthosis nigricans can appear in the oral cavity as multiple pigmented papillary lesions on the dorsal and lateral regions of the tongue and frequently involves the lips; this condition may be associated with metabolic disorders or underlying malignancy.^2,3 Oral hairy leukoplakia is caused by Epstein-Barr virus infection and typically presents as white plaques on the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the tongue; this condition largely is found in immunocompromised patients.⁵

In our patient there was an acute onset of tongue discoloration associated with ingestion of bismuth salicylate, no hypertrophy or lengthening of the lingual papillae, and no involvement of the patient's lips, which was consistent with the diagnosis of pseudo-black hairy tongue. Pseudo-black hairy tongue is transient and treated by discontinuation of offending agents and proper hygiene practices.

The Diagnosis: Pseudo-Black Hairy Tongue

Pseudo-black hairy tongue is a benign and painless disorder characterized by transient hyperpigmentation of the tongue with a substance that can be easily scraped off. In this case, the patient's lingual discoloration was secondary to the ingestion of bismuth salicylate. The phenomenon is thought to occur due to a reaction between bismuth and sulfur-containing compounds in the saliva, resulting in the characteristic black substance on the surface of the tongue that nestles between the lingual papillae.¹ An associated feature may include black stools. Other etiologic factors involved in pseudo-black hairy tongue include food coloring, tobacco, and other drugs such antibiotics and antidepressants.²  

The differential diagnosis of lingual hyperpigmentation includes lingua villosa nigra (also known as black hairy tongue), pigmented fungiform papillae of the tongue, acanthosis nigricans, and oral hairy leukoplakia. Lingua villosa nigra is a similar condition in which individuals present with a black tongue; however, the tongue also appears hairy. The tongue may appear as other colors such as brown, yellow, or green. Patients additionally may have symptoms of burning, dysgeusia, halitosis, or gagging. Poor oral hygiene, xerostomia, use of tobacco or alcohol, and different medications including antibiotics and antipsychotic medications increase the risk for developing lingua villosa nigra.^2,3 This condition is distinguished from pseudo-black hairy tongue by proliferation and elongation of the filiform papillae.³ Pigmented fungiform papillae of the tongue is a normal variant of tongue morphology, is more common in individuals with darker skin types, and primarily affects the lateral aspect and apex of the tongue.⁴ Acanthosis nigricans can appear in the oral cavity as multiple pigmented papillary lesions on the dorsal and lateral regions of the tongue and frequently involves the lips; this condition may be associated with metabolic disorders or underlying malignancy.^2,3 Oral hairy leukoplakia is caused by Epstein-Barr virus infection and typically presents as white plaques on the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the tongue; this condition largely is found in immunocompromised patients.⁵

In our patient there was an acute onset of tongue discoloration associated with ingestion of bismuth salicylate, no hypertrophy or lengthening of the lingual papillae, and no involvement of the patient's lips, which was consistent with the diagnosis of pseudo-black hairy tongue. Pseudo-black hairy tongue is transient and treated by discontinuation of offending agents and proper hygiene practices.

The Diagnosis: Pseudo-Black Hairy Tongue

Pseudo-black hairy tongue is a benign and painless disorder characterized by transient hyperpigmentation of the tongue with a substance that can be easily scraped off. In this case, the patient's lingual discoloration was secondary to the ingestion of bismuth salicylate. The phenomenon is thought to occur due to a reaction between bismuth and sulfur-containing compounds in the saliva, resulting in the characteristic black substance on the surface of the tongue that nestles between the lingual papillae.¹ An associated feature may include black stools. Other etiologic factors involved in pseudo-black hairy tongue include food coloring, tobacco, and other drugs such antibiotics and antidepressants.²  

The differential diagnosis of lingual hyperpigmentation includes lingua villosa nigra (also known as black hairy tongue), pigmented fungiform papillae of the tongue, acanthosis nigricans, and oral hairy leukoplakia. Lingua villosa nigra is a similar condition in which individuals present with a black tongue; however, the tongue also appears hairy. The tongue may appear as other colors such as brown, yellow, or green. Patients additionally may have symptoms of burning, dysgeusia, halitosis, or gagging. Poor oral hygiene, xerostomia, use of tobacco or alcohol, and different medications including antibiotics and antipsychotic medications increase the risk for developing lingua villosa nigra.^2,3 This condition is distinguished from pseudo-black hairy tongue by proliferation and elongation of the filiform papillae.³ Pigmented fungiform papillae of the tongue is a normal variant of tongue morphology, is more common in individuals with darker skin types, and primarily affects the lateral aspect and apex of the tongue.⁴ Acanthosis nigricans can appear in the oral cavity as multiple pigmented papillary lesions on the dorsal and lateral regions of the tongue and frequently involves the lips; this condition may be associated with metabolic disorders or underlying malignancy.^2,3 Oral hairy leukoplakia is caused by Epstein-Barr virus infection and typically presents as white plaques on the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the tongue; this condition largely is found in immunocompromised patients.⁵

In our patient there was an acute onset of tongue discoloration associated with ingestion of bismuth salicylate, no hypertrophy or lengthening of the lingual papillae, and no involvement of the patient's lips, which was consistent with the diagnosis of pseudo-black hairy tongue. Pseudo-black hairy tongue is transient and treated by discontinuation of offending agents and proper hygiene practices.

A 97-year-old woman with a history of atrial fibrillation and nonmelanoma skin cancer presented to our clinic from an assisted living facility with a several-month history of rapidly growing forehead lesions. She denied symptoms, other than some bleeding and crusting, but was concerned about their appearance. She reported a notable history of sun exposure.

The patient had 3 confluent, but distinct, lesions on her forehead: an erythematous crateriform nodule with overlying hyperkeratotic scale (FIGURE, Lesion A); a nodular hyperpigmented plaque with irregular color and borders (Lesion B); and a pearly well-vascularized erythematous nodule with surrounding hemorrhagic crust (Lesion C).

She also had scattered, thin, gritty pink papules and plaques on the face that were thought to be actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers based on clinical morphology; however, the patient deferred workup and treatment of these lesions to focus on the forehead lesions. The decision was made to biopsy all 3 clinical morphologies seen. The risks and benefits of biopsy were reviewed with the patient and her daughter, and they opted to proceed. The areas were anesthetized with an injection of 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000; 3 shave biopsies were performed. Hemostasis was obtained with electrodesiccation.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A histopathology report revealed that Lesion A was squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), Lesion B was a melanoma with a Breslow depth of at least 1.2 mm, and Lesion C was basal cell carcinoma (BCC). It is unusual to have a patient present with BCC, SCC, and melanoma concurrently in the same anatomic region.

Two of the lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC). BCC is the most common NMSC in the United States, affecting more than 3.3 million people per year.¹ Although there are several subtypes of BCC with varying clinical presentations, the most classic appearance is a pearly papule with or without surface telangiectasias.²

The findings in this case serve as an important reminder to biopsy lesions with varying morphologies even when they are in close proximity to one another.

SCC has an incidence of 200,000 to 400,000 cases per year in the United States and the lifetime risk is 9% to 14% in men and 4% to 9% in women.³ SCC most commonly presents as a hyperkeratotic papule or plaque.² Lesions suspicious for SCC and BCC should be biopsied and the diagnosis confirmed by histopathologic analysis. These NMSCs are locally destructive, but rarely metastatic with a generally good prognosis. The standard treatment for both is surgical excision with consideration for other treatment modalities, such as topical therapies, chemotherapy, and radiation, depending on tumor characteristics as well as whether the patient is a good surgical candidate.^1,3

Melanoma is rising in incidence each year, with nearly 100,000 new cases expected in the United States this year.⁴ It is the leading cause of skin cancer related mortality.⁵ The most common suspicious lesions are variably pigmented macules with irregular borders. Biopsy and subsequent histopathologic analysis will confirm the diagnosis.

When a lesion is clinically suspicious for melanoma, it is particularly important to consider an excisional biopsy to allow for proper staging.⁵ Examples of appropriate excisional biopsies include elliptical excisions, punch biopsies, and deep shave biopsies.⁵ Definitive treatment involves a wider and deeper excision with histologically confirmed clear margins.⁵

Continue to: This case required a multidisciplinary team

This case required a multidisciplinary team

The patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography; the scans revealed no metastatic disease. She was evaluated by a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team, and various treatment options were explored. Resection typically is the definitive treatment for localized cutaneous melanoma; however, given the configuration of the lesions, it was deemed impractical to resect this patient’s melanoma and not the other lesions. Radiotherapy can be effective for BCC and SCC, but it is traditionally not as effective for melanoma.⁶ The options presented to the patient were radiotherapy or surgical resection to all 3 lesions, and she decided to pursue resection.

The patient was cleared for surgery; however, after the patient held her warfarin in preparation for the resection, she suffered a left frontal operculum infarction. At this point, she was re-evaluated by her head and neck physician, cardiologist, and anesthesiologist. Consensus was reached that the patient was at high perioperative risk for morbidity and mortality, and surgical intervention was no longer considered a viable option.

The patient then opted for palliative radiation therapy to all 3 lesions, with the understanding that the local control offered by radiotherapy would be inferior to what resection would provide for the melanoma lesion. Although not curative, radiotherapy was expected to provide local symptom relief for the melanoma, consistent with the patient’s palliative goals of care. In the past, melanoma was thought to be resistant to radiation, but recent evidence suggests that it may be at least partially susceptible to hypofractionated courses of radiation.⁶

Radiation oncology recommended a 6 to 15 fraction regimen and she had a good clinical response with > 50% decrease in the size of all 3 lesions along with cessation of bleeding.

The take-home lesson. The findings in this case serve as an important reminder to biopsy lesions with varying morphologies—even when they are in close proximity to one another. Foregoing any of the biopsies in this case would have led to a missed diagnosis, which has implications for optimal management and treatment.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, 2020 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510, Santa Monica, CA 90404; jhsiao@mednet.ucla.edu

A 97-year-old woman with a history of atrial fibrillation and nonmelanoma skin cancer presented to our clinic from an assisted living facility with a several-month history of rapidly growing forehead lesions. She denied symptoms, other than some bleeding and crusting, but was concerned about their appearance. She reported a notable history of sun exposure.

The patient had 3 confluent, but distinct, lesions on her forehead: an erythematous crateriform nodule with overlying hyperkeratotic scale (FIGURE, Lesion A); a nodular hyperpigmented plaque with irregular color and borders (Lesion B); and a pearly well-vascularized erythematous nodule with surrounding hemorrhagic crust (Lesion C).

She also had scattered, thin, gritty pink papules and plaques on the face that were thought to be actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers based on clinical morphology; however, the patient deferred workup and treatment of these lesions to focus on the forehead lesions. The decision was made to biopsy all 3 clinical morphologies seen. The risks and benefits of biopsy were reviewed with the patient and her daughter, and they opted to proceed. The areas were anesthetized with an injection of 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000; 3 shave biopsies were performed. Hemostasis was obtained with electrodesiccation.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A histopathology report revealed that Lesion A was squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), Lesion B was a melanoma with a Breslow depth of at least 1.2 mm, and Lesion C was basal cell carcinoma (BCC). It is unusual to have a patient present with BCC, SCC, and melanoma concurrently in the same anatomic region.

Two of the lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC). BCC is the most common NMSC in the United States, affecting more than 3.3 million people per year.¹ Although there are several subtypes of BCC with varying clinical presentations, the most classic appearance is a pearly papule with or without surface telangiectasias.²

The findings in this case serve as an important reminder to biopsy lesions with varying morphologies even when they are in close proximity to one another.

SCC has an incidence of 200,000 to 400,000 cases per year in the United States and the lifetime risk is 9% to 14% in men and 4% to 9% in women.³ SCC most commonly presents as a hyperkeratotic papule or plaque.² Lesions suspicious for SCC and BCC should be biopsied and the diagnosis confirmed by histopathologic analysis. These NMSCs are locally destructive, but rarely metastatic with a generally good prognosis. The standard treatment for both is surgical excision with consideration for other treatment modalities, such as topical therapies, chemotherapy, and radiation, depending on tumor characteristics as well as whether the patient is a good surgical candidate.^1,3

Melanoma is rising in incidence each year, with nearly 100,000 new cases expected in the United States this year.⁴ It is the leading cause of skin cancer related mortality.⁵ The most common suspicious lesions are variably pigmented macules with irregular borders. Biopsy and subsequent histopathologic analysis will confirm the diagnosis.

When a lesion is clinically suspicious for melanoma, it is particularly important to consider an excisional biopsy to allow for proper staging.⁵ Examples of appropriate excisional biopsies include elliptical excisions, punch biopsies, and deep shave biopsies.⁵ Definitive treatment involves a wider and deeper excision with histologically confirmed clear margins.⁵

Continue to: This case required a multidisciplinary team

This case required a multidisciplinary team

The patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography; the scans revealed no metastatic disease. She was evaluated by a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team, and various treatment options were explored. Resection typically is the definitive treatment for localized cutaneous melanoma; however, given the configuration of the lesions, it was deemed impractical to resect this patient’s melanoma and not the other lesions. Radiotherapy can be effective for BCC and SCC, but it is traditionally not as effective for melanoma.⁶ The options presented to the patient were radiotherapy or surgical resection to all 3 lesions, and she decided to pursue resection.

The patient was cleared for surgery; however, after the patient held her warfarin in preparation for the resection, she suffered a left frontal operculum infarction. At this point, she was re-evaluated by her head and neck physician, cardiologist, and anesthesiologist. Consensus was reached that the patient was at high perioperative risk for morbidity and mortality, and surgical intervention was no longer considered a viable option.

The patient then opted for palliative radiation therapy to all 3 lesions, with the understanding that the local control offered by radiotherapy would be inferior to what resection would provide for the melanoma lesion. Although not curative, radiotherapy was expected to provide local symptom relief for the melanoma, consistent with the patient’s palliative goals of care. In the past, melanoma was thought to be resistant to radiation, but recent evidence suggests that it may be at least partially susceptible to hypofractionated courses of radiation.⁶

Radiation oncology recommended a 6 to 15 fraction regimen and she had a good clinical response with > 50% decrease in the size of all 3 lesions along with cessation of bleeding.

The take-home lesson. The findings in this case serve as an important reminder to biopsy lesions with varying morphologies—even when they are in close proximity to one another. Foregoing any of the biopsies in this case would have led to a missed diagnosis, which has implications for optimal management and treatment.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, 2020 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510, Santa Monica, CA 90404; jhsiao@mednet.ucla.edu

A 97-year-old woman with a history of atrial fibrillation and nonmelanoma skin cancer presented to our clinic from an assisted living facility with a several-month history of rapidly growing forehead lesions. She denied symptoms, other than some bleeding and crusting, but was concerned about their appearance. She reported a notable history of sun exposure.

The patient had 3 confluent, but distinct, lesions on her forehead: an erythematous crateriform nodule with overlying hyperkeratotic scale (FIGURE, Lesion A); a nodular hyperpigmented plaque with irregular color and borders (Lesion B); and a pearly well-vascularized erythematous nodule with surrounding hemorrhagic crust (Lesion C).

She also had scattered, thin, gritty pink papules and plaques on the face that were thought to be actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers based on clinical morphology; however, the patient deferred workup and treatment of these lesions to focus on the forehead lesions. The decision was made to biopsy all 3 clinical morphologies seen. The risks and benefits of biopsy were reviewed with the patient and her daughter, and they opted to proceed. The areas were anesthetized with an injection of 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000; 3 shave biopsies were performed. Hemostasis was obtained with electrodesiccation.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

A histopathology report revealed that Lesion A was squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), Lesion B was a melanoma with a Breslow depth of at least 1.2 mm, and Lesion C was basal cell carcinoma (BCC). It is unusual to have a patient present with BCC, SCC, and melanoma concurrently in the same anatomic region.

Two of the lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC). BCC is the most common NMSC in the United States, affecting more than 3.3 million people per year.¹ Although there are several subtypes of BCC with varying clinical presentations, the most classic appearance is a pearly papule with or without surface telangiectasias.²

The findings in this case serve as an important reminder to biopsy lesions with varying morphologies even when they are in close proximity to one another.

SCC has an incidence of 200,000 to 400,000 cases per year in the United States and the lifetime risk is 9% to 14% in men and 4% to 9% in women.³ SCC most commonly presents as a hyperkeratotic papule or plaque.² Lesions suspicious for SCC and BCC should be biopsied and the diagnosis confirmed by histopathologic analysis. These NMSCs are locally destructive, but rarely metastatic with a generally good prognosis. The standard treatment for both is surgical excision with consideration for other treatment modalities, such as topical therapies, chemotherapy, and radiation, depending on tumor characteristics as well as whether the patient is a good surgical candidate.^1,3

Melanoma is rising in incidence each year, with nearly 100,000 new cases expected in the United States this year.⁴ It is the leading cause of skin cancer related mortality.⁵ The most common suspicious lesions are variably pigmented macules with irregular borders. Biopsy and subsequent histopathologic analysis will confirm the diagnosis.

When a lesion is clinically suspicious for melanoma, it is particularly important to consider an excisional biopsy to allow for proper staging.⁵ Examples of appropriate excisional biopsies include elliptical excisions, punch biopsies, and deep shave biopsies.⁵ Definitive treatment involves a wider and deeper excision with histologically confirmed clear margins.⁵

Continue to: This case required a multidisciplinary team

This case required a multidisciplinary team

The patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography; the scans revealed no metastatic disease. She was evaluated by a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team, and various treatment options were explored. Resection typically is the definitive treatment for localized cutaneous melanoma; however, given the configuration of the lesions, it was deemed impractical to resect this patient’s melanoma and not the other lesions. Radiotherapy can be effective for BCC and SCC, but it is traditionally not as effective for melanoma.⁶ The options presented to the patient were radiotherapy or surgical resection to all 3 lesions, and she decided to pursue resection.

The patient was cleared for surgery; however, after the patient held her warfarin in preparation for the resection, she suffered a left frontal operculum infarction. At this point, she was re-evaluated by her head and neck physician, cardiologist, and anesthesiologist. Consensus was reached that the patient was at high perioperative risk for morbidity and mortality, and surgical intervention was no longer considered a viable option.

The patient then opted for palliative radiation therapy to all 3 lesions, with the understanding that the local control offered by radiotherapy would be inferior to what resection would provide for the melanoma lesion. Although not curative, radiotherapy was expected to provide local symptom relief for the melanoma, consistent with the patient’s palliative goals of care. In the past, melanoma was thought to be resistant to radiation, but recent evidence suggests that it may be at least partially susceptible to hypofractionated courses of radiation.⁶

Radiation oncology recommended a 6 to 15 fraction regimen and she had a good clinical response with > 50% decrease in the size of all 3 lesions along with cessation of bleeding.

The take-home lesson. The findings in this case serve as an important reminder to biopsy lesions with varying morphologies—even when they are in close proximity to one another. Foregoing any of the biopsies in this case would have led to a missed diagnosis, which has implications for optimal management and treatment.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, 2020 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510, Santa Monica, CA 90404; jhsiao@mednet.ucla.edu

To the Editor:

Purpura annularis telangiectodes of Majocchi (PATM) is a type of pigmented purpuric dermatosis (PPD). Patients present with nonblanchable, annular, symmetric, purpuric, and telangiectatic patches, often on the legs, with histology revealing a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and extravasated erythrocytes.^1,2 A variety of medications have been linked to the development of PPD. We describe a case of levofloxacin-induced PATM.

RELATED ARTICLE: Granulomatous Changes Associated With Pigmented Purpuric Dermatosis

A 42-year-old man presented with a rash on the arms, trunk, abdomen, and legs of 1 month’s duration. He reported no associated itching, bleeding, or pain, and no history of a similar rash. He had a history of hypothyroidism and had been taking levothyroxine for years. He had no known allergies and no history of childhood eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis. Notably, the rash started shortly after the patient finished a 2-week course of levofloxacin, an antibiotic he had not taken in the past. The patient resided with his wife, 3 children, and a pet dog, and no family members had the rash. Prior to presentation, the patient had tried econazole cream and then triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.5% without any clinical improvement.

A complete review of systems was unremarkable. Physical examination revealed scattered, reddish brown, annular, nonscaly patches on the back, abdomen (Figure 1), arms, and legs with nonblanching petechiae within the patches.

A punch biopsy of the left inner thigh demonstrated patchy interface dermatitis, superficial perivascular inflammation, and numerous extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis (Figure 2). The histologic features were compatible with the clinical impression of PATM. The patient presented for a follow-up visit 2 weeks later with no new lesions and the old lesions were rapidly fading (Figure 3).

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses are a group of conditions that have different clinical morphologies but similar histopathologic examinations.² All PPDs are characterized by nonblanching, nonpalpable, purpuric lesions that often are bilaterally symmetrical and present on the legs.^2,3 Although the precise etiology of these conditions is not known, most cases include a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate along with the presence of extravasated erythrocytes and hemosiderin deposition in the dermis.² Of note, PATM often is idiopathic and patients usually present with no associated comorbidities.³ The currently established PPDs include progressive pigmentary dermatosis (Schamberg disease), PATM, pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatosis of Gougerot and Blum, lichen aureus, and eczematidlike purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis.^2,4

RELATED ARTICLE: Granulomatous Pigmented Purpuric Dermatosis

The lesions of PATM are symmetrically distributed on the bilateral legs and may be symptomatic in most cases, with severe pruritus being reported in several drug-induced PATM cases.^3,5 Although the exact etiology of PPDs currently is unknown, some contributing factors that are thought to play a role include exercise, venous stasis, gravitational dependence, capillary fragility, hypertension, drugs, chemical exposure or ingestions, and contact allergy to dyes.³ Some of the drugs known to cause drug-induced PPDs fall into the class of sedatives, stimulants, antibiotics, cardiovascular drugs, vitamins, and nutritional supplements.^3,6 Some medications that have been reported to cause PPDs include acetaminophen, aspirin, carbamazepine, diltiazem, furosemide, glipizide, hydralazine, infliximab, isotretinoin, lorazepam, minocycline, nitroglycerine, and sildenafil.^3,7-15

Although the mechanism of drug-induced PPD is not completely understood, it is thought that the ingested substance leads to an immunologic response in the capillary endothelium, which results in a cell-mediated immune response causing vascular damage.³ The ingested substance may act as a hapten, stimulating antibody formation and immune-mediated injury, leading to the clinical presentation of nonblanching, symmetric, purpuric, telangiectatic, and atrophic patches at the site of injury.^1,3

Levofloxacin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that has activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. It inhibits the enzymes DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV, preventing bacteria from undergoing proper DNA synthesis.¹⁶ Our patient’s rash began shortly after a 2-week course of levofloxacin and faded within a few weeks of discontinuing the drug; the clinical presentation, time course, and histologic appearance of the lesions were consistent with the diagnosis of drug-induced PPD. Of note, solar capillaritis has been reported following a phototoxic reaction induced by levofloxacin.¹⁷ Our case differs in that our patient had annular lesions on both photoprotected and photoexposed skin.

The first-line interventions for the treatment of PPDs are nonpharmacologic, such as discontinuation of an offending drug or allergen or wearing supportive stockings if there are signs of venous stasis. Other interventions include the use of a medium- or high-potency topical corticosteroid once to twice daily to affected areas for 4 to 6 weeks.¹⁸ Some case series also have shown improvement with narrowband UVB treatment after 24 to 28 treatment sessions or with psoralen plus UVA phototherapy within 7 to 20 treatments.^19,20 If the above measures are unsuccessful in resolving symptoms, other treatment alternatives may include pentoxifylline, griseofulvin, colchicine, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. The potential benefit of treatment must be weighed against the side-effect profile of these medications.^2,21-24 Of note, oral rutoside (50 mg twice daily) and ascorbic acid (500 mg twice daily) were administered to 3 patients with chronic progressive pigmented purpura. At the end of the 4-week treatment period, complete clearance of skin lesions was seen in all patients with no adverse reactions noted.²⁵

Despite these treatment options, PATM does not necessitate treatment given its benign course and often self-resolving nature.²⁶ In cases of drug-induced PPD such as in our patient, discontinuation of the offending drug often may lead to resolution.

In summary, PATM is a PPD that has been associated with different etiologic factors. If PATM is suspected to be caused by a drug, discontinuation of the offending agent usually results in resolution of symptoms, as it did in our case with fading of lesions within a few weeks after the patient was no longer taking levofloxacin.

To the Editor:

Purpura annularis telangiectodes of Majocchi (PATM) is a type of pigmented purpuric dermatosis (PPD). Patients present with nonblanchable, annular, symmetric, purpuric, and telangiectatic patches, often on the legs, with histology revealing a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and extravasated erythrocytes.^1,2 A variety of medications have been linked to the development of PPD. We describe a case of levofloxacin-induced PATM.

RELATED ARTICLE: Granulomatous Changes Associated With Pigmented Purpuric Dermatosis

A 42-year-old man presented with a rash on the arms, trunk, abdomen, and legs of 1 month’s duration. He reported no associated itching, bleeding, or pain, and no history of a similar rash. He had a history of hypothyroidism and had been taking levothyroxine for years. He had no known allergies and no history of childhood eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis. Notably, the rash started shortly after the patient finished a 2-week course of levofloxacin, an antibiotic he had not taken in the past. The patient resided with his wife, 3 children, and a pet dog, and no family members had the rash. Prior to presentation, the patient had tried econazole cream and then triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.5% without any clinical improvement.

A complete review of systems was unremarkable. Physical examination revealed scattered, reddish brown, annular, nonscaly patches on the back, abdomen (Figure 1), arms, and legs with nonblanching petechiae within the patches.

A punch biopsy of the left inner thigh demonstrated patchy interface dermatitis, superficial perivascular inflammation, and numerous extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis (Figure 2). The histologic features were compatible with the clinical impression of PATM. The patient presented for a follow-up visit 2 weeks later with no new lesions and the old lesions were rapidly fading (Figure 3).

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses are a group of conditions that have different clinical morphologies but similar histopathologic examinations.² All PPDs are characterized by nonblanching, nonpalpable, purpuric lesions that often are bilaterally symmetrical and present on the legs.^2,3 Although the precise etiology of these conditions is not known, most cases include a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate along with the presence of extravasated erythrocytes and hemosiderin deposition in the dermis.² Of note, PATM often is idiopathic and patients usually present with no associated comorbidities.³ The currently established PPDs include progressive pigmentary dermatosis (Schamberg disease), PATM, pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatosis of Gougerot and Blum, lichen aureus, and eczematidlike purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis.^2,4

RELATED ARTICLE: Granulomatous Pigmented Purpuric Dermatosis

The lesions of PATM are symmetrically distributed on the bilateral legs and may be symptomatic in most cases, with severe pruritus being reported in several drug-induced PATM cases.^3,5 Although the exact etiology of PPDs currently is unknown, some contributing factors that are thought to play a role include exercise, venous stasis, gravitational dependence, capillary fragility, hypertension, drugs, chemical exposure or ingestions, and contact allergy to dyes.³ Some of the drugs known to cause drug-induced PPDs fall into the class of sedatives, stimulants, antibiotics, cardiovascular drugs, vitamins, and nutritional supplements.^3,6 Some medications that have been reported to cause PPDs include acetaminophen, aspirin, carbamazepine, diltiazem, furosemide, glipizide, hydralazine, infliximab, isotretinoin, lorazepam, minocycline, nitroglycerine, and sildenafil.^3,7-15

Although the mechanism of drug-induced PPD is not completely understood, it is thought that the ingested substance leads to an immunologic response in the capillary endothelium, which results in a cell-mediated immune response causing vascular damage.³ The ingested substance may act as a hapten, stimulating antibody formation and immune-mediated injury, leading to the clinical presentation of nonblanching, symmetric, purpuric, telangiectatic, and atrophic patches at the site of injury.^1,3

Levofloxacin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that has activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. It inhibits the enzymes DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV, preventing bacteria from undergoing proper DNA synthesis.¹⁶ Our patient’s rash began shortly after a 2-week course of levofloxacin and faded within a few weeks of discontinuing the drug; the clinical presentation, time course, and histologic appearance of the lesions were consistent with the diagnosis of drug-induced PPD. Of note, solar capillaritis has been reported following a phototoxic reaction induced by levofloxacin.¹⁷ Our case differs in that our patient had annular lesions on both photoprotected and photoexposed skin.

The first-line interventions for the treatment of PPDs are nonpharmacologic, such as discontinuation of an offending drug or allergen or wearing supportive stockings if there are signs of venous stasis. Other interventions include the use of a medium- or high-potency topical corticosteroid once to twice daily to affected areas for 4 to 6 weeks.¹⁸ Some case series also have shown improvement with narrowband UVB treatment after 24 to 28 treatment sessions or with psoralen plus UVA phototherapy within 7 to 20 treatments.^19,20 If the above measures are unsuccessful in resolving symptoms, other treatment alternatives may include pentoxifylline, griseofulvin, colchicine, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. The potential benefit of treatment must be weighed against the side-effect profile of these medications.^2,21-24 Of note, oral rutoside (50 mg twice daily) and ascorbic acid (500 mg twice daily) were administered to 3 patients with chronic progressive pigmented purpura. At the end of the 4-week treatment period, complete clearance of skin lesions was seen in all patients with no adverse reactions noted.²⁵

Despite these treatment options, PATM does not necessitate treatment given its benign course and often self-resolving nature.²⁶ In cases of drug-induced PPD such as in our patient, discontinuation of the offending drug often may lead to resolution.

In summary, PATM is a PPD that has been associated with different etiologic factors. If PATM is suspected to be caused by a drug, discontinuation of the offending agent usually results in resolution of symptoms, as it did in our case with fading of lesions within a few weeks after the patient was no longer taking levofloxacin.

To the Editor:

Purpura annularis telangiectodes of Majocchi (PATM) is a type of pigmented purpuric dermatosis (PPD). Patients present with nonblanchable, annular, symmetric, purpuric, and telangiectatic patches, often on the legs, with histology revealing a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and extravasated erythrocytes.^1,2 A variety of medications have been linked to the development of PPD. We describe a case of levofloxacin-induced PATM.

RELATED ARTICLE: Granulomatous Changes Associated With Pigmented Purpuric Dermatosis

A 42-year-old man presented with a rash on the arms, trunk, abdomen, and legs of 1 month’s duration. He reported no associated itching, bleeding, or pain, and no history of a similar rash. He had a history of hypothyroidism and had been taking levothyroxine for years. He had no known allergies and no history of childhood eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis. Notably, the rash started shortly after the patient finished a 2-week course of levofloxacin, an antibiotic he had not taken in the past. The patient resided with his wife, 3 children, and a pet dog, and no family members had the rash. Prior to presentation, the patient had tried econazole cream and then triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.5% without any clinical improvement.

A complete review of systems was unremarkable. Physical examination revealed scattered, reddish brown, annular, nonscaly patches on the back, abdomen (Figure 1), arms, and legs with nonblanching petechiae within the patches.

A punch biopsy of the left inner thigh demonstrated patchy interface dermatitis, superficial perivascular inflammation, and numerous extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis (Figure 2). The histologic features were compatible with the clinical impression of PATM. The patient presented for a follow-up visit 2 weeks later with no new lesions and the old lesions were rapidly fading (Figure 3).

Pigmented purpuric dermatoses are a group of conditions that have different clinical morphologies but similar histopathologic examinations.² All PPDs are characterized by nonblanching, nonpalpable, purpuric lesions that often are bilaterally symmetrical and present on the legs.^2,3 Although the precise etiology of these conditions is not known, most cases include a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate along with the presence of extravasated erythrocytes and hemosiderin deposition in the dermis.² Of note, PATM often is idiopathic and patients usually present with no associated comorbidities.³ The currently established PPDs include progressive pigmentary dermatosis (Schamberg disease), PATM, pigmented purpuric lichenoid dermatosis of Gougerot and Blum, lichen aureus, and eczematidlike purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis.^2,4

RELATED ARTICLE: Granulomatous Pigmented Purpuric Dermatosis

The lesions of PATM are symmetrically distributed on the bilateral legs and may be symptomatic in most cases, with severe pruritus being reported in several drug-induced PATM cases.^3,5 Although the exact etiology of PPDs currently is unknown, some contributing factors that are thought to play a role include exercise, venous stasis, gravitational dependence, capillary fragility, hypertension, drugs, chemical exposure or ingestions, and contact allergy to dyes.³ Some of the drugs known to cause drug-induced PPDs fall into the class of sedatives, stimulants, antibiotics, cardiovascular drugs, vitamins, and nutritional supplements.^3,6 Some medications that have been reported to cause PPDs include acetaminophen, aspirin, carbamazepine, diltiazem, furosemide, glipizide, hydralazine, infliximab, isotretinoin, lorazepam, minocycline, nitroglycerine, and sildenafil.^3,7-15

Although the mechanism of drug-induced PPD is not completely understood, it is thought that the ingested substance leads to an immunologic response in the capillary endothelium, which results in a cell-mediated immune response causing vascular damage.³ The ingested substance may act as a hapten, stimulating antibody formation and immune-mediated injury, leading to the clinical presentation of nonblanching, symmetric, purpuric, telangiectatic, and atrophic patches at the site of injury.^1,3

Levofloxacin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that has activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. It inhibits the enzymes DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV, preventing bacteria from undergoing proper DNA synthesis.¹⁶ Our patient’s rash began shortly after a 2-week course of levofloxacin and faded within a few weeks of discontinuing the drug; the clinical presentation, time course, and histologic appearance of the lesions were consistent with the diagnosis of drug-induced PPD. Of note, solar capillaritis has been reported following a phototoxic reaction induced by levofloxacin.¹⁷ Our case differs in that our patient had annular lesions on both photoprotected and photoexposed skin.

The first-line interventions for the treatment of PPDs are nonpharmacologic, such as discontinuation of an offending drug or allergen or wearing supportive stockings if there are signs of venous stasis. Other interventions include the use of a medium- or high-potency topical corticosteroid once to twice daily to affected areas for 4 to 6 weeks.¹⁸ Some case series also have shown improvement with narrowband UVB treatment after 24 to 28 treatment sessions or with psoralen plus UVA phototherapy within 7 to 20 treatments.^19,20 If the above measures are unsuccessful in resolving symptoms, other treatment alternatives may include pentoxifylline, griseofulvin, colchicine, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. The potential benefit of treatment must be weighed against the side-effect profile of these medications.^2,21-24 Of note, oral rutoside (50 mg twice daily) and ascorbic acid (500 mg twice daily) were administered to 3 patients with chronic progressive pigmented purpura. At the end of the 4-week treatment period, complete clearance of skin lesions was seen in all patients with no adverse reactions noted.²⁵

Despite these treatment options, PATM does not necessitate treatment given its benign course and often self-resolving nature.²⁶ In cases of drug-induced PPD such as in our patient, discontinuation of the offending drug often may lead to resolution.

In summary, PATM is a PPD that has been associated with different etiologic factors. If PATM is suspected to be caused by a drug, discontinuation of the offending agent usually results in resolution of symptoms, as it did in our case with fading of lesions within a few weeks after the patient was no longer taking levofloxacin.

Case Report

A 39-year-old woman with a 20-year history of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presented to a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital with painful ulcerations on the bilateral dorsal feet that started as bullae 16 weeks prior to presentation. Initial skin biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist 8 weeks prior to presentation showed vasculitis and culture was positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. She was started on a prednisone taper and cephalexin, which did not improve the lower extremity ulcerations and the pain became progressively worse. At the time of presentation to our dermatology department, the patient was taking prednisone, hydroxychloroquine, hydrocodone-acetaminophen, and gabapentin. Prior therapy with sulfasalazine failed; etanercept and methotrexate were discontinued years prior due to side effects. The patient had no history of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or miscarriage.

At presentation, the patient was afebrile and her vital signs were stable. Physical examination showed multiple ulcers and erosions on the bilateral dorsal feet with a few scattered retiform red-purple patches (Figure). One bulla was present on the right dorsal foot. All lesions were tender to the touch and edema was present on the bilateral feet. No oral ulcerations were present and no focal neuropathies or palpable cords were appreciated in the lower extremities. There were no other cutaneous abnormalities.

Laboratory studies showed a white blood cell count of 9.54×10³/µL (reference range, 4.16-9.95×10³/µL), hemoglobin count of 12.4 g/dL (reference range, 11.6-15.2 g/dL), and a platelet count of 175×10³/µL (reference range, 143-398×10³/µL). A basic metabolic panel was normal except for an elevated glucose level of 185 mg/dL (reference range, 65-100 mg/dL). Urinalysis was normal. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level were not elevated. Antinuclear antibodies and double-stranded DNA antibodies were normal. Prothrombin time was 10.4 seconds (reference range, 9.2-11.5 seconds) and dilute viper's venom time was negative. Rheumatoid factor level was elevated at 76 IU/mL (reference range, <25 IU/mL) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody was moderately elevated at 42 U/mL (negative, <20 U/mL; weak positive, 20-39 U/mL; moderate positive, 40-59 U/mL; strong positive, >59 U/mL). The cardiolipin antibodies IgG, IgM, and IgA were within reference range. Results of β₂-glycoprotein I IgG and IgM antibody tests were normal, but IgA was elevated at 34 µg/mL (reference range, <20 µg/mL). Wound cultures grew moderate Enterobacter cloacae and Staphylococcus lugdunensis.

Slides from 2 prior punch biopsies obtained by an outside hospital approximately 8 weeks prior from the right and left dorsal foot lesions were reviewed. Both biopsies were histologically similar. Postcapillary venules showed extensive vasculitis with numerous fibrin thrombi in the lumens in both biopsy specimens. The biopsy from the right foot showed prominent ulceration of the epidermis, with a few of the affected vessels showing minimal accompanying nuclear dust; however, the predominant pattern was not that of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Biopsy from the left foot showed prominent epidermal necrosis with focal reepithelialization and scattered eosinophils. The pathologist felt that a vasculitis secondary to coagulopathy was most likely but that a drug reaction and rheumatoid vasculitis would be other entities to consider in the differential. A review of the laboratory findings from the outside hospital from approximately 12 weeks prior to presentation showed IgM was normal but IgG was elevated at 28 U/mL (reference range, 0-15 U/mL) and IgA was elevated at 8 U/mL (reference range, 0-7 U/mL); β₂-glycoprotein I IgG antibodies were elevated at 37 mg/dL (reference range, 0-25.0 mg/dL) and β₂-glycoprotein I IgA antibodies were elevated at 5 mg/dL (reference range, 0-4.0 mg/dL).

The clinical suspicion of a thrombotic event on the dorsal feet, which was confirmed histologically, and the persistently positive antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody titers helped to establish the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in the setting of RA. The dose of prednisone was increased from 10 mg daily on admission to 40 mg daily. The patient was started on enoxaparin 60 mg subcutaneously twice daily at initial presentation and was bridged to oral warfarin 2 mg daily after the diagnosis of APS was established. Oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started for wound infection. The ulcerations gradually improved over the course of her 7-day hospitalization. She was continued on prednisone, hydroxychloroquine, and warfarin as an outpatient and has had no recurrence of lesions after 3 years of follow-up on this regimen.

Comment

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune condition defined by a venous and/or arterial thrombotic event and/or pregnancy morbidity in the presence of persistently elevated aPL antibody titers. The most frequently detected subgroups of aPL are anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, anti-β₂-glycoprotein I antibodies, and lupus anticoagulants.¹ Primary APS occurs as an isolated entity, whereas secondary APS occurs in the setting of a preexisting autoimmune disease, infection, malignancy, or medication.² The diagnostic criteria for APS requires positive aPL titers at least 12 weeks apart and a clinically confirmed thrombotic event or pregnancy morbidity.³

About one-third to half of patients with APS exhibit cutaneous manifestations.^4,5 Livedo reticularis is most commonly observed and represents the first clinical sign of APS in 17.5% of cases.6 Cutaneous findings of APS also include anetoderma, cutaneous ulceration and necrosis, necrotizing vasculitis, livedoid vasculitis, thrombophlebitis, purpura, ecchymoses, painful skin nodules, and subungual hemorrhages.⁷ The various cutaneous manifestations of APS are associated with a range of histopathologic findings, but noninflammatory thrombosis in small arteries and/or veins in the dermis and subcutaneous fat tissue is the most common histologic feature.⁴ Our patient exhibited cutaneous ulceration and necrosis, and biopsy clearly showed the presence of vasculitis and fibrin thrombi within postcapillary venules. These findings along with the persistently elevated β₂-glycoprotein I IgA solidified the diagnosis of APS.

The most common cutaneous manifestations of RA are nodules (32%), Raynaud phenomenon (10%), and vasculitis (3%).⁸ The mean prevalence of aPL antibodies in patients with RA is 28%, though reports range from 5% to 75%.¹ The presence of aPL or aCL does not predict the development of thrombosis and/or thrombocytopenia in RA patients^9,10; however, aCL antibodies in RA patients are associated with a higher risk for developing rheumatoid nodules. It is hypothesized that the majority of aCL antibodies identified in RA patients have different specificities than those identified in other diseases that are associated with thrombotic events.¹

Anticoagulation has been proven to decrease the risk for recurrent thrombotic events in patients with APS.¹¹ Patients should discontinue the use of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives; avoid smoking cigarettes; and treat hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus, if present. The type and duration of anticoagulation therapy, especially for the treatment of the cutaneous manifestations of APS, is less well defined. Antiplatelet therapies such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole often are used for less severe cutaneous manifestations such as livedoid vasculopathy. Warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 is most commonly used following major thrombotic events, including cutaneous necrosis and digital gangrene. The role of corticosteroids and immunosuppressants is unclear; one study showed that these therapies did not prevent further thrombotic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.⁴

Conclusion

Although aPL antibodies are most prevalent in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, an estimated 28% of patients with RA have elevated aPL titers. The aPL antibodies recognized in RA patients are thought to have a different specificity than those recognized in other APS-associated diseases because elevated aPL antibody titers are not associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events in RA patients; however, larger studies are needed to clarify this phenomenon. It remains to be determined if this case of APS and RA represents a coincidence or a true disease association, but the recognition of the cutaneous and histological features of APS is crucial for establishing a diagnosis and initiating anticoagulation therapy to prevent further morbidity and mortality.

Case Report

A 39-year-old woman with a 20-year history of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presented to a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital with painful ulcerations on the bilateral dorsal feet that started as bullae 16 weeks prior to presentation. Initial skin biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist 8 weeks prior to presentation showed vasculitis and culture was positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. She was started on a prednisone taper and cephalexin, which did not improve the lower extremity ulcerations and the pain became progressively worse. At the time of presentation to our dermatology department, the patient was taking prednisone, hydroxychloroquine, hydrocodone-acetaminophen, and gabapentin. Prior therapy with sulfasalazine failed; etanercept and methotrexate were discontinued years prior due to side effects. The patient had no history of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or miscarriage.

At presentation, the patient was afebrile and her vital signs were stable. Physical examination showed multiple ulcers and erosions on the bilateral dorsal feet with a few scattered retiform red-purple patches (Figure). One bulla was present on the right dorsal foot. All lesions were tender to the touch and edema was present on the bilateral feet. No oral ulcerations were present and no focal neuropathies or palpable cords were appreciated in the lower extremities. There were no other cutaneous abnormalities.

Laboratory studies showed a white blood cell count of 9.54×10³/µL (reference range, 4.16-9.95×10³/µL), hemoglobin count of 12.4 g/dL (reference range, 11.6-15.2 g/dL), and a platelet count of 175×10³/µL (reference range, 143-398×10³/µL). A basic metabolic panel was normal except for an elevated glucose level of 185 mg/dL (reference range, 65-100 mg/dL). Urinalysis was normal. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level were not elevated. Antinuclear antibodies and double-stranded DNA antibodies were normal. Prothrombin time was 10.4 seconds (reference range, 9.2-11.5 seconds) and dilute viper's venom time was negative. Rheumatoid factor level was elevated at 76 IU/mL (reference range, <25 IU/mL) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody was moderately elevated at 42 U/mL (negative, <20 U/mL; weak positive, 20-39 U/mL; moderate positive, 40-59 U/mL; strong positive, >59 U/mL). The cardiolipin antibodies IgG, IgM, and IgA were within reference range. Results of β₂-glycoprotein I IgG and IgM antibody tests were normal, but IgA was elevated at 34 µg/mL (reference range, <20 µg/mL). Wound cultures grew moderate Enterobacter cloacae and Staphylococcus lugdunensis.

Slides from 2 prior punch biopsies obtained by an outside hospital approximately 8 weeks prior from the right and left dorsal foot lesions were reviewed. Both biopsies were histologically similar. Postcapillary venules showed extensive vasculitis with numerous fibrin thrombi in the lumens in both biopsy specimens. The biopsy from the right foot showed prominent ulceration of the epidermis, with a few of the affected vessels showing minimal accompanying nuclear dust; however, the predominant pattern was not that of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Biopsy from the left foot showed prominent epidermal necrosis with focal reepithelialization and scattered eosinophils. The pathologist felt that a vasculitis secondary to coagulopathy was most likely but that a drug reaction and rheumatoid vasculitis would be other entities to consider in the differential. A review of the laboratory findings from the outside hospital from approximately 12 weeks prior to presentation showed IgM was normal but IgG was elevated at 28 U/mL (reference range, 0-15 U/mL) and IgA was elevated at 8 U/mL (reference range, 0-7 U/mL); β₂-glycoprotein I IgG antibodies were elevated at 37 mg/dL (reference range, 0-25.0 mg/dL) and β₂-glycoprotein I IgA antibodies were elevated at 5 mg/dL (reference range, 0-4.0 mg/dL).

The clinical suspicion of a thrombotic event on the dorsal feet, which was confirmed histologically, and the persistently positive antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody titers helped to establish the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in the setting of RA. The dose of prednisone was increased from 10 mg daily on admission to 40 mg daily. The patient was started on enoxaparin 60 mg subcutaneously twice daily at initial presentation and was bridged to oral warfarin 2 mg daily after the diagnosis of APS was established. Oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started for wound infection. The ulcerations gradually improved over the course of her 7-day hospitalization. She was continued on prednisone, hydroxychloroquine, and warfarin as an outpatient and has had no recurrence of lesions after 3 years of follow-up on this regimen.

Comment

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune condition defined by a venous and/or arterial thrombotic event and/or pregnancy morbidity in the presence of persistently elevated aPL antibody titers. The most frequently detected subgroups of aPL are anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, anti-β₂-glycoprotein I antibodies, and lupus anticoagulants.¹ Primary APS occurs as an isolated entity, whereas secondary APS occurs in the setting of a preexisting autoimmune disease, infection, malignancy, or medication.² The diagnostic criteria for APS requires positive aPL titers at least 12 weeks apart and a clinically confirmed thrombotic event or pregnancy morbidity.³

About one-third to half of patients with APS exhibit cutaneous manifestations.^4,5 Livedo reticularis is most commonly observed and represents the first clinical sign of APS in 17.5% of cases.6 Cutaneous findings of APS also include anetoderma, cutaneous ulceration and necrosis, necrotizing vasculitis, livedoid vasculitis, thrombophlebitis, purpura, ecchymoses, painful skin nodules, and subungual hemorrhages.⁷ The various cutaneous manifestations of APS are associated with a range of histopathologic findings, but noninflammatory thrombosis in small arteries and/or veins in the dermis and subcutaneous fat tissue is the most common histologic feature.⁴ Our patient exhibited cutaneous ulceration and necrosis, and biopsy clearly showed the presence of vasculitis and fibrin thrombi within postcapillary venules. These findings along with the persistently elevated β₂-glycoprotein I IgA solidified the diagnosis of APS.

The most common cutaneous manifestations of RA are nodules (32%), Raynaud phenomenon (10%), and vasculitis (3%).⁸ The mean prevalence of aPL antibodies in patients with RA is 28%, though reports range from 5% to 75%.¹ The presence of aPL or aCL does not predict the development of thrombosis and/or thrombocytopenia in RA patients^9,10; however, aCL antibodies in RA patients are associated with a higher risk for developing rheumatoid nodules. It is hypothesized that the majority of aCL antibodies identified in RA patients have different specificities than those identified in other diseases that are associated with thrombotic events.¹

Anticoagulation has been proven to decrease the risk for recurrent thrombotic events in patients with APS.¹¹ Patients should discontinue the use of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives; avoid smoking cigarettes; and treat hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus, if present. The type and duration of anticoagulation therapy, especially for the treatment of the cutaneous manifestations of APS, is less well defined. Antiplatelet therapies such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole often are used for less severe cutaneous manifestations such as livedoid vasculopathy. Warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 is most commonly used following major thrombotic events, including cutaneous necrosis and digital gangrene. The role of corticosteroids and immunosuppressants is unclear; one study showed that these therapies did not prevent further thrombotic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.⁴

Conclusion

Although aPL antibodies are most prevalent in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, an estimated 28% of patients with RA have elevated aPL titers. The aPL antibodies recognized in RA patients are thought to have a different specificity than those recognized in other APS-associated diseases because elevated aPL antibody titers are not associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events in RA patients; however, larger studies are needed to clarify this phenomenon. It remains to be determined if this case of APS and RA represents a coincidence or a true disease association, but the recognition of the cutaneous and histological features of APS is crucial for establishing a diagnosis and initiating anticoagulation therapy to prevent further morbidity and mortality.

Case Report

A 39-year-old woman with a 20-year history of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presented to a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital with painful ulcerations on the bilateral dorsal feet that started as bullae 16 weeks prior to presentation. Initial skin biopsy performed by an outside dermatologist 8 weeks prior to presentation showed vasculitis and culture was positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. She was started on a prednisone taper and cephalexin, which did not improve the lower extremity ulcerations and the pain became progressively worse. At the time of presentation to our dermatology department, the patient was taking prednisone, hydroxychloroquine, hydrocodone-acetaminophen, and gabapentin. Prior therapy with sulfasalazine failed; etanercept and methotrexate were discontinued years prior due to side effects. The patient had no history of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or miscarriage.

At presentation, the patient was afebrile and her vital signs were stable. Physical examination showed multiple ulcers and erosions on the bilateral dorsal feet with a few scattered retiform red-purple patches (Figure). One bulla was present on the right dorsal foot. All lesions were tender to the touch and edema was present on the bilateral feet. No oral ulcerations were present and no focal neuropathies or palpable cords were appreciated in the lower extremities. There were no other cutaneous abnormalities.

Laboratory studies showed a white blood cell count of 9.54×10³/µL (reference range, 4.16-9.95×10³/µL), hemoglobin count of 12.4 g/dL (reference range, 11.6-15.2 g/dL), and a platelet count of 175×10³/µL (reference range, 143-398×10³/µL). A basic metabolic panel was normal except for an elevated glucose level of 185 mg/dL (reference range, 65-100 mg/dL). Urinalysis was normal. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level were not elevated. Antinuclear antibodies and double-stranded DNA antibodies were normal. Prothrombin time was 10.4 seconds (reference range, 9.2-11.5 seconds) and dilute viper's venom time was negative. Rheumatoid factor level was elevated at 76 IU/mL (reference range, <25 IU/mL) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody was moderately elevated at 42 U/mL (negative, <20 U/mL; weak positive, 20-39 U/mL; moderate positive, 40-59 U/mL; strong positive, >59 U/mL). The cardiolipin antibodies IgG, IgM, and IgA were within reference range. Results of β₂-glycoprotein I IgG and IgM antibody tests were normal, but IgA was elevated at 34 µg/mL (reference range, <20 µg/mL). Wound cultures grew moderate Enterobacter cloacae and Staphylococcus lugdunensis.

Slides from 2 prior punch biopsies obtained by an outside hospital approximately 8 weeks prior from the right and left dorsal foot lesions were reviewed. Both biopsies were histologically similar. Postcapillary venules showed extensive vasculitis with numerous fibrin thrombi in the lumens in both biopsy specimens. The biopsy from the right foot showed prominent ulceration of the epidermis, with a few of the affected vessels showing minimal accompanying nuclear dust; however, the predominant pattern was not that of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Biopsy from the left foot showed prominent epidermal necrosis with focal reepithelialization and scattered eosinophils. The pathologist felt that a vasculitis secondary to coagulopathy was most likely but that a drug reaction and rheumatoid vasculitis would be other entities to consider in the differential. A review of the laboratory findings from the outside hospital from approximately 12 weeks prior to presentation showed IgM was normal but IgG was elevated at 28 U/mL (reference range, 0-15 U/mL) and IgA was elevated at 8 U/mL (reference range, 0-7 U/mL); β₂-glycoprotein I IgG antibodies were elevated at 37 mg/dL (reference range, 0-25.0 mg/dL) and β₂-glycoprotein I IgA antibodies were elevated at 5 mg/dL (reference range, 0-4.0 mg/dL).

The clinical suspicion of a thrombotic event on the dorsal feet, which was confirmed histologically, and the persistently positive antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody titers helped to establish the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in the setting of RA. The dose of prednisone was increased from 10 mg daily on admission to 40 mg daily. The patient was started on enoxaparin 60 mg subcutaneously twice daily at initial presentation and was bridged to oral warfarin 2 mg daily after the diagnosis of APS was established. Oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started for wound infection. The ulcerations gradually improved over the course of her 7-day hospitalization. She was continued on prednisone, hydroxychloroquine, and warfarin as an outpatient and has had no recurrence of lesions after 3 years of follow-up on this regimen.

Comment

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune condition defined by a venous and/or arterial thrombotic event and/or pregnancy morbidity in the presence of persistently elevated aPL antibody titers. The most frequently detected subgroups of aPL are anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, anti-β₂-glycoprotein I antibodies, and lupus anticoagulants.¹ Primary APS occurs as an isolated entity, whereas secondary APS occurs in the setting of a preexisting autoimmune disease, infection, malignancy, or medication.² The diagnostic criteria for APS requires positive aPL titers at least 12 weeks apart and a clinically confirmed thrombotic event or pregnancy morbidity.³

About one-third to half of patients with APS exhibit cutaneous manifestations.^4,5 Livedo reticularis is most commonly observed and represents the first clinical sign of APS in 17.5% of cases.6 Cutaneous findings of APS also include anetoderma, cutaneous ulceration and necrosis, necrotizing vasculitis, livedoid vasculitis, thrombophlebitis, purpura, ecchymoses, painful skin nodules, and subungual hemorrhages.⁷ The various cutaneous manifestations of APS are associated with a range of histopathologic findings, but noninflammatory thrombosis in small arteries and/or veins in the dermis and subcutaneous fat tissue is the most common histologic feature.⁴ Our patient exhibited cutaneous ulceration and necrosis, and biopsy clearly showed the presence of vasculitis and fibrin thrombi within postcapillary venules. These findings along with the persistently elevated β₂-glycoprotein I IgA solidified the diagnosis of APS.

The most common cutaneous manifestations of RA are nodules (32%), Raynaud phenomenon (10%), and vasculitis (3%).⁸ The mean prevalence of aPL antibodies in patients with RA is 28%, though reports range from 5% to 75%.¹ The presence of aPL or aCL does not predict the development of thrombosis and/or thrombocytopenia in RA patients^9,10; however, aCL antibodies in RA patients are associated with a higher risk for developing rheumatoid nodules. It is hypothesized that the majority of aCL antibodies identified in RA patients have different specificities than those identified in other diseases that are associated with thrombotic events.¹

Anticoagulation has been proven to decrease the risk for recurrent thrombotic events in patients with APS.¹¹ Patients should discontinue the use of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives; avoid smoking cigarettes; and treat hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus, if present. The type and duration of anticoagulation therapy, especially for the treatment of the cutaneous manifestations of APS, is less well defined. Antiplatelet therapies such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole often are used for less severe cutaneous manifestations such as livedoid vasculopathy. Warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 is most commonly used following major thrombotic events, including cutaneous necrosis and digital gangrene. The role of corticosteroids and immunosuppressants is unclear; one study showed that these therapies did not prevent further thrombotic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.⁴

Conclusion

Although aPL antibodies are most prevalent in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, an estimated 28% of patients with RA have elevated aPL titers. The aPL antibodies recognized in RA patients are thought to have a different specificity than those recognized in other APS-associated diseases because elevated aPL antibody titers are not associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events in RA patients; however, larger studies are needed to clarify this phenomenon. It remains to be determined if this case of APS and RA represents a coincidence or a true disease association, but the recognition of the cutaneous and histological features of APS is crucial for establishing a diagnosis and initiating anticoagulation therapy to prevent further morbidity and mortality.