MDedge Dermatology

After years of declining vaccination coverage worldwide, measles deaths increased by 43% in 2022, compared with 2021. The number of total reported cases rose by 18% over the same period, accounting for approximately 9 million cases and 136,000 deaths globally, mostly among children. This information comes from a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO), published in partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More Measles Outbreaks

The report also notes an increase in the number of countries experiencing significant measles outbreaks. There were 37 such countries in 2022, compared with 22 the previous year. The most affected continents were Africa and Asia.

“The rise in measles outbreaks and deaths is impressive but, unfortunately, not surprising, given the decline in vaccination rates in recent years,” said John Vertefeuille, PhD, director of the CDC’s Global Immunization Division.

Vertefeuille emphasized that measles cases anywhere in the world pose a risk to “countries and communities where people are undervaccinated.” In recent years, several regions have fallen short of their immunization targets.

Vaccination Trends

In 2022, there was a slight increase in measles vaccination after a decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global healthcare systems. However, 33 million children did not receive at least one dose of the vaccine last year: 22 million missed the first dose, and 11 million missed the second.

For communities to be considered protected against outbreaks, immunization coverage with the full vaccine cycle should be at least 95%. The global coverage rate for the first dose was 83%, and for the second, it was 74%.

Nevertheless, immunization recovery has not reached the poorest countries, where the immunization rate stands at 66%. Brazil is among the top 10 countries where more children missed the first dose in 2022. These nations account for over half of the 22 million unadministered vaccines. According to the report, half a million children did not receive the vaccine in Brazil.

Measles in Brazil

Brazil’s results highlight setbacks in vaccination efforts. In 2016, the country was certified to have eliminated measles, but after experiencing outbreaks in 2018, the certification was lost in 2019. In 2018, Brazil confirmed 9325 cases. The situation worsened in 2019 with 20,901 diagnoses. Since then, numbers have been decreasing: 8100 in 2020, 676 in 2021, and 44 in 2022.

Last year, four Brazilian states reported confirmed virus cases: Rio de Janeiro, Pará, São Paulo, and Amapá. Ministry of Health data indicated no confirmed measles cases in Brazil as of June 15, 2023.

Vaccination in Brazil

Vaccination coverage in Brazil, which once reached 95%, has sharply declined in recent years. The rate of patients receiving the full immunization scheme was 59% in 2021.

Globally, although the COVID-19 pandemic affected measles vaccination, measures like social isolation and mask use potentially contributed to reducing measles cases. The incidence of the disease decreased in 2020 and 2021 but is now rising again.

“From 2021 to 2022, reported measles cases increased by 67% worldwide, and the number of countries experiencing large or disruptive outbreaks increased by 68%,” the report stated.

Because of these data, the WHO and the CDC urge increased efforts for vaccination, along with improvements in epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in developing nations. “Children everywhere have the right to be protected by the lifesaving measles vaccine, no matter where they live,” said Kate O’Brien, MD, director of immunization, vaccines, and biologicals at the WHO.

“Measles is called the virus of inequality for a good reason. It is the disease that will find and attack those who are not protected.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

After years of declining vaccination coverage worldwide, measles deaths increased by 43% in 2022, compared with 2021. The number of total reported cases rose by 18% over the same period, accounting for approximately 9 million cases and 136,000 deaths globally, mostly among children. This information comes from a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO), published in partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More Measles Outbreaks

The report also notes an increase in the number of countries experiencing significant measles outbreaks. There were 37 such countries in 2022, compared with 22 the previous year. The most affected continents were Africa and Asia.

“The rise in measles outbreaks and deaths is impressive but, unfortunately, not surprising, given the decline in vaccination rates in recent years,” said John Vertefeuille, PhD, director of the CDC’s Global Immunization Division.

Vertefeuille emphasized that measles cases anywhere in the world pose a risk to “countries and communities where people are undervaccinated.” In recent years, several regions have fallen short of their immunization targets.

Vaccination Trends

In 2022, there was a slight increase in measles vaccination after a decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global healthcare systems. However, 33 million children did not receive at least one dose of the vaccine last year: 22 million missed the first dose, and 11 million missed the second.

For communities to be considered protected against outbreaks, immunization coverage with the full vaccine cycle should be at least 95%. The global coverage rate for the first dose was 83%, and for the second, it was 74%.

Nevertheless, immunization recovery has not reached the poorest countries, where the immunization rate stands at 66%. Brazil is among the top 10 countries where more children missed the first dose in 2022. These nations account for over half of the 22 million unadministered vaccines. According to the report, half a million children did not receive the vaccine in Brazil.

Measles in Brazil

Brazil’s results highlight setbacks in vaccination efforts. In 2016, the country was certified to have eliminated measles, but after experiencing outbreaks in 2018, the certification was lost in 2019. In 2018, Brazil confirmed 9325 cases. The situation worsened in 2019 with 20,901 diagnoses. Since then, numbers have been decreasing: 8100 in 2020, 676 in 2021, and 44 in 2022.

Last year, four Brazilian states reported confirmed virus cases: Rio de Janeiro, Pará, São Paulo, and Amapá. Ministry of Health data indicated no confirmed measles cases in Brazil as of June 15, 2023.

Vaccination in Brazil

Vaccination coverage in Brazil, which once reached 95%, has sharply declined in recent years. The rate of patients receiving the full immunization scheme was 59% in 2021.

Globally, although the COVID-19 pandemic affected measles vaccination, measures like social isolation and mask use potentially contributed to reducing measles cases. The incidence of the disease decreased in 2020 and 2021 but is now rising again.

“From 2021 to 2022, reported measles cases increased by 67% worldwide, and the number of countries experiencing large or disruptive outbreaks increased by 68%,” the report stated.

Because of these data, the WHO and the CDC urge increased efforts for vaccination, along with improvements in epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in developing nations. “Children everywhere have the right to be protected by the lifesaving measles vaccine, no matter where they live,” said Kate O’Brien, MD, director of immunization, vaccines, and biologicals at the WHO.

“Measles is called the virus of inequality for a good reason. It is the disease that will find and attack those who are not protected.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

After years of declining vaccination coverage worldwide, measles deaths increased by 43% in 2022, compared with 2021. The number of total reported cases rose by 18% over the same period, accounting for approximately 9 million cases and 136,000 deaths globally, mostly among children. This information comes from a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO), published in partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More Measles Outbreaks

The report also notes an increase in the number of countries experiencing significant measles outbreaks. There were 37 such countries in 2022, compared with 22 the previous year. The most affected continents were Africa and Asia.

“The rise in measles outbreaks and deaths is impressive but, unfortunately, not surprising, given the decline in vaccination rates in recent years,” said John Vertefeuille, PhD, director of the CDC’s Global Immunization Division.

Vertefeuille emphasized that measles cases anywhere in the world pose a risk to “countries and communities where people are undervaccinated.” In recent years, several regions have fallen short of their immunization targets.

Vaccination Trends

In 2022, there was a slight increase in measles vaccination after a decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global healthcare systems. However, 33 million children did not receive at least one dose of the vaccine last year: 22 million missed the first dose, and 11 million missed the second.

For communities to be considered protected against outbreaks, immunization coverage with the full vaccine cycle should be at least 95%. The global coverage rate for the first dose was 83%, and for the second, it was 74%.

Nevertheless, immunization recovery has not reached the poorest countries, where the immunization rate stands at 66%. Brazil is among the top 10 countries where more children missed the first dose in 2022. These nations account for over half of the 22 million unadministered vaccines. According to the report, half a million children did not receive the vaccine in Brazil.

Measles in Brazil

Brazil’s results highlight setbacks in vaccination efforts. In 2016, the country was certified to have eliminated measles, but after experiencing outbreaks in 2018, the certification was lost in 2019. In 2018, Brazil confirmed 9325 cases. The situation worsened in 2019 with 20,901 diagnoses. Since then, numbers have been decreasing: 8100 in 2020, 676 in 2021, and 44 in 2022.

Last year, four Brazilian states reported confirmed virus cases: Rio de Janeiro, Pará, São Paulo, and Amapá. Ministry of Health data indicated no confirmed measles cases in Brazil as of June 15, 2023.

Vaccination in Brazil

Vaccination coverage in Brazil, which once reached 95%, has sharply declined in recent years. The rate of patients receiving the full immunization scheme was 59% in 2021.

Globally, although the COVID-19 pandemic affected measles vaccination, measures like social isolation and mask use potentially contributed to reducing measles cases. The incidence of the disease decreased in 2020 and 2021 but is now rising again.

“From 2021 to 2022, reported measles cases increased by 67% worldwide, and the number of countries experiencing large or disruptive outbreaks increased by 68%,” the report stated.

Because of these data, the WHO and the CDC urge increased efforts for vaccination, along with improvements in epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in developing nations. “Children everywhere have the right to be protected by the lifesaving measles vaccine, no matter where they live,” said Kate O’Brien, MD, director of immunization, vaccines, and biologicals at the WHO.

“Measles is called the virus of inequality for a good reason. It is the disease that will find and attack those who are not protected.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

Combined therapy with rituximab and omalizumab appears to be well tolerated, and improves outcomes and accelerates time to remission in patients with refractory bullous pemphigoid who do not respond to rituximab alone, results of a case series suggest.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory, blistering disease that mainly occurs in people in their 50s through their 70s. BP has high morbidity and mortality, especially in people with comorbidities common to the elderly, yet no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for BP exist, Stephanie T. Le, MD, a dermatologist in the department of dermatology of the University of California, Davis, told this publication.

May Iosotaluno

All participants received 1000 mg intravenous rituximab on days 0 and 15. In addition to rituximab, seven patients received subcutaneous high-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 2 weeks); and three patients received low-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks or 150 mg every 2 weeks).

After a mean of 2.1 months, all patients in the high-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group had achieved complete remission. By contrast, all patients in the low-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group improved after a mean of 13 months, and none achieved complete remission.

At 3 months, all study participants were rated as being very much improved. All four patients in the high-dose omalizumab group who tapered omalizumab dosage or frequency had flare-ups within 1-3 months that resolved when they restarted the medication. Among patients who achieved complete remission, 4 of 7 required rituximab redosing between 6 and 16 months later. Rituximab alone did not achieve remission: Three patients needed to add high-dose omalizumab. All reported adverse effects were mild.

Alternatives to Corticosteroids Are Needed

For BP, “with no FDA-approved therapies available, corticosteroids remain first line for acute flares. However, prolonged corticosteroid use is associated with multiple adverse effects, including increased susceptibility to infection, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Le pointed out. “Patients with BP who are treated with high-dose corticosteroids have significantly increased mortality and have very poor 1-year survival.

“Rituximab and omalizumab dual therapy offers another potential treatment option for severe or treatment-refractory BP,” she added. “We are hopeful that other physicians will adopt this therapy.”

The authors acknowledged limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of standardized intervals between rituximab and omalizumab, and variation in concurrent therapies, and they recommended further related research.

No conflicts of interest were reported. No funding details were provided.

Combined therapy with rituximab and omalizumab appears to be well tolerated, and improves outcomes and accelerates time to remission in patients with refractory bullous pemphigoid who do not respond to rituximab alone, results of a case series suggest.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory, blistering disease that mainly occurs in people in their 50s through their 70s. BP has high morbidity and mortality, especially in people with comorbidities common to the elderly, yet no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for BP exist, Stephanie T. Le, MD, a dermatologist in the department of dermatology of the University of California, Davis, told this publication.

May Iosotaluno

All participants received 1000 mg intravenous rituximab on days 0 and 15. In addition to rituximab, seven patients received subcutaneous high-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 2 weeks); and three patients received low-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks or 150 mg every 2 weeks).

After a mean of 2.1 months, all patients in the high-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group had achieved complete remission. By contrast, all patients in the low-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group improved after a mean of 13 months, and none achieved complete remission.

At 3 months, all study participants were rated as being very much improved. All four patients in the high-dose omalizumab group who tapered omalizumab dosage or frequency had flare-ups within 1-3 months that resolved when they restarted the medication. Among patients who achieved complete remission, 4 of 7 required rituximab redosing between 6 and 16 months later. Rituximab alone did not achieve remission: Three patients needed to add high-dose omalizumab. All reported adverse effects were mild.

Alternatives to Corticosteroids Are Needed

For BP, “with no FDA-approved therapies available, corticosteroids remain first line for acute flares. However, prolonged corticosteroid use is associated with multiple adverse effects, including increased susceptibility to infection, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Le pointed out. “Patients with BP who are treated with high-dose corticosteroids have significantly increased mortality and have very poor 1-year survival.

“Rituximab and omalizumab dual therapy offers another potential treatment option for severe or treatment-refractory BP,” she added. “We are hopeful that other physicians will adopt this therapy.”

The authors acknowledged limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of standardized intervals between rituximab and omalizumab, and variation in concurrent therapies, and they recommended further related research.

No conflicts of interest were reported. No funding details were provided.

Combined therapy with rituximab and omalizumab appears to be well tolerated, and improves outcomes and accelerates time to remission in patients with refractory bullous pemphigoid who do not respond to rituximab alone, results of a case series suggest.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory, blistering disease that mainly occurs in people in their 50s through their 70s. BP has high morbidity and mortality, especially in people with comorbidities common to the elderly, yet no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for BP exist, Stephanie T. Le, MD, a dermatologist in the department of dermatology of the University of California, Davis, told this publication.

May Iosotaluno

All participants received 1000 mg intravenous rituximab on days 0 and 15. In addition to rituximab, seven patients received subcutaneous high-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 2 weeks); and three patients received low-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks or 150 mg every 2 weeks).

After a mean of 2.1 months, all patients in the high-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group had achieved complete remission. By contrast, all patients in the low-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group improved after a mean of 13 months, and none achieved complete remission.

At 3 months, all study participants were rated as being very much improved. All four patients in the high-dose omalizumab group who tapered omalizumab dosage or frequency had flare-ups within 1-3 months that resolved when they restarted the medication. Among patients who achieved complete remission, 4 of 7 required rituximab redosing between 6 and 16 months later. Rituximab alone did not achieve remission: Three patients needed to add high-dose omalizumab. All reported adverse effects were mild.

Alternatives to Corticosteroids Are Needed

For BP, “with no FDA-approved therapies available, corticosteroids remain first line for acute flares. However, prolonged corticosteroid use is associated with multiple adverse effects, including increased susceptibility to infection, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Le pointed out. “Patients with BP who are treated with high-dose corticosteroids have significantly increased mortality and have very poor 1-year survival.

“Rituximab and omalizumab dual therapy offers another potential treatment option for severe or treatment-refractory BP,” she added. “We are hopeful that other physicians will adopt this therapy.”

The authors acknowledged limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of standardized intervals between rituximab and omalizumab, and variation in concurrent therapies, and they recommended further related research.

No conflicts of interest were reported. No funding details were provided.

Follicular occlusion, mast cell disease, and eczema were common presentations among patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), in a study of nearly 500 individuals.

The genetic cause of hEDS, a common inherited connective tissue disorder, remains unknown, wrote Alan Snyder, MD, of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues.

Previous research suggests that changes in dermal mechanics predispose these patients to a range of skin conditions including mast cell activation disorder (MCAD) spectrum and chronic spontaneous urticaria, abnormal scars or wound healing, piezogenic papules, dyshidrosis, skin laxity or softness, easy bruising, local anesthesia resistance, keratosis pilaris, striae, and hidradenitis suppurativa, the researchers wrote.

However, data on these and other dermatologic manifestations of hEDS are limited, they said.

The diagnosis of hEDS will continue to be made more frequently and carefully, as the condition becomes more recognized and understood in the medical community, especially with anticipated capabilities of genetic testing, Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“Being able to be aware of disease-specific comorbidities, such as those discovered in this study, allows providers to better stratify phenotypes and improve patient disease co-management,” he said.

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers reviewed data on 1,364 patients with ICD-10 or ICD-9 codes for hEDS or EDS unspecified who were seen at a single institution between June 2005 and May 2022. Most of the patients were White (95.4%) and female (86.7%); the average age was 29.2 years.

Of the 1,364 patients included in the chart review, 497 (36.4%) had documented skin manifestations. Of these, 118 (24.2%) had disorders of follicular occlusion (12 had hidradenitis suppurativa, 32 had folliculitis, and 74 had acne); 112 (23%) had eczema or atopic dermatitis, 98 (19.7%) had mast cell disorder, 32 (6.4%) had psoriasis, and 32 (6.4%) had wound healing issues (16 had hypertrophic keloids/scarring, 5 had abscesses, 3 had abnormal bruising, and 8 had other would healing issues).

The study also included results of a multiple-choice patient survey from 1,354 individuals. In the survey, approximately two-thirds of patients reported abnormal scarring, abnormal wound healing, and cutaneous laxity (61.7%, 69.0%, and 71.0%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective study design, lack of testing to confirm hEDS diagnosis, and the potential interdisciplinary selection bias for diagnoses, the authors noted.

However, the results support previous studies showing increased rates of occlusive conditions in hEDS and higher rates of acne, folliculitis, and psoriasis, and highlight the need for clinician education to manage patients and promote better outcomes, the researchers concluded.

Data Enhance Clinical Awareness

“Given the increasingly understood relation between TH2-directed and mast-cell mediated diseases and hEDS, it was not necessarily a surprise to find the increased prevalence of atopy and mast cell disease, but rather an interesting confirmation, within the limitations that exist with retrospective chart review,” Dr. Snyder told this news organization. “While it may make some intuitive sense that certain cohorts with higher risk of HS may have a higher risk of acne, this had not been reported in the literature to date,” he noted. “Given the high levels of patient reported issues with scarring and wound healing, I was surprised that so few analogous diagnoses were physician-reported in the medical records.”

In clinical practice, “health care professionals and patients need to be aware hEDS is associated with high rates of eczematous, mast-cell mediated and follicular occlusive cutaneous disorders,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “There seems to be a discrepancy between patients and physician awareness of scarring or wound healing issues in this patient population,” he added.

Looking ahead, “we need to better research and characterize the various hEDS phenotypes to understand who is at highest risk for various TH2-mediated or follicular occlusive disorders,” said Dr. Snyder. “Moreover, a greater understanding is needed of the wound healing inadequacies that predispose these patients to poor outcomes during dermatologic surgery,” he said.

The study was supported by the Ehlers-Danlos Society and the Milton and Tamar Maltz Family Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Follicular occlusion, mast cell disease, and eczema were common presentations among patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), in a study of nearly 500 individuals.

The genetic cause of hEDS, a common inherited connective tissue disorder, remains unknown, wrote Alan Snyder, MD, of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues.

Previous research suggests that changes in dermal mechanics predispose these patients to a range of skin conditions including mast cell activation disorder (MCAD) spectrum and chronic spontaneous urticaria, abnormal scars or wound healing, piezogenic papules, dyshidrosis, skin laxity or softness, easy bruising, local anesthesia resistance, keratosis pilaris, striae, and hidradenitis suppurativa, the researchers wrote.

However, data on these and other dermatologic manifestations of hEDS are limited, they said.

The diagnosis of hEDS will continue to be made more frequently and carefully, as the condition becomes more recognized and understood in the medical community, especially with anticipated capabilities of genetic testing, Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“Being able to be aware of disease-specific comorbidities, such as those discovered in this study, allows providers to better stratify phenotypes and improve patient disease co-management,” he said.

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers reviewed data on 1,364 patients with ICD-10 or ICD-9 codes for hEDS or EDS unspecified who were seen at a single institution between June 2005 and May 2022. Most of the patients were White (95.4%) and female (86.7%); the average age was 29.2 years.

Of the 1,364 patients included in the chart review, 497 (36.4%) had documented skin manifestations. Of these, 118 (24.2%) had disorders of follicular occlusion (12 had hidradenitis suppurativa, 32 had folliculitis, and 74 had acne); 112 (23%) had eczema or atopic dermatitis, 98 (19.7%) had mast cell disorder, 32 (6.4%) had psoriasis, and 32 (6.4%) had wound healing issues (16 had hypertrophic keloids/scarring, 5 had abscesses, 3 had abnormal bruising, and 8 had other would healing issues).

The study also included results of a multiple-choice patient survey from 1,354 individuals. In the survey, approximately two-thirds of patients reported abnormal scarring, abnormal wound healing, and cutaneous laxity (61.7%, 69.0%, and 71.0%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective study design, lack of testing to confirm hEDS diagnosis, and the potential interdisciplinary selection bias for diagnoses, the authors noted.

However, the results support previous studies showing increased rates of occlusive conditions in hEDS and higher rates of acne, folliculitis, and psoriasis, and highlight the need for clinician education to manage patients and promote better outcomes, the researchers concluded.

Data Enhance Clinical Awareness

“Given the increasingly understood relation between TH2-directed and mast-cell mediated diseases and hEDS, it was not necessarily a surprise to find the increased prevalence of atopy and mast cell disease, but rather an interesting confirmation, within the limitations that exist with retrospective chart review,” Dr. Snyder told this news organization. “While it may make some intuitive sense that certain cohorts with higher risk of HS may have a higher risk of acne, this had not been reported in the literature to date,” he noted. “Given the high levels of patient reported issues with scarring and wound healing, I was surprised that so few analogous diagnoses were physician-reported in the medical records.”

In clinical practice, “health care professionals and patients need to be aware hEDS is associated with high rates of eczematous, mast-cell mediated and follicular occlusive cutaneous disorders,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “There seems to be a discrepancy between patients and physician awareness of scarring or wound healing issues in this patient population,” he added.

Looking ahead, “we need to better research and characterize the various hEDS phenotypes to understand who is at highest risk for various TH2-mediated or follicular occlusive disorders,” said Dr. Snyder. “Moreover, a greater understanding is needed of the wound healing inadequacies that predispose these patients to poor outcomes during dermatologic surgery,” he said.

The study was supported by the Ehlers-Danlos Society and the Milton and Tamar Maltz Family Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Follicular occlusion, mast cell disease, and eczema were common presentations among patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), in a study of nearly 500 individuals.

The genetic cause of hEDS, a common inherited connective tissue disorder, remains unknown, wrote Alan Snyder, MD, of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues.

Previous research suggests that changes in dermal mechanics predispose these patients to a range of skin conditions including mast cell activation disorder (MCAD) spectrum and chronic spontaneous urticaria, abnormal scars or wound healing, piezogenic papules, dyshidrosis, skin laxity or softness, easy bruising, local anesthesia resistance, keratosis pilaris, striae, and hidradenitis suppurativa, the researchers wrote.

However, data on these and other dermatologic manifestations of hEDS are limited, they said.

The diagnosis of hEDS will continue to be made more frequently and carefully, as the condition becomes more recognized and understood in the medical community, especially with anticipated capabilities of genetic testing, Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“Being able to be aware of disease-specific comorbidities, such as those discovered in this study, allows providers to better stratify phenotypes and improve patient disease co-management,” he said.

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers reviewed data on 1,364 patients with ICD-10 or ICD-9 codes for hEDS or EDS unspecified who were seen at a single institution between June 2005 and May 2022. Most of the patients were White (95.4%) and female (86.7%); the average age was 29.2 years.

Of the 1,364 patients included in the chart review, 497 (36.4%) had documented skin manifestations. Of these, 118 (24.2%) had disorders of follicular occlusion (12 had hidradenitis suppurativa, 32 had folliculitis, and 74 had acne); 112 (23%) had eczema or atopic dermatitis, 98 (19.7%) had mast cell disorder, 32 (6.4%) had psoriasis, and 32 (6.4%) had wound healing issues (16 had hypertrophic keloids/scarring, 5 had abscesses, 3 had abnormal bruising, and 8 had other would healing issues).

The study also included results of a multiple-choice patient survey from 1,354 individuals. In the survey, approximately two-thirds of patients reported abnormal scarring, abnormal wound healing, and cutaneous laxity (61.7%, 69.0%, and 71.0%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective study design, lack of testing to confirm hEDS diagnosis, and the potential interdisciplinary selection bias for diagnoses, the authors noted.

However, the results support previous studies showing increased rates of occlusive conditions in hEDS and higher rates of acne, folliculitis, and psoriasis, and highlight the need for clinician education to manage patients and promote better outcomes, the researchers concluded.

Data Enhance Clinical Awareness

“Given the increasingly understood relation between TH2-directed and mast-cell mediated diseases and hEDS, it was not necessarily a surprise to find the increased prevalence of atopy and mast cell disease, but rather an interesting confirmation, within the limitations that exist with retrospective chart review,” Dr. Snyder told this news organization. “While it may make some intuitive sense that certain cohorts with higher risk of HS may have a higher risk of acne, this had not been reported in the literature to date,” he noted. “Given the high levels of patient reported issues with scarring and wound healing, I was surprised that so few analogous diagnoses were physician-reported in the medical records.”

In clinical practice, “health care professionals and patients need to be aware hEDS is associated with high rates of eczematous, mast-cell mediated and follicular occlusive cutaneous disorders,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “There seems to be a discrepancy between patients and physician awareness of scarring or wound healing issues in this patient population,” he added.

Looking ahead, “we need to better research and characterize the various hEDS phenotypes to understand who is at highest risk for various TH2-mediated or follicular occlusive disorders,” said Dr. Snyder. “Moreover, a greater understanding is needed of the wound healing inadequacies that predispose these patients to poor outcomes during dermatologic surgery,” he said.

The study was supported by the Ehlers-Danlos Society and the Milton and Tamar Maltz Family Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In a letter dated Nov. 30, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration informed isotretinoin manufacturers that they have 6 months to make five changes to existing iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requirements for the acne drug isotretinoin.

The development follows a March 2023 joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee about iPLEDGE REMS requirements, which included feedback from patients and dermatologists and recommendations for changes to the REMS program, aimed at minimizing the burden of the program on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers while continuing to maintain safe use of the highly teratogenic drug for patients.

The five changes include the following:

• Remove the requirement that pregnancy tests must be performed in a specially certified (i.e., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA]) laboratory. In the opinion of John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, this change “may make it easier to perform pregnancy tests in a clinic setting without needing to send the patient to a separate lab,” he said in an interview.
• Allow prescribers the option of using home pregnancy testing for their patients during and after isotretinoin treatment. Prescribers who rely on the patient to perform a home pregnancy test need to take steps to minimize patients falsifying the results of these tests. According to Dr. Barbieri, this means that two pregnancy tests prior to starting isotretinoin must be done in a lab or office setting. “However, all the pregnancy tests on therapy can be either in a medical setting or using a home pregnancy test,” he told this news organization. “This option facilitates the use of telemedicine so that patients would not need to come in; they can just share a pregnancy test with their name and date with their dermatologist.”
• Remove the waiting period requirement — also known as the “19-day lockout” — for patients if they do not obtain isotretinoin within the first 7-day prescription window. According to Dr. Barbieri, this change helps to ensure that patients can begin isotretinoin in a timely manner. “Insurance and pharmacy delays that are no fault of the patient can commonly cause missed initial window periods,” he said. “Allowing for immediate repeat of a pregnancy test to start a new window period, rather than requiring the patient to wait 19 more days, can ensure patient safety and pregnancy prevention without negatively impacting access.”
• Revise the pregnancy registry requirement to remove the objective to document the pregnancy and fetal outcomes for each pregnancy.
• Revise the requirement for prescribers to document patient counseling in patients who cannot become pregnant from monthly to only at enrollment. Dr. Barbieri characterized this change as “major” and said that it could eliminate the need for monthly visits for persons of non–childbearing potential. “This could substantially reduce logistical burdens for patients and reduce wait times to see a dermatologist,” he said.

Future changes to iPLEDGE that Dr. Barbieri would like to see include allowing for home pregnancy tests prior to starting therapy — particularly the test after the 30-day window period. “In addition, it would be good to be able to reduce the 30-day waiting period prior to therapy to something shorter,” such as 14 days, which would still “reliably exclude pregnancy, particularly for those on stable long-acting reversible contraception,” he said. There are also opportunities to improve the iPLEDGE website functionality and to ensure that the website is accessible to patients with limited English proficiency, he added.

He also recommended greater transparency by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group and inclusion of input from diverse stakeholders such as dermatologists, patients, and pharmacists.

Dr. Barbieri reported personal fees from Dexcel Pharma.

In a letter dated Nov. 30, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration informed isotretinoin manufacturers that they have 6 months to make five changes to existing iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requirements for the acne drug isotretinoin.

The development follows a March 2023 joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee about iPLEDGE REMS requirements, which included feedback from patients and dermatologists and recommendations for changes to the REMS program, aimed at minimizing the burden of the program on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers while continuing to maintain safe use of the highly teratogenic drug for patients.

The five changes include the following:

• Remove the requirement that pregnancy tests must be performed in a specially certified (i.e., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA]) laboratory. In the opinion of John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, this change “may make it easier to perform pregnancy tests in a clinic setting without needing to send the patient to a separate lab,” he said in an interview.
• Allow prescribers the option of using home pregnancy testing for their patients during and after isotretinoin treatment. Prescribers who rely on the patient to perform a home pregnancy test need to take steps to minimize patients falsifying the results of these tests. According to Dr. Barbieri, this means that two pregnancy tests prior to starting isotretinoin must be done in a lab or office setting. “However, all the pregnancy tests on therapy can be either in a medical setting or using a home pregnancy test,” he told this news organization. “This option facilitates the use of telemedicine so that patients would not need to come in; they can just share a pregnancy test with their name and date with their dermatologist.”
• Remove the waiting period requirement — also known as the “19-day lockout” — for patients if they do not obtain isotretinoin within the first 7-day prescription window. According to Dr. Barbieri, this change helps to ensure that patients can begin isotretinoin in a timely manner. “Insurance and pharmacy delays that are no fault of the patient can commonly cause missed initial window periods,” he said. “Allowing for immediate repeat of a pregnancy test to start a new window period, rather than requiring the patient to wait 19 more days, can ensure patient safety and pregnancy prevention without negatively impacting access.”
• Revise the pregnancy registry requirement to remove the objective to document the pregnancy and fetal outcomes for each pregnancy.
• Revise the requirement for prescribers to document patient counseling in patients who cannot become pregnant from monthly to only at enrollment. Dr. Barbieri characterized this change as “major” and said that it could eliminate the need for monthly visits for persons of non–childbearing potential. “This could substantially reduce logistical burdens for patients and reduce wait times to see a dermatologist,” he said.

Future changes to iPLEDGE that Dr. Barbieri would like to see include allowing for home pregnancy tests prior to starting therapy — particularly the test after the 30-day window period. “In addition, it would be good to be able to reduce the 30-day waiting period prior to therapy to something shorter,” such as 14 days, which would still “reliably exclude pregnancy, particularly for those on stable long-acting reversible contraception,” he said. There are also opportunities to improve the iPLEDGE website functionality and to ensure that the website is accessible to patients with limited English proficiency, he added.

He also recommended greater transparency by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group and inclusion of input from diverse stakeholders such as dermatologists, patients, and pharmacists.

Dr. Barbieri reported personal fees from Dexcel Pharma.

In a letter dated Nov. 30, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration informed isotretinoin manufacturers that they have 6 months to make five changes to existing iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requirements for the acne drug isotretinoin.

The development follows a March 2023 joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee about iPLEDGE REMS requirements, which included feedback from patients and dermatologists and recommendations for changes to the REMS program, aimed at minimizing the burden of the program on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers while continuing to maintain safe use of the highly teratogenic drug for patients.

The five changes include the following:

• Remove the requirement that pregnancy tests must be performed in a specially certified (i.e., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA]) laboratory. In the opinion of John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, this change “may make it easier to perform pregnancy tests in a clinic setting without needing to send the patient to a separate lab,” he said in an interview.
• Allow prescribers the option of using home pregnancy testing for their patients during and after isotretinoin treatment. Prescribers who rely on the patient to perform a home pregnancy test need to take steps to minimize patients falsifying the results of these tests. According to Dr. Barbieri, this means that two pregnancy tests prior to starting isotretinoin must be done in a lab or office setting. “However, all the pregnancy tests on therapy can be either in a medical setting or using a home pregnancy test,” he told this news organization. “This option facilitates the use of telemedicine so that patients would not need to come in; they can just share a pregnancy test with their name and date with their dermatologist.”
• Remove the waiting period requirement — also known as the “19-day lockout” — for patients if they do not obtain isotretinoin within the first 7-day prescription window. According to Dr. Barbieri, this change helps to ensure that patients can begin isotretinoin in a timely manner. “Insurance and pharmacy delays that are no fault of the patient can commonly cause missed initial window periods,” he said. “Allowing for immediate repeat of a pregnancy test to start a new window period, rather than requiring the patient to wait 19 more days, can ensure patient safety and pregnancy prevention without negatively impacting access.”
• Revise the pregnancy registry requirement to remove the objective to document the pregnancy and fetal outcomes for each pregnancy.
• Revise the requirement for prescribers to document patient counseling in patients who cannot become pregnant from monthly to only at enrollment. Dr. Barbieri characterized this change as “major” and said that it could eliminate the need for monthly visits for persons of non–childbearing potential. “This could substantially reduce logistical burdens for patients and reduce wait times to see a dermatologist,” he said.

Future changes to iPLEDGE that Dr. Barbieri would like to see include allowing for home pregnancy tests prior to starting therapy — particularly the test after the 30-day window period. “In addition, it would be good to be able to reduce the 30-day waiting period prior to therapy to something shorter,” such as 14 days, which would still “reliably exclude pregnancy, particularly for those on stable long-acting reversible contraception,” he said. There are also opportunities to improve the iPLEDGE website functionality and to ensure that the website is accessible to patients with limited English proficiency, he added.

He also recommended greater transparency by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group and inclusion of input from diverse stakeholders such as dermatologists, patients, and pharmacists.

Dr. Barbieri reported personal fees from Dexcel Pharma.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Much of my research focuses on what is known as clinical decision support — prompts and messages to providers to help them make good decisions for their patients. I know that these things can be annoying, which is exactly why I study them — to figure out which ones actually help.

When I got started on this about 10 years ago, we were learning a lot about how best to message providers about their patients. My team had developed a simple alert for acute kidney injury (AKI). We knew that providers often missed the diagnosis, so maybe letting them know would improve patient outcomes.

As we tested the alert, we got feedback, and I have kept an email from an ICU doctor from those early days. It read:

Dear Dr. Wilson: Thank you for the automated alert informing me that my patient had AKI. Regrettably, the alert fired about an hour after the patient had died. I feel that the information is less than actionable at this time.

Our early system had neglected to add a conditional flag ensuring that the patient was still alive at the time it sent the alert message. A small oversight, but one that had very large implications. Future studies would show that “false positive” alerts like this seriously degrade physician confidence in the system. And why wouldn’t they?

Knowing whether a patient is alive or dead seems like it should be trivial. But, as it turns out, in our modern balkanized health care system, it can be quite difficult. Not knowing the vital status of a patient can have major consequences.

Health systems send messages to their patients all the time: reminders of appointments, reminders for preventive care, reminders for vaccinations, and so on.

But what if the patient being reminded has died? It’s a waste of resources, of course, but more than that, it can be painful for their families and reflects poorly on the health care system. Of all the people who should know whether someone is alive or dead, shouldn’t their doctor be at the top of the list?

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine quantifies this very phenomenon.

Researchers examined 11,658 primary care patients in their health system who met the criteria of being “seriously ill” and followed them for 2 years. During that period of time, 25% were recorded as deceased in the electronic health record. But 30.8% had died. That left 676 patients who had died, but were not known to have died, left in the system.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Much of my research focuses on what is known as clinical decision support — prompts and messages to providers to help them make good decisions for their patients. I know that these things can be annoying, which is exactly why I study them — to figure out which ones actually help.

When I got started on this about 10 years ago, we were learning a lot about how best to message providers about their patients. My team had developed a simple alert for acute kidney injury (AKI). We knew that providers often missed the diagnosis, so maybe letting them know would improve patient outcomes.

As we tested the alert, we got feedback, and I have kept an email from an ICU doctor from those early days. It read:

Dear Dr. Wilson: Thank you for the automated alert informing me that my patient had AKI. Regrettably, the alert fired about an hour after the patient had died. I feel that the information is less than actionable at this time.

Our early system had neglected to add a conditional flag ensuring that the patient was still alive at the time it sent the alert message. A small oversight, but one that had very large implications. Future studies would show that “false positive” alerts like this seriously degrade physician confidence in the system. And why wouldn’t they?

Knowing whether a patient is alive or dead seems like it should be trivial. But, as it turns out, in our modern balkanized health care system, it can be quite difficult. Not knowing the vital status of a patient can have major consequences.

Health systems send messages to their patients all the time: reminders of appointments, reminders for preventive care, reminders for vaccinations, and so on.

But what if the patient being reminded has died? It’s a waste of resources, of course, but more than that, it can be painful for their families and reflects poorly on the health care system. Of all the people who should know whether someone is alive or dead, shouldn’t their doctor be at the top of the list?

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine quantifies this very phenomenon.

Researchers examined 11,658 primary care patients in their health system who met the criteria of being “seriously ill” and followed them for 2 years. During that period of time, 25% were recorded as deceased in the electronic health record. But 30.8% had died. That left 676 patients who had died, but were not known to have died, left in the system.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Much of my research focuses on what is known as clinical decision support — prompts and messages to providers to help them make good decisions for their patients. I know that these things can be annoying, which is exactly why I study them — to figure out which ones actually help.

When I got started on this about 10 years ago, we were learning a lot about how best to message providers about their patients. My team had developed a simple alert for acute kidney injury (AKI). We knew that providers often missed the diagnosis, so maybe letting them know would improve patient outcomes.

As we tested the alert, we got feedback, and I have kept an email from an ICU doctor from those early days. It read:

Dear Dr. Wilson: Thank you for the automated alert informing me that my patient had AKI. Regrettably, the alert fired about an hour after the patient had died. I feel that the information is less than actionable at this time.

Our early system had neglected to add a conditional flag ensuring that the patient was still alive at the time it sent the alert message. A small oversight, but one that had very large implications. Future studies would show that “false positive” alerts like this seriously degrade physician confidence in the system. And why wouldn’t they?

Knowing whether a patient is alive or dead seems like it should be trivial. But, as it turns out, in our modern balkanized health care system, it can be quite difficult. Not knowing the vital status of a patient can have major consequences.

Health systems send messages to their patients all the time: reminders of appointments, reminders for preventive care, reminders for vaccinations, and so on.

But what if the patient being reminded has died? It’s a waste of resources, of course, but more than that, it can be painful for their families and reflects poorly on the health care system. Of all the people who should know whether someone is alive or dead, shouldn’t their doctor be at the top of the list?

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine quantifies this very phenomenon.

Researchers examined 11,658 primary care patients in their health system who met the criteria of being “seriously ill” and followed them for 2 years. During that period of time, 25% were recorded as deceased in the electronic health record. But 30.8% had died. That left 676 patients who had died, but were not known to have died, left in the system.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with psoriasis had a 1.77-fold increased risk of having obstructive sleep apnea, in a study comparing patients with psoriasis with controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have established a link between psoriasis and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but some have suggested that confounders may drive the association.
• Using a case-control design, researchers analyzed data from 156,707 participants in the National Institutes of Health’s : 5140 with psoriasis and 151,567 controls.
• They used Pearson’s x 2 test to compare the prevalence of OSA among cases and controls, logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) in multivariable analysis, and two-sided t-tests to evaluate the significance between continuous variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, patients with psoriasis were older (a mean of 62.4 vs 57.3 years, respectively), more likely to be White (86.1% vs 70.6%), reported higher annual household incomes (59.9% vs 52.6%), and were more likely to smoke (48.2% vs 43.4%).
• The rate of OSA was significantly higher among patients with psoriasis compared with controls (29.3% vs 17.1%; P < .001).
• On unadjusted multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, gender, and race, psoriasis was significantly associated with OSA (OR, 1.77, 95% CI, 1.66 - 1.89; P < .001).
• Psoriasis was also significantly associated with OSA in the adjusted model controlling for age, gender, race, BMI, and smoking status (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.55 - 1.77; P < .001) and in the adjusted model controlling for age, gender, race, BMI, smoking status, type 2 diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, history of myocardial infarction, angina, and peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.35 - 1.55; P <.001).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study further substantiates the association between psoriasis and OSA, reinforcing the importance of evaluation for OSA when clinically appropriate given that both psoriasis and OSA contribute to adverse health outcomes,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Jeffrey M. Cohen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the use of electronic health record data, a potential lack of generalizability to the US population, and reliance on survey data for certain variables such as income and smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The All of Us Research Program is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Cohen disclosed that he serves on a data safety and monitoring board for Advarra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with psoriasis had a 1.77-fold increased risk of having obstructive sleep apnea, in a study comparing patients with psoriasis with controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have established a link between psoriasis and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but some have suggested that confounders may drive the association.
• Using a case-control design, researchers analyzed data from 156,707 participants in the National Institutes of Health’s : 5140 with psoriasis and 151,567 controls.
• They used Pearson’s x 2 test to compare the prevalence of OSA among cases and controls, logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) in multivariable analysis, and two-sided t-tests to evaluate the significance between continuous variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, patients with psoriasis were older (a mean of 62.4 vs 57.3 years, respectively), more likely to be White (86.1% vs 70.6%), reported higher annual household incomes (59.9% vs 52.6%), and were more likely to smoke (48.2% vs 43.4%).
• The rate of OSA was significantly higher among patients with psoriasis compared with controls (29.3% vs 17.1%; P < .001).
• On unadjusted multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, gender, and race, psoriasis was significantly associated with OSA (OR, 1.77, 95% CI, 1.66 - 1.89; P < .001).
• Psoriasis was also significantly associated with OSA in the adjusted model controlling for age, gender, race, BMI, and smoking status (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.55 - 1.77; P < .001) and in the adjusted model controlling for age, gender, race, BMI, smoking status, type 2 diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, history of myocardial infarction, angina, and peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.35 - 1.55; P <.001).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study further substantiates the association between psoriasis and OSA, reinforcing the importance of evaluation for OSA when clinically appropriate given that both psoriasis and OSA contribute to adverse health outcomes,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Jeffrey M. Cohen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the use of electronic health record data, a potential lack of generalizability to the US population, and reliance on survey data for certain variables such as income and smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The All of Us Research Program is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Cohen disclosed that he serves on a data safety and monitoring board for Advarra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with psoriasis had a 1.77-fold increased risk of having obstructive sleep apnea, in a study comparing patients with psoriasis with controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have established a link between psoriasis and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but some have suggested that confounders may drive the association.
• Using a case-control design, researchers analyzed data from 156,707 participants in the National Institutes of Health’s : 5140 with psoriasis and 151,567 controls.
• They used Pearson’s x 2 test to compare the prevalence of OSA among cases and controls, logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) in multivariable analysis, and two-sided t-tests to evaluate the significance between continuous variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, patients with psoriasis were older (a mean of 62.4 vs 57.3 years, respectively), more likely to be White (86.1% vs 70.6%), reported higher annual household incomes (59.9% vs 52.6%), and were more likely to smoke (48.2% vs 43.4%).
• The rate of OSA was significantly higher among patients with psoriasis compared with controls (29.3% vs 17.1%; P < .001).
• On unadjusted multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, gender, and race, psoriasis was significantly associated with OSA (OR, 1.77, 95% CI, 1.66 - 1.89; P < .001).
• Psoriasis was also significantly associated with OSA in the adjusted model controlling for age, gender, race, BMI, and smoking status (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.55 - 1.77; P < .001) and in the adjusted model controlling for age, gender, race, BMI, smoking status, type 2 diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, history of myocardial infarction, angina, and peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.35 - 1.55; P <.001).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study further substantiates the association between psoriasis and OSA, reinforcing the importance of evaluation for OSA when clinically appropriate given that both psoriasis and OSA contribute to adverse health outcomes,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Jeffrey M. Cohen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the use of electronic health record data, a potential lack of generalizability to the US population, and reliance on survey data for certain variables such as income and smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The All of Us Research Program is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Cohen disclosed that he serves on a data safety and monitoring board for Advarra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — New treatments for acne, including the recent FDA approval of a topical gel that combines an antibiotic, a retinoid, and an antimicrobial agent, and reports on the safe use of lasers in people with darker skin types, were presented at the annual Mount Sinai Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology.

Also highlighted were recommendations regarding antibiotic stewardship and consideration of a treatment’s beneficial effects beyond 12 weeks.

“Patients want clear skin and many don’t care how they get there. I see patients who have been on minocycline [a broad-spectrum antibiotic] for 2 years; this is really not the best way to treat our patients,” said Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who reviewed the current state of acne treatments at the meeting.

Patients often do not care about the risk of developing antibiotic resistance, he noted, citing a survey (funded by Almirall and presented at a previous conference), which found that less than 10% of adult patients or caregivers of patients being treated for acne were moderately or extremely worried about antibiotics compared with more than 65% of the clinicians. But despite their concerns, nearly 60% of clinicians surveyed reported prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics “most” or “all of the time,” he said.

Dr. Zeichner said that patients’ short-term wishes overriding dermatologists’ own concerns can lead to antibiotic resistance, with a negative impact on patients’ microbiomes. He encouraged prescribers to incorporate sarecycline and other narrow spectrum antibiotics into their practice as part of antibiotic stewardship. These drugs have less of an impact on the gut microbiome than broad spectrum antibiotics, while targeting the patient’s acne.

Dr. Zeichner noted that “acne is more than a 12-week disease,” but manufacturers of acne treatments can only market information based on what is in the product labeling, which usually includes 12-week results. Yet, for many acne treatments, “as you continue treating over time, you’re seeing much better improvements,” he said.

As an example, he referred to data from an unpublished phase 4 Galderma study. Patients aged 17-35 years with acne and scarring who were treated with trifarotene cream demonstrated about a 52% rate of success in acne clearance as measured by the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) at 24 weeks, up from 31.4% at 12 weeks, highlighting the need to consider long-term data, which is helpful for patients to know, he said.

Dr. Zeichner noted that many patients and their caregivers are enthusiastic about the idea of treatment that does not involve pharmaceuticals and that these options, while not “silver bullets,” are available and advancing.

These include light-based devices. He referred to a 7-week, open label efficacy and safety study of a photo-pneumatic device with broadband light (Strata Skin Sciences). This device uses thermal heat to target and destroy Cutibacterium acnes and reduce sebum production and has a vacuum feature that removes occlusive material from the pilosebaceous unit, which he said “leads directly to a reduction in acne lesions.”

Of note is the fact that the device’ filters out visible wavelength light, which minimizes absorption by melanin in the epidermis that can damage darker skin, making the treatment safe for most skin types. In the study of patients with mild to moderate facial acne, aged 12-40 years, treatment resulted in significant reductions in mean inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, and mean IGA score at day 49 compared with baseline.

Similarly, Dr. Zeichner presented a 2022 study demonstrating the use of higher spectrum lasers (a 1726-nm [nanometer] laser) to shrink sebaceous glands and reduce sebum production to treat acne. In addition, lasers that operate at such a high frequency do not cause hyperpigmentation in individuals with darker skin types, he said.

Dr. Zeichner disclosed that he is an advisor, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Arcutis, Beiersdorf, Dermavant, Galderma, Kenvue, L’Oreal, Ortho, Pfizer, Regeneron, UCB, and Sun.

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

NEW YORK — New treatments for acne, including the recent FDA approval of a topical gel that combines an antibiotic, a retinoid, and an antimicrobial agent, and reports on the safe use of lasers in people with darker skin types, were presented at the annual Mount Sinai Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology.

Also highlighted were recommendations regarding antibiotic stewardship and consideration of a treatment’s beneficial effects beyond 12 weeks.

“Patients want clear skin and many don’t care how they get there. I see patients who have been on minocycline [a broad-spectrum antibiotic] for 2 years; this is really not the best way to treat our patients,” said Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who reviewed the current state of acne treatments at the meeting.

Patients often do not care about the risk of developing antibiotic resistance, he noted, citing a survey (funded by Almirall and presented at a previous conference), which found that less than 10% of adult patients or caregivers of patients being treated for acne were moderately or extremely worried about antibiotics compared with more than 65% of the clinicians. But despite their concerns, nearly 60% of clinicians surveyed reported prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics “most” or “all of the time,” he said.

Dr. Zeichner said that patients’ short-term wishes overriding dermatologists’ own concerns can lead to antibiotic resistance, with a negative impact on patients’ microbiomes. He encouraged prescribers to incorporate sarecycline and other narrow spectrum antibiotics into their practice as part of antibiotic stewardship. These drugs have less of an impact on the gut microbiome than broad spectrum antibiotics, while targeting the patient’s acne.

Dr. Zeichner noted that “acne is more than a 12-week disease,” but manufacturers of acne treatments can only market information based on what is in the product labeling, which usually includes 12-week results. Yet, for many acne treatments, “as you continue treating over time, you’re seeing much better improvements,” he said.

As an example, he referred to data from an unpublished phase 4 Galderma study. Patients aged 17-35 years with acne and scarring who were treated with trifarotene cream demonstrated about a 52% rate of success in acne clearance as measured by the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) at 24 weeks, up from 31.4% at 12 weeks, highlighting the need to consider long-term data, which is helpful for patients to know, he said.

Dr. Zeichner noted that many patients and their caregivers are enthusiastic about the idea of treatment that does not involve pharmaceuticals and that these options, while not “silver bullets,” are available and advancing.

These include light-based devices. He referred to a 7-week, open label efficacy and safety study of a photo-pneumatic device with broadband light (Strata Skin Sciences). This device uses thermal heat to target and destroy Cutibacterium acnes and reduce sebum production and has a vacuum feature that removes occlusive material from the pilosebaceous unit, which he said “leads directly to a reduction in acne lesions.”

Of note is the fact that the device’ filters out visible wavelength light, which minimizes absorption by melanin in the epidermis that can damage darker skin, making the treatment safe for most skin types. In the study of patients with mild to moderate facial acne, aged 12-40 years, treatment resulted in significant reductions in mean inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, and mean IGA score at day 49 compared with baseline.

Similarly, Dr. Zeichner presented a 2022 study demonstrating the use of higher spectrum lasers (a 1726-nm [nanometer] laser) to shrink sebaceous glands and reduce sebum production to treat acne. In addition, lasers that operate at such a high frequency do not cause hyperpigmentation in individuals with darker skin types, he said.

Dr. Zeichner disclosed that he is an advisor, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Arcutis, Beiersdorf, Dermavant, Galderma, Kenvue, L’Oreal, Ortho, Pfizer, Regeneron, UCB, and Sun.

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

NEW YORK — New treatments for acne, including the recent FDA approval of a topical gel that combines an antibiotic, a retinoid, and an antimicrobial agent, and reports on the safe use of lasers in people with darker skin types, were presented at the annual Mount Sinai Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology.

Also highlighted were recommendations regarding antibiotic stewardship and consideration of a treatment’s beneficial effects beyond 12 weeks.

“Patients want clear skin and many don’t care how they get there. I see patients who have been on minocycline [a broad-spectrum antibiotic] for 2 years; this is really not the best way to treat our patients,” said Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who reviewed the current state of acne treatments at the meeting.

Patients often do not care about the risk of developing antibiotic resistance, he noted, citing a survey (funded by Almirall and presented at a previous conference), which found that less than 10% of adult patients or caregivers of patients being treated for acne were moderately or extremely worried about antibiotics compared with more than 65% of the clinicians. But despite their concerns, nearly 60% of clinicians surveyed reported prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics “most” or “all of the time,” he said.

Dr. Zeichner said that patients’ short-term wishes overriding dermatologists’ own concerns can lead to antibiotic resistance, with a negative impact on patients’ microbiomes. He encouraged prescribers to incorporate sarecycline and other narrow spectrum antibiotics into their practice as part of antibiotic stewardship. These drugs have less of an impact on the gut microbiome than broad spectrum antibiotics, while targeting the patient’s acne.

Dr. Zeichner noted that “acne is more than a 12-week disease,” but manufacturers of acne treatments can only market information based on what is in the product labeling, which usually includes 12-week results. Yet, for many acne treatments, “as you continue treating over time, you’re seeing much better improvements,” he said.

As an example, he referred to data from an unpublished phase 4 Galderma study. Patients aged 17-35 years with acne and scarring who were treated with trifarotene cream demonstrated about a 52% rate of success in acne clearance as measured by the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) at 24 weeks, up from 31.4% at 12 weeks, highlighting the need to consider long-term data, which is helpful for patients to know, he said.

Dr. Zeichner noted that many patients and their caregivers are enthusiastic about the idea of treatment that does not involve pharmaceuticals and that these options, while not “silver bullets,” are available and advancing.

These include light-based devices. He referred to a 7-week, open label efficacy and safety study of a photo-pneumatic device with broadband light (Strata Skin Sciences). This device uses thermal heat to target and destroy Cutibacterium acnes and reduce sebum production and has a vacuum feature that removes occlusive material from the pilosebaceous unit, which he said “leads directly to a reduction in acne lesions.”

Of note is the fact that the device’ filters out visible wavelength light, which minimizes absorption by melanin in the epidermis that can damage darker skin, making the treatment safe for most skin types. In the study of patients with mild to moderate facial acne, aged 12-40 years, treatment resulted in significant reductions in mean inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, and mean IGA score at day 49 compared with baseline.

Similarly, Dr. Zeichner presented a 2022 study demonstrating the use of higher spectrum lasers (a 1726-nm [nanometer] laser) to shrink sebaceous glands and reduce sebum production to treat acne. In addition, lasers that operate at such a high frequency do not cause hyperpigmentation in individuals with darker skin types, he said.

Dr. Zeichner disclosed that he is an advisor, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Arcutis, Beiersdorf, Dermavant, Galderma, Kenvue, L’Oreal, Ortho, Pfizer, Regeneron, UCB, and Sun.

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

The Diagnosis: Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Multiple diagnoses should be considered for a small, round, blue cell neoplasm of the skin, including both primary and metastatic entities. In our patient, histopathology revealed sheets and nests of infiltrative neoplastic cells with dispersed chromatin, minimal cytoplasm, and multiple mitoses (quiz image 1).¹ The lesional cells were in the dermis and superficial subcutaneous tissue but did not appear to be arising from the epidermis. Lymphovascular invasion also was evident on additional sections. Metastatic disease was identified in 3 sentinel lymph nodes from the right inguinal and right iliac regions. These features were compatible with a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare malignant neuroendocrine cutaneous tumor with a worldwide incidence of 0.1 to 1.6 cases per 100,000 individuals annually.² The typical patient is older than 75 years with fair skin and a history of extensive sun exposure. Immunocompromised individuals are predisposed and more susceptible to infection with the Merkel cell polyomavirus, which promotes oncogenesis in the majority of MCCs. Our patient’s history of combined variable immunodeficiency likely explains her presentation at a younger age.

The prognosis in patients with MCC is poor, with 5-year survival rates of 51% for local disease, 35% for nodal disease, and 14% for systemic metastases. Survival also is reduced in cases with head/ neck primary tumors and polyomavirus-negative tumors, as well as in immunocompromised patients.² Treatment of resectable MCC consists of Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision depending on the patient’s cosmetic concerns. Radiation therapy is recommended for cases with increased risk for recurrence or positive surgical margins, as well as when additional resection is impossible. A study investigating immunotherapy with nivolumab demonstrated complete pathologic response and radiographic tumor regression in nearly half of patients when given 4 weeks prior to surgery.³

Immunohistochemistry is essential in discerning MCC from other small blue cell tumors. Most MCC cases show positive expression of neuroendocrine markers such as synaptophysin, chromogranin, and insulinomaassociated protein 1. Perinuclear dotlike staining with cytokeratin (CK) 20 (quiz image 2) commonly is seen, but up to 15% of cases may be CK20 negative. Many of these CK20-negative cases also express CK7. This tumor also may stain with paired box 5 (PAX-5), CD99, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, Ber-EP4, and CD117^1,4; melanoma stains (ie, human melanoma black [HMB] 45, SRYrelated HMB-box 10 [SOX-10], S-100, melanoma antigen recognized by T-cells 1 [MART-1]) should be negative. However, PAX-5 expression may be a potential pitfall given that B-cell lymphomas also would express that marker and could mimic MCC histologically. Therefore, other universal lymphoid markers such as CD45 should be ordered to rule out this entity. Even with one or a few aberrant stains, a diagnosis of MCC still can be rendered using the histomorphology and the overall staining profile.⁴ Of prognostic significance, p63 expression is associated with more aggressive tumors, while Bcl-2 expression is favorable, as it offers an additional targeted treatment option.^5,6

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is linked to excessive sun exposure and is the most common skin cancer. Similar to MCC, it typically is mitotically active and hyperchromatic; however, lymphovascular invasion or metastasis almost never is observed in BCC, whereas approximately one-third of MCC cases have metastasized by the time of diagnosis. Additionally, BCC lacks the perinuclear dotlike staining seen with CK20.^2,7 Features present in BCC that are unusual for MCC include peripheral nuclear palisading, mucin, and retraction artifact on paraffin-embedded sections (Figure 1).⁷

Leukemia cutis (or cutaneous infiltrates of leukemia) commonly displays a perivascular and periadnexal pattern in the dermis and subcutis. These infiltrates of neoplastic leukocytes can congregate into sheets, sometimes with an overlying Grenz zone, or form single-file infiltrates (Figure 2).^1,4 The neoplastic cells can be monomorphic or atypical and commonly are susceptible to crush artifact.⁴ Although the immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the etiology of the underlying leukemia, broad hematologic markers such as CD43 and CD45 are helpful to discern these malignancies from MCC.⁴

Being neuroendocrine in origin, metastatic small cell carcinoma (Figure 3) strongly mimics MCC histologically and usually stains with synaptophysin, chromogranin, and insulinoma-associated protein 1. Both tumor cells typically exhibit nuclear molding and high mitotic rates. Although small cell carcinoma is more likely to stain with high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (ie, CK7), it is not uncommon for these tumors to express lowmolecular- weight cytokeratins such as CK20. Because most cases originate from the lungs, these lesions should be positive for thyroid transcription factor 1 and negative for PAX-5, whereas MCC would show the reverse for those stains.¹ Ultimately, however, clinical correlation with imaging results is the single best methodology for differentiation.

Small cell melanoma, a variant of nevoid melanoma, can strongly resemble an MCC or a lymphoma. Usually located on the scalp or arising from a congenital nevus, small cell melanomas are aggressive and confer an unfavorable prognosis. Histologically, they consist of nests to sheets of atypical cells within the epidermis and dermis. These cells typically exhibit hyperchromatic nuclei, minimal cytoplasm, and frequent mitoses (Figure 4). Furthermore, the cells do not display maturation based on depth.⁸ These tumors usually are positive for HMB45, S-100, MART-1, SOX-10, and tyrosinase, all of which are extremely unlikely to stain an MCC.¹

The Diagnosis: Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Multiple diagnoses should be considered for a small, round, blue cell neoplasm of the skin, including both primary and metastatic entities. In our patient, histopathology revealed sheets and nests of infiltrative neoplastic cells with dispersed chromatin, minimal cytoplasm, and multiple mitoses (quiz image 1).¹ The lesional cells were in the dermis and superficial subcutaneous tissue but did not appear to be arising from the epidermis. Lymphovascular invasion also was evident on additional sections. Metastatic disease was identified in 3 sentinel lymph nodes from the right inguinal and right iliac regions. These features were compatible with a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare malignant neuroendocrine cutaneous tumor with a worldwide incidence of 0.1 to 1.6 cases per 100,000 individuals annually.² The typical patient is older than 75 years with fair skin and a history of extensive sun exposure. Immunocompromised individuals are predisposed and more susceptible to infection with the Merkel cell polyomavirus, which promotes oncogenesis in the majority of MCCs. Our patient’s history of combined variable immunodeficiency likely explains her presentation at a younger age.

The prognosis in patients with MCC is poor, with 5-year survival rates of 51% for local disease, 35% for nodal disease, and 14% for systemic metastases. Survival also is reduced in cases with head/ neck primary tumors and polyomavirus-negative tumors, as well as in immunocompromised patients.² Treatment of resectable MCC consists of Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision depending on the patient’s cosmetic concerns. Radiation therapy is recommended for cases with increased risk for recurrence or positive surgical margins, as well as when additional resection is impossible. A study investigating immunotherapy with nivolumab demonstrated complete pathologic response and radiographic tumor regression in nearly half of patients when given 4 weeks prior to surgery.³

Immunohistochemistry is essential in discerning MCC from other small blue cell tumors. Most MCC cases show positive expression of neuroendocrine markers such as synaptophysin, chromogranin, and insulinomaassociated protein 1. Perinuclear dotlike staining with cytokeratin (CK) 20 (quiz image 2) commonly is seen, but up to 15% of cases may be CK20 negative. Many of these CK20-negative cases also express CK7. This tumor also may stain with paired box 5 (PAX-5), CD99, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, Ber-EP4, and CD117^1,4; melanoma stains (ie, human melanoma black [HMB] 45, SRYrelated HMB-box 10 [SOX-10], S-100, melanoma antigen recognized by T-cells 1 [MART-1]) should be negative. However, PAX-5 expression may be a potential pitfall given that B-cell lymphomas also would express that marker and could mimic MCC histologically. Therefore, other universal lymphoid markers such as CD45 should be ordered to rule out this entity. Even with one or a few aberrant stains, a diagnosis of MCC still can be rendered using the histomorphology and the overall staining profile.⁴ Of prognostic significance, p63 expression is associated with more aggressive tumors, while Bcl-2 expression is favorable, as it offers an additional targeted treatment option.^5,6

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is linked to excessive sun exposure and is the most common skin cancer. Similar to MCC, it typically is mitotically active and hyperchromatic; however, lymphovascular invasion or metastasis almost never is observed in BCC, whereas approximately one-third of MCC cases have metastasized by the time of diagnosis. Additionally, BCC lacks the perinuclear dotlike staining seen with CK20.^2,7 Features present in BCC that are unusual for MCC include peripheral nuclear palisading, mucin, and retraction artifact on paraffin-embedded sections (Figure 1).⁷

Leukemia cutis (or cutaneous infiltrates of leukemia) commonly displays a perivascular and periadnexal pattern in the dermis and subcutis. These infiltrates of neoplastic leukocytes can congregate into sheets, sometimes with an overlying Grenz zone, or form single-file infiltrates (Figure 2).^1,4 The neoplastic cells can be monomorphic or atypical and commonly are susceptible to crush artifact.⁴ Although the immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the etiology of the underlying leukemia, broad hematologic markers such as CD43 and CD45 are helpful to discern these malignancies from MCC.⁴

Being neuroendocrine in origin, metastatic small cell carcinoma (Figure 3) strongly mimics MCC histologically and usually stains with synaptophysin, chromogranin, and insulinoma-associated protein 1. Both tumor cells typically exhibit nuclear molding and high mitotic rates. Although small cell carcinoma is more likely to stain with high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (ie, CK7), it is not uncommon for these tumors to express lowmolecular- weight cytokeratins such as CK20. Because most cases originate from the lungs, these lesions should be positive for thyroid transcription factor 1 and negative for PAX-5, whereas MCC would show the reverse for those stains.¹ Ultimately, however, clinical correlation with imaging results is the single best methodology for differentiation.

Small cell melanoma, a variant of nevoid melanoma, can strongly resemble an MCC or a lymphoma. Usually located on the scalp or arising from a congenital nevus, small cell melanomas are aggressive and confer an unfavorable prognosis. Histologically, they consist of nests to sheets of atypical cells within the epidermis and dermis. These cells typically exhibit hyperchromatic nuclei, minimal cytoplasm, and frequent mitoses (Figure 4). Furthermore, the cells do not display maturation based on depth.⁸ These tumors usually are positive for HMB45, S-100, MART-1, SOX-10, and tyrosinase, all of which are extremely unlikely to stain an MCC.¹

The Diagnosis: Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Multiple diagnoses should be considered for a small, round, blue cell neoplasm of the skin, including both primary and metastatic entities. In our patient, histopathology revealed sheets and nests of infiltrative neoplastic cells with dispersed chromatin, minimal cytoplasm, and multiple mitoses (quiz image 1).¹ The lesional cells were in the dermis and superficial subcutaneous tissue but did not appear to be arising from the epidermis. Lymphovascular invasion also was evident on additional sections. Metastatic disease was identified in 3 sentinel lymph nodes from the right inguinal and right iliac regions. These features were compatible with a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare malignant neuroendocrine cutaneous tumor with a worldwide incidence of 0.1 to 1.6 cases per 100,000 individuals annually.² The typical patient is older than 75 years with fair skin and a history of extensive sun exposure. Immunocompromised individuals are predisposed and more susceptible to infection with the Merkel cell polyomavirus, which promotes oncogenesis in the majority of MCCs. Our patient’s history of combined variable immunodeficiency likely explains her presentation at a younger age.

The prognosis in patients with MCC is poor, with 5-year survival rates of 51% for local disease, 35% for nodal disease, and 14% for systemic metastases. Survival also is reduced in cases with head/ neck primary tumors and polyomavirus-negative tumors, as well as in immunocompromised patients.² Treatment of resectable MCC consists of Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision depending on the patient’s cosmetic concerns. Radiation therapy is recommended for cases with increased risk for recurrence or positive surgical margins, as well as when additional resection is impossible. A study investigating immunotherapy with nivolumab demonstrated complete pathologic response and radiographic tumor regression in nearly half of patients when given 4 weeks prior to surgery.³

Immunohistochemistry is essential in discerning MCC from other small blue cell tumors. Most MCC cases show positive expression of neuroendocrine markers such as synaptophysin, chromogranin, and insulinomaassociated protein 1. Perinuclear dotlike staining with cytokeratin (CK) 20 (quiz image 2) commonly is seen, but up to 15% of cases may be CK20 negative. Many of these CK20-negative cases also express CK7. This tumor also may stain with paired box 5 (PAX-5), CD99, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, Ber-EP4, and CD117^1,4; melanoma stains (ie, human melanoma black [HMB] 45, SRYrelated HMB-box 10 [SOX-10], S-100, melanoma antigen recognized by T-cells 1 [MART-1]) should be negative. However, PAX-5 expression may be a potential pitfall given that B-cell lymphomas also would express that marker and could mimic MCC histologically. Therefore, other universal lymphoid markers such as CD45 should be ordered to rule out this entity. Even with one or a few aberrant stains, a diagnosis of MCC still can be rendered using the histomorphology and the overall staining profile.⁴ Of prognostic significance, p63 expression is associated with more aggressive tumors, while Bcl-2 expression is favorable, as it offers an additional targeted treatment option.^5,6

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is linked to excessive sun exposure and is the most common skin cancer. Similar to MCC, it typically is mitotically active and hyperchromatic; however, lymphovascular invasion or metastasis almost never is observed in BCC, whereas approximately one-third of MCC cases have metastasized by the time of diagnosis. Additionally, BCC lacks the perinuclear dotlike staining seen with CK20.^2,7 Features present in BCC that are unusual for MCC include peripheral nuclear palisading, mucin, and retraction artifact on paraffin-embedded sections (Figure 1).⁷

Leukemia cutis (or cutaneous infiltrates of leukemia) commonly displays a perivascular and periadnexal pattern in the dermis and subcutis. These infiltrates of neoplastic leukocytes can congregate into sheets, sometimes with an overlying Grenz zone, or form single-file infiltrates (Figure 2).^1,4 The neoplastic cells can be monomorphic or atypical and commonly are susceptible to crush artifact.⁴ Although the immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the etiology of the underlying leukemia, broad hematologic markers such as CD43 and CD45 are helpful to discern these malignancies from MCC.⁴

Being neuroendocrine in origin, metastatic small cell carcinoma (Figure 3) strongly mimics MCC histologically and usually stains with synaptophysin, chromogranin, and insulinoma-associated protein 1. Both tumor cells typically exhibit nuclear molding and high mitotic rates. Although small cell carcinoma is more likely to stain with high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (ie, CK7), it is not uncommon for these tumors to express lowmolecular- weight cytokeratins such as CK20. Because most cases originate from the lungs, these lesions should be positive for thyroid transcription factor 1 and negative for PAX-5, whereas MCC would show the reverse for those stains.¹ Ultimately, however, clinical correlation with imaging results is the single best methodology for differentiation.

Small cell melanoma, a variant of nevoid melanoma, can strongly resemble an MCC or a lymphoma. Usually located on the scalp or arising from a congenital nevus, small cell melanomas are aggressive and confer an unfavorable prognosis. Histologically, they consist of nests to sheets of atypical cells within the epidermis and dermis. These cells typically exhibit hyperchromatic nuclei, minimal cytoplasm, and frequent mitoses (Figure 4). Furthermore, the cells do not display maturation based on depth.⁸ These tumors usually are positive for HMB45, S-100, MART-1, SOX-10, and tyrosinase, all of which are extremely unlikely to stain an MCC.¹

Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)(also referred to as razor bumps) is a skin disease of the face and neck caused by shaving and remains prevalent in the US Military. As the sharpened ends of curly hair strands penetrate back into the epidermis, they can trigger inflammatory reactions, leading to papules and pustules as well as hyperpigmentation and scarring.¹ Although anyone with thick curly hair can develop PFB, Black individuals are disproportionately affected, with 45% to 83% reporting PFB symptoms compared with 18% of White individuals.² In this article, we review the treatments and current policies on PFB in the military.

Treatment Options

Shaving Guidelines—Daily shaving remains the grooming standard for US service members who are encouraged to follow prescribed grooming techniques to prevent mild cases of PFB, defined as having “few, scattered papules with scant hair growth of the beard area,” according to the technical bulletin of the US Army, which provides the most detailed guidelines among the branches.³ The bulletin recommends hydrating the face with warm water, followed by a preshave lotion and shaving with a single pass superiorly to inferiorly. Following shaving, postrazor hydration lotion is recommended. Single-bladed razors are preferred, as there is less trauma to existing PFB and less potential for hair retraction under the epidermis, though multibladed razors can be used with adequate preshave and postrazor hydration.⁴ Shaving can be undertaken in the evening to ensure adequate time for preshave preparation and postshave hydration. Waterless shaving uses waterless soaps or lotions containing α-hydroxy acid just prior to shaving in lieu of preshaving and postshaving procedures.⁴

Topical Medications—For PFB cases that are recalcitrant to management by changes in shaving, topical retinoids are commonly prescribed, as they reduce follicular hyperkeratosis that may lead to PFB.⁵ The Army medical bulletin recommends a pea-sized amount of tretinoin cream or gel 0.025%, 0.05%, or 0.1% for moderate cases, defined as “heavier beard growth, more scattered papules, no evidence of pustules or denudation.”³ Adapalene cream 0.1% may be used instead of tretinoin for sensitive skin. Oral doxycycline or topical benzoyl peroxide–clindamycin may be added for secondary bacterial skin infections. Clinical trials have demonstrated that combination benzoyl peroxide–clindamycin significantly reduces papules and pustules in up to 63% of patients with PFB (P<.029).⁶ Azelaic acid can be prescribed for prominent postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. The bulletin also suggests depilatories such as barium sulfide to obtund the hair ends and make them less likely to re-enter the skin surface, though it notes low compliance rates due to strong sulfur odor, messy application, and irritation and reactions to ingredients in the preparations.⁴

Shaving Waivers and Laser Hair Removal—The definitive treatment of PFB is to not shave, and a shaving waiver or laser hair removal (LHR) are the best options for severe PFB or PFB refractory to other treatments. A shaving waiver (or shaving profile) allows for growth of up to 0.25 inches of facial hair with maintenance of the length using clippers. The shaving profile typically is issued by the referring primary care manager (PCM) but also can be recommended by a dermatologist. Each military branch implements different regulations on shaving profiles, which complicates care delivery at joint-service military treatment facilities (MTFs). The Table provides guidelines that govern the management of PFB by the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The issuance and duration of shaving waivers vary by service.

Laser hair removal therapy uses high-wavelength lasers that largely bypass the melanocyte-containing basal layer and selectively target hair follicles located deeper in the skin, which results in precise hair reduction with relative sparing of the epidermis.¹⁶ Clinical trials at military clinics have demonstrated that treatments with the 1064-nm long-pulse Nd:YAG laser generally are safe and effective in impeding hair growth in Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI.¹⁷ This laser, along with the Alexandrite 755-nm long-pulse laser for Fitzpatrick skin types I to III, is widely available and used for LHR at MTFs that house dermatologists. Eflornithine cream 13.9%, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat hirsutism, can be used as monotherapy for treatment of PFB and has a synergistic depilatory effect in PFB patients when used in conjunction with LHR.^18,19 Laser hair removal treatments can induce a permanent change in facial hair density and pattern of growth. Side effects and complications of LHR include discomfort during treatment and, in rare instances, blistering and dyspigmentation of the skin as well as paradoxical hair growth.¹⁷

TRICARE, the uniformed health care program, covers LHR in the civilian sector if the following criteria are met: candidates must work in an environment that may require breathing protection, and they must have failed conservative therapy; an MTF dermatologist must evaluate each case and attempt LHR at an MTF to limit outside referrals; and the MTF dermatologist must process each outside referral claim to completion and ensure that the LHR is rendered by a civilian dermatologist and is consistent with branch-specific policies.²⁰

Service Policies on PFB

Army—The Army technical bulletin breaks down the treatment of PFB based on mild, moderate, and severe conditions.³ For mild conditions, a trial of shaving every 2 or 3 days until resolution is recommended. For moderate PFB, topical tretinoin as well as shaving every 2 to 3 days is recommended. For severe conditions, temporary beard growth with issuance of a temporary shaving profile up to 90 days is authorized.³

The technical bulletin also allows a permanent shaving profile for soldiers who demonstrate a severe adverse reaction to treatment or progression of the disease despite a trial of all these methods.³ The regulation stipulates that 0.125 to 0.25 inches of beard growth usually is sufficient to prevent PFB. Patients on profiles must be re-evaluated by a PCM or a dermatologist at least once a year.³

Air Force—Air Force Instruction 44-102 delegates PFB treatment and management strategies to each individual MTF, which allows for decentralized management of PFB, resulting in treatment protocols that can differ from one MTF to another.⁷ Since 2020, waivers have been valid for 5 years regardless of deployment or permanent change of station location. Previously, shaving profiles required annual renewals.⁷ Special duties, such as Honor Guard, Thunderbirds, Special Warfare Mission Support, recruiters, and the Air Force Band, often follow the professional appearance standards more strictly. Until recently, the Honor Guard used to reassign those with long-term medical shaving waivers but now allows airmen with shaving profiles to serve with exceptions (eg, shaving before ceremonies).²¹

Navy—BUPERS (Bureau of Naval Personnel) Instruction 1000.22C divides PFB severity into 2 categories.⁸ For mild to moderate PFB cases, topical tretinoin and adapalene are recommended, along with improved shaving hygiene practices. As an alternative to topical steroids, topical eflornithine monotherapy can be used twice daily for 60 days. For moderate to severe PFB cases, continued grooming modifications and LHR at military clinics with dermatologic services are expected.⁸

Naval administrative memorandum NAVADMIN 064/22 (released in 2022) no longer requires sailors with a shaving “chit,” or shaving waiver, to fully grow out their beards.⁹ Sailors may now outline or edge their beards as long as doing so does not trigger a skin irritation or outbreak. Furthermore, sailors are no longer required to carry a physical copy of their shaving chit at all times. Laser hair removal for sailors with PFB is now considered optional, whereas sailors with severe PFB were previously expected to receive LHR.⁹

Marine Corps—The Marine Corps endorses a 4-phase treatment algorithm (Table). As of January 2022, permanent shaving chits are authorized. Marines no longer need to carry physical copies of their chits at all times and cannot be separated from service because of PFB.¹⁰ New updates explicitly state that medical officers, not the commanding officers, now have final authority for granting shaving chits.¹¹

Final Thoughts

The Army provides the most detailed bulletin, which defines the clinical features and treatments expected for each stage of PFB. All 4 service branches permit temporary profiles, albeit for different lengths of time. However, only the Army and the Marine Corps currently authorize permanent shaving waivers if all treatments mentioned in their respective bulletins have failed.

The Air Force has adopted the most decentralized approach, in which each MTF is responsible for implementing its own treatment protocols and definitions. Air Force regulations now authorize a 5-year shaving profile for medical reasons, including PFB. The Air Force also has spearheaded efforts to create more inclusive policies. A study of 10,000 active-duty male Air Force members conducted by Air Force physicians found that shaving waivers were associated with longer times to promotion. Although self-identified race was not independently linked to longer promotion times, more Black service members were affected because of a higher prevalence of PFB and shaving profiles.²²

The Navy has outlined the most specific timeline for therapy for PFB. The regulations allow a 60-day temporary shaving chit that expires on the day of the appointment with the dermatologist or PCM. Although sailors were previously mandated to fully grow out their beards without modifications during the 60-day shaving chit period, Navy leadership recently overturned these requirements. However, permanent shaving chits are still not authorized in the Navy.

Service members are trying to destigmatize shaving profiles and facial hair in our military. A Facebook group called DoD Beard Action Initiative has more than 17,000 members and was created in 2021 to compile testimonies and data regarding the effects of PFB on airmen.²³ Soldiers also have petitioned for growing beards in the garrison environment with more than 100,000 signatures, citing that North Atlantic Treaty Organization allied nations permit beard growth in their respective ranks.²⁴ A Sikh marine captain recently won a lawsuit against the US Department of the Navy to maintain a beard with a turban in uniform on religious grounds.²⁵

The clean-shaven look remains standard across the military, not only for uniformity of appearance but also for safety concerns. The Naval Safety Center’s ALSAFE report concluded that any facial hair impedes a tight fit of gas masks, which can be lethal in chemical warfare. However, the report did not explore how different hair lengths would affect the seal of gas masks.²⁶ It remains unknown how 0.25 inch of facial hair, the maximum hair length authorized for most PFB patients, affects the seal. Department of Defense occupational health researchers currently are assessing how each specific facial hair length diminishes the effectiveness of gas masks.²⁷

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to frequent N95 respirator wear in the military. It is likely that growing a long beard disrupts the fitting of N95 respirators and could endanger service members, especially in clinical settings. However, one study confirmed that 0.125 inch of facial hair still results in 98% effectiveness in filtering particles for the respirator wearers.²⁸ Although unverified, it is surmisable that 0.25 inch of facial hair will likely not render all respirators useless. However, current Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines require fit tests to be conducted only on clean-shaven faces.²⁹ Effectively, service members with facial hair cannot be fit-tested for N95 respirators.

More research is needed to optimize treatment protocols and regulations for PFB in our military. As long as the current grooming standards remain in place, treatment of PFB will be a controversial topic. Guidelines will need to be continuously updated to balance the needs of our service members and to minimize risk to unit safety and mission success. Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Volume 1, revised in late 2022, now no longer designates PFB as a condition that disqualifies a candidate from entering service in any military branch.³⁰ The Department of Defense is demonstrating active research and adoption of policies regarding PFB that will benefit our service members.

Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)(also referred to as razor bumps) is a skin disease of the face and neck caused by shaving and remains prevalent in the US Military. As the sharpened ends of curly hair strands penetrate back into the epidermis, they can trigger inflammatory reactions, leading to papules and pustules as well as hyperpigmentation and scarring.¹ Although anyone with thick curly hair can develop PFB, Black individuals are disproportionately affected, with 45% to 83% reporting PFB symptoms compared with 18% of White individuals.² In this article, we review the treatments and current policies on PFB in the military.

Treatment Options

Shaving Guidelines—Daily shaving remains the grooming standard for US service members who are encouraged to follow prescribed grooming techniques to prevent mild cases of PFB, defined as having “few, scattered papules with scant hair growth of the beard area,” according to the technical bulletin of the US Army, which provides the most detailed guidelines among the branches.³ The bulletin recommends hydrating the face with warm water, followed by a preshave lotion and shaving with a single pass superiorly to inferiorly. Following shaving, postrazor hydration lotion is recommended. Single-bladed razors are preferred, as there is less trauma to existing PFB and less potential for hair retraction under the epidermis, though multibladed razors can be used with adequate preshave and postrazor hydration.⁴ Shaving can be undertaken in the evening to ensure adequate time for preshave preparation and postshave hydration. Waterless shaving uses waterless soaps or lotions containing α-hydroxy acid just prior to shaving in lieu of preshaving and postshaving procedures.⁴

Topical Medications—For PFB cases that are recalcitrant to management by changes in shaving, topical retinoids are commonly prescribed, as they reduce follicular hyperkeratosis that may lead to PFB.⁵ The Army medical bulletin recommends a pea-sized amount of tretinoin cream or gel 0.025%, 0.05%, or 0.1% for moderate cases, defined as “heavier beard growth, more scattered papules, no evidence of pustules or denudation.”³ Adapalene cream 0.1% may be used instead of tretinoin for sensitive skin. Oral doxycycline or topical benzoyl peroxide–clindamycin may be added for secondary bacterial skin infections. Clinical trials have demonstrated that combination benzoyl peroxide–clindamycin significantly reduces papules and pustules in up to 63% of patients with PFB (P<.029).⁶ Azelaic acid can be prescribed for prominent postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. The bulletin also suggests depilatories such as barium sulfide to obtund the hair ends and make them less likely to re-enter the skin surface, though it notes low compliance rates due to strong sulfur odor, messy application, and irritation and reactions to ingredients in the preparations.⁴

Shaving Waivers and Laser Hair Removal—The definitive treatment of PFB is to not shave, and a shaving waiver or laser hair removal (LHR) are the best options for severe PFB or PFB refractory to other treatments. A shaving waiver (or shaving profile) allows for growth of up to 0.25 inches of facial hair with maintenance of the length using clippers. The shaving profile typically is issued by the referring primary care manager (PCM) but also can be recommended by a dermatologist. Each military branch implements different regulations on shaving profiles, which complicates care delivery at joint-service military treatment facilities (MTFs). The Table provides guidelines that govern the management of PFB by the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The issuance and duration of shaving waivers vary by service.

Laser hair removal therapy uses high-wavelength lasers that largely bypass the melanocyte-containing basal layer and selectively target hair follicles located deeper in the skin, which results in precise hair reduction with relative sparing of the epidermis.¹⁶ Clinical trials at military clinics have demonstrated that treatments with the 1064-nm long-pulse Nd:YAG laser generally are safe and effective in impeding hair growth in Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI.¹⁷ This laser, along with the Alexandrite 755-nm long-pulse laser for Fitzpatrick skin types I to III, is widely available and used for LHR at MTFs that house dermatologists. Eflornithine cream 13.9%, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat hirsutism, can be used as monotherapy for treatment of PFB and has a synergistic depilatory effect in PFB patients when used in conjunction with LHR.^18,19 Laser hair removal treatments can induce a permanent change in facial hair density and pattern of growth. Side effects and complications of LHR include discomfort during treatment and, in rare instances, blistering and dyspigmentation of the skin as well as paradoxical hair growth.¹⁷

TRICARE, the uniformed health care program, covers LHR in the civilian sector if the following criteria are met: candidates must work in an environment that may require breathing protection, and they must have failed conservative therapy; an MTF dermatologist must evaluate each case and attempt LHR at an MTF to limit outside referrals; and the MTF dermatologist must process each outside referral claim to completion and ensure that the LHR is rendered by a civilian dermatologist and is consistent with branch-specific policies.²⁰

Service Policies on PFB

Army—The Army technical bulletin breaks down the treatment of PFB based on mild, moderate, and severe conditions.³ For mild conditions, a trial of shaving every 2 or 3 days until resolution is recommended. For moderate PFB, topical tretinoin as well as shaving every 2 to 3 days is recommended. For severe conditions, temporary beard growth with issuance of a temporary shaving profile up to 90 days is authorized.³

The technical bulletin also allows a permanent shaving profile for soldiers who demonstrate a severe adverse reaction to treatment or progression of the disease despite a trial of all these methods.³ The regulation stipulates that 0.125 to 0.25 inches of beard growth usually is sufficient to prevent PFB. Patients on profiles must be re-evaluated by a PCM or a dermatologist at least once a year.³

Air Force—Air Force Instruction 44-102 delegates PFB treatment and management strategies to each individual MTF, which allows for decentralized management of PFB, resulting in treatment protocols that can differ from one MTF to another.⁷ Since 2020, waivers have been valid for 5 years regardless of deployment or permanent change of station location. Previously, shaving profiles required annual renewals.⁷ Special duties, such as Honor Guard, Thunderbirds, Special Warfare Mission Support, recruiters, and the Air Force Band, often follow the professional appearance standards more strictly. Until recently, the Honor Guard used to reassign those with long-term medical shaving waivers but now allows airmen with shaving profiles to serve with exceptions (eg, shaving before ceremonies).²¹

Navy—BUPERS (Bureau of Naval Personnel) Instruction 1000.22C divides PFB severity into 2 categories.⁸ For mild to moderate PFB cases, topical tretinoin and adapalene are recommended, along with improved shaving hygiene practices. As an alternative to topical steroids, topical eflornithine monotherapy can be used twice daily for 60 days. For moderate to severe PFB cases, continued grooming modifications and LHR at military clinics with dermatologic services are expected.⁸

Naval administrative memorandum NAVADMIN 064/22 (released in 2022) no longer requires sailors with a shaving “chit,” or shaving waiver, to fully grow out their beards.⁹ Sailors may now outline or edge their beards as long as doing so does not trigger a skin irritation or outbreak. Furthermore, sailors are no longer required to carry a physical copy of their shaving chit at all times. Laser hair removal for sailors with PFB is now considered optional, whereas sailors with severe PFB were previously expected to receive LHR.⁹

Marine Corps—The Marine Corps endorses a 4-phase treatment algorithm (Table). As of January 2022, permanent shaving chits are authorized. Marines no longer need to carry physical copies of their chits at all times and cannot be separated from service because of PFB.¹⁰ New updates explicitly state that medical officers, not the commanding officers, now have final authority for granting shaving chits.¹¹

Final Thoughts

The Army provides the most detailed bulletin, which defines the clinical features and treatments expected for each stage of PFB. All 4 service branches permit temporary profiles, albeit for different lengths of time. However, only the Army and the Marine Corps currently authorize permanent shaving waivers if all treatments mentioned in their respective bulletins have failed.

The Air Force has adopted the most decentralized approach, in which each MTF is responsible for implementing its own treatment protocols and definitions. Air Force regulations now authorize a 5-year shaving profile for medical reasons, including PFB. The Air Force also has spearheaded efforts to create more inclusive policies. A study of 10,000 active-duty male Air Force members conducted by Air Force physicians found that shaving waivers were associated with longer times to promotion. Although self-identified race was not independently linked to longer promotion times, more Black service members were affected because of a higher prevalence of PFB and shaving profiles.²²

The Navy has outlined the most specific timeline for therapy for PFB. The regulations allow a 60-day temporary shaving chit that expires on the day of the appointment with the dermatologist or PCM. Although sailors were previously mandated to fully grow out their beards without modifications during the 60-day shaving chit period, Navy leadership recently overturned these requirements. However, permanent shaving chits are still not authorized in the Navy.

Service members are trying to destigmatize shaving profiles and facial hair in our military. A Facebook group called DoD Beard Action Initiative has more than 17,000 members and was created in 2021 to compile testimonies and data regarding the effects of PFB on airmen.²³ Soldiers also have petitioned for growing beards in the garrison environment with more than 100,000 signatures, citing that North Atlantic Treaty Organization allied nations permit beard growth in their respective ranks.²⁴ A Sikh marine captain recently won a lawsuit against the US Department of the Navy to maintain a beard with a turban in uniform on religious grounds.²⁵

The clean-shaven look remains standard across the military, not only for uniformity of appearance but also for safety concerns. The Naval Safety Center’s ALSAFE report concluded that any facial hair impedes a tight fit of gas masks, which can be lethal in chemical warfare. However, the report did not explore how different hair lengths would affect the seal of gas masks.²⁶ It remains unknown how 0.25 inch of facial hair, the maximum hair length authorized for most PFB patients, affects the seal. Department of Defense occupational health researchers currently are assessing how each specific facial hair length diminishes the effectiveness of gas masks.²⁷

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to frequent N95 respirator wear in the military. It is likely that growing a long beard disrupts the fitting of N95 respirators and could endanger service members, especially in clinical settings. However, one study confirmed that 0.125 inch of facial hair still results in 98% effectiveness in filtering particles for the respirator wearers.²⁸ Although unverified, it is surmisable that 0.25 inch of facial hair will likely not render all respirators useless. However, current Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines require fit tests to be conducted only on clean-shaven faces.²⁹ Effectively, service members with facial hair cannot be fit-tested for N95 respirators.

More research is needed to optimize treatment protocols and regulations for PFB in our military. As long as the current grooming standards remain in place, treatment of PFB will be a controversial topic. Guidelines will need to be continuously updated to balance the needs of our service members and to minimize risk to unit safety and mission success. Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Volume 1, revised in late 2022, now no longer designates PFB as a condition that disqualifies a candidate from entering service in any military branch.³⁰ The Department of Defense is demonstrating active research and adoption of policies regarding PFB that will benefit our service members.

Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)(also referred to as razor bumps) is a skin disease of the face and neck caused by shaving and remains prevalent in the US Military. As the sharpened ends of curly hair strands penetrate back into the epidermis, they can trigger inflammatory reactions, leading to papules and pustules as well as hyperpigmentation and scarring.¹ Although anyone with thick curly hair can develop PFB, Black individuals are disproportionately affected, with 45% to 83% reporting PFB symptoms compared with 18% of White individuals.² In this article, we review the treatments and current policies on PFB in the military.

Treatment Options

Shaving Guidelines—Daily shaving remains the grooming standard for US service members who are encouraged to follow prescribed grooming techniques to prevent mild cases of PFB, defined as having “few, scattered papules with scant hair growth of the beard area,” according to the technical bulletin of the US Army, which provides the most detailed guidelines among the branches.³ The bulletin recommends hydrating the face with warm water, followed by a preshave lotion and shaving with a single pass superiorly to inferiorly. Following shaving, postrazor hydration lotion is recommended. Single-bladed razors are preferred, as there is less trauma to existing PFB and less potential for hair retraction under the epidermis, though multibladed razors can be used with adequate preshave and postrazor hydration.⁴ Shaving can be undertaken in the evening to ensure adequate time for preshave preparation and postshave hydration. Waterless shaving uses waterless soaps or lotions containing α-hydroxy acid just prior to shaving in lieu of preshaving and postshaving procedures.⁴

Topical Medications—For PFB cases that are recalcitrant to management by changes in shaving, topical retinoids are commonly prescribed, as they reduce follicular hyperkeratosis that may lead to PFB.⁵ The Army medical bulletin recommends a pea-sized amount of tretinoin cream or gel 0.025%, 0.05%, or 0.1% for moderate cases, defined as “heavier beard growth, more scattered papules, no evidence of pustules or denudation.”³ Adapalene cream 0.1% may be used instead of tretinoin for sensitive skin. Oral doxycycline or topical benzoyl peroxide–clindamycin may be added for secondary bacterial skin infections. Clinical trials have demonstrated that combination benzoyl peroxide–clindamycin significantly reduces papules and pustules in up to 63% of patients with PFB (P<.029).⁶ Azelaic acid can be prescribed for prominent postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. The bulletin also suggests depilatories such as barium sulfide to obtund the hair ends and make them less likely to re-enter the skin surface, though it notes low compliance rates due to strong sulfur odor, messy application, and irritation and reactions to ingredients in the preparations.⁴

Shaving Waivers and Laser Hair Removal—The definitive treatment of PFB is to not shave, and a shaving waiver or laser hair removal (LHR) are the best options for severe PFB or PFB refractory to other treatments. A shaving waiver (or shaving profile) allows for growth of up to 0.25 inches of facial hair with maintenance of the length using clippers. The shaving profile typically is issued by the referring primary care manager (PCM) but also can be recommended by a dermatologist. Each military branch implements different regulations on shaving profiles, which complicates care delivery at joint-service military treatment facilities (MTFs). The Table provides guidelines that govern the management of PFB by the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The issuance and duration of shaving waivers vary by service.

Laser hair removal therapy uses high-wavelength lasers that largely bypass the melanocyte-containing basal layer and selectively target hair follicles located deeper in the skin, which results in precise hair reduction with relative sparing of the epidermis.¹⁶ Clinical trials at military clinics have demonstrated that treatments with the 1064-nm long-pulse Nd:YAG laser generally are safe and effective in impeding hair growth in Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI.¹⁷ This laser, along with the Alexandrite 755-nm long-pulse laser for Fitzpatrick skin types I to III, is widely available and used for LHR at MTFs that house dermatologists. Eflornithine cream 13.9%, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat hirsutism, can be used as monotherapy for treatment of PFB and has a synergistic depilatory effect in PFB patients when used in conjunction with LHR.^18,19 Laser hair removal treatments can induce a permanent change in facial hair density and pattern of growth. Side effects and complications of LHR include discomfort during treatment and, in rare instances, blistering and dyspigmentation of the skin as well as paradoxical hair growth.¹⁷

TRICARE, the uniformed health care program, covers LHR in the civilian sector if the following criteria are met: candidates must work in an environment that may require breathing protection, and they must have failed conservative therapy; an MTF dermatologist must evaluate each case and attempt LHR at an MTF to limit outside referrals; and the MTF dermatologist must process each outside referral claim to completion and ensure that the LHR is rendered by a civilian dermatologist and is consistent with branch-specific policies.²⁰

Service Policies on PFB

Army—The Army technical bulletin breaks down the treatment of PFB based on mild, moderate, and severe conditions.³ For mild conditions, a trial of shaving every 2 or 3 days until resolution is recommended. For moderate PFB, topical tretinoin as well as shaving every 2 to 3 days is recommended. For severe conditions, temporary beard growth with issuance of a temporary shaving profile up to 90 days is authorized.³

The technical bulletin also allows a permanent shaving profile for soldiers who demonstrate a severe adverse reaction to treatment or progression of the disease despite a trial of all these methods.³ The regulation stipulates that 0.125 to 0.25 inches of beard growth usually is sufficient to prevent PFB. Patients on profiles must be re-evaluated by a PCM or a dermatologist at least once a year.³

Air Force—Air Force Instruction 44-102 delegates PFB treatment and management strategies to each individual MTF, which allows for decentralized management of PFB, resulting in treatment protocols that can differ from one MTF to another.⁷ Since 2020, waivers have been valid for 5 years regardless of deployment or permanent change of station location. Previously, shaving profiles required annual renewals.⁷ Special duties, such as Honor Guard, Thunderbirds, Special Warfare Mission Support, recruiters, and the Air Force Band, often follow the professional appearance standards more strictly. Until recently, the Honor Guard used to reassign those with long-term medical shaving waivers but now allows airmen with shaving profiles to serve with exceptions (eg, shaving before ceremonies).²¹

Navy—BUPERS (Bureau of Naval Personnel) Instruction 1000.22C divides PFB severity into 2 categories.⁸ For mild to moderate PFB cases, topical tretinoin and adapalene are recommended, along with improved shaving hygiene practices. As an alternative to topical steroids, topical eflornithine monotherapy can be used twice daily for 60 days. For moderate to severe PFB cases, continued grooming modifications and LHR at military clinics with dermatologic services are expected.⁸

Naval administrative memorandum NAVADMIN 064/22 (released in 2022) no longer requires sailors with a shaving “chit,” or shaving waiver, to fully grow out their beards.⁹ Sailors may now outline or edge their beards as long as doing so does not trigger a skin irritation or outbreak. Furthermore, sailors are no longer required to carry a physical copy of their shaving chit at all times. Laser hair removal for sailors with PFB is now considered optional, whereas sailors with severe PFB were previously expected to receive LHR.⁹

Marine Corps—The Marine Corps endorses a 4-phase treatment algorithm (Table). As of January 2022, permanent shaving chits are authorized. Marines no longer need to carry physical copies of their chits at all times and cannot be separated from service because of PFB.¹⁰ New updates explicitly state that medical officers, not the commanding officers, now have final authority for granting shaving chits.¹¹

Final Thoughts

The Army provides the most detailed bulletin, which defines the clinical features and treatments expected for each stage of PFB. All 4 service branches permit temporary profiles, albeit for different lengths of time. However, only the Army and the Marine Corps currently authorize permanent shaving waivers if all treatments mentioned in their respective bulletins have failed.

The Air Force has adopted the most decentralized approach, in which each MTF is responsible for implementing its own treatment protocols and definitions. Air Force regulations now authorize a 5-year shaving profile for medical reasons, including PFB. The Air Force also has spearheaded efforts to create more inclusive policies. A study of 10,000 active-duty male Air Force members conducted by Air Force physicians found that shaving waivers were associated with longer times to promotion. Although self-identified race was not independently linked to longer promotion times, more Black service members were affected because of a higher prevalence of PFB and shaving profiles.²²

The Navy has outlined the most specific timeline for therapy for PFB. The regulations allow a 60-day temporary shaving chit that expires on the day of the appointment with the dermatologist or PCM. Although sailors were previously mandated to fully grow out their beards without modifications during the 60-day shaving chit period, Navy leadership recently overturned these requirements. However, permanent shaving chits are still not authorized in the Navy.

Service members are trying to destigmatize shaving profiles and facial hair in our military. A Facebook group called DoD Beard Action Initiative has more than 17,000 members and was created in 2021 to compile testimonies and data regarding the effects of PFB on airmen.²³ Soldiers also have petitioned for growing beards in the garrison environment with more than 100,000 signatures, citing that North Atlantic Treaty Organization allied nations permit beard growth in their respective ranks.²⁴ A Sikh marine captain recently won a lawsuit against the US Department of the Navy to maintain a beard with a turban in uniform on religious grounds.²⁵

The clean-shaven look remains standard across the military, not only for uniformity of appearance but also for safety concerns. The Naval Safety Center’s ALSAFE report concluded that any facial hair impedes a tight fit of gas masks, which can be lethal in chemical warfare. However, the report did not explore how different hair lengths would affect the seal of gas masks.²⁶ It remains unknown how 0.25 inch of facial hair, the maximum hair length authorized for most PFB patients, affects the seal. Department of Defense occupational health researchers currently are assessing how each specific facial hair length diminishes the effectiveness of gas masks.²⁷

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to frequent N95 respirator wear in the military. It is likely that growing a long beard disrupts the fitting of N95 respirators and could endanger service members, especially in clinical settings. However, one study confirmed that 0.125 inch of facial hair still results in 98% effectiveness in filtering particles for the respirator wearers.²⁸ Although unverified, it is surmisable that 0.25 inch of facial hair will likely not render all respirators useless. However, current Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines require fit tests to be conducted only on clean-shaven faces.²⁹ Effectively, service members with facial hair cannot be fit-tested for N95 respirators.

More research is needed to optimize treatment protocols and regulations for PFB in our military. As long as the current grooming standards remain in place, treatment of PFB will be a controversial topic. Guidelines will need to be continuously updated to balance the needs of our service members and to minimize risk to unit safety and mission success. Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Volume 1, revised in late 2022, now no longer designates PFB as a condition that disqualifies a candidate from entering service in any military branch.³⁰ The Department of Defense is demonstrating active research and adoption of policies regarding PFB that will benefit our service members.

Acrylates are a ubiquitous family of synthetic thermoplastic resins that are employed in a wide array of products. Since the discovery of acrylic acid in 1843 and its industrialization in the early 20th century, acrylates have been used by many different sectors of industry.¹ Today, acrylates can be found in diverse sources such as adhesives, coatings, electronics, nail cosmetics, dental materials, and medical devices. Although these versatile compounds have revolutionized numerous sectors, their potential to trigger allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has garnered considerable attention in recent years. In 2012, acrylates as a group were named Allergen of the Year by the American Contact Dermatitis Society,² and one member—isobornyl acrylate—also was given the infamous award in 2020.³ In this article, we highlight the chemistry of acrylates, the growing prevalence of acrylate contact allergy, common sources of exposure, patch testing considerations, and management/prevention strategies.

Chemistry and Uses of Acrylates

Acrylates are widely used due to their pliable and resilient properties.⁴ They begin as liquid monomers of (meth)acrylic acid or cyanoacrylic acid that are molded to the desired application before being cured or hardened by one of several means: spontaneously, using chemical catalysts, or with heat, UV light, or a light-emitting diode. Once cured, the final polymers (ie, [meth]acrylates, cyanoacrylates) serve a myriad of different purposes. Table 1 includes some of the more clinically relevant sources of acrylate exposure. Although this list is not comprehensive, it offers a glimpse into the vast array of uses for acrylates.

Acrylate Contact Allergy

Acrylic monomers are potent contact allergens, but the polymerized final products are not considered allergenic, assuming they are completely cured; however, ACD can occur with incomplete curing.⁶ It is of clinical importance that once an individual becomes sensitized to one type of acrylate, they may develop cross-reactions to others contained in different products. Notably, cyanoacrylates generally do not cross-react with (meth)acrylates; this has important implications for choosing safe alternative products in sensitized patients, though independent sensitization to cyanoacrylates is possible.^7,8

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

The prevalence of acrylate allergy in the general population is unknown; however, there is a trend of increased patch test positivity in studies of patients referred for patch testing. A 2018 study by the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group reported positive patch tests to acrylates in 1.1% of 18,228 patients tested from 2013 to 2015.⁹ More recently, a multicenter European study (2019-2020) reported a 2.3% patch test positivity to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) among 7675 tested individuals,¹⁰ and even higher HEMA positivity was reported in Spain (3.7% of 1884 patients in 2019-2020).¹¹ In addition, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported positive patch test reactions to HEMA in 3.2% of 4111 patients tested from 2019 to 2020, a statistically significant increase compared with those tested in 2009 to 2018 (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.03-1.51]; P=.02).¹²

Historically, acrylate sensitization primarily stemmed from occupational exposure. A retrospective analysis of occupational dermatitis performed by the NACDG (2001-2016) showed that HEMA was among the top 10 most common occupational allergens (3.4% positivity [83/2461]) and had the fifth highest percentage of occupationally relevant reactions (73.5% [83/113]).¹³ High-risk occupations include dental providers and nail technicians. Dentistry utilizes many materials containing acrylates, including uncured plastic resins used in dental prostheses, dentin bonding materials, and glass ionomers.¹⁴ A retrospective analysis of 585 dental personnel who were patch tested by the NACDG (2001-2018) found that more than 20% of occupational ACD cases were related to acrylates.¹⁵ Nail technicians are another group routinely exposed to acrylates through a variety of modern nail cosmetics. In a 7-year study from Portugal evaluating acrylate ACD, 68% (25/37) of cases were attributed to occupation, 80% (20/25) of which were in nail technicians.¹⁶ Likewise, among 28 nail technicians in Sweden who were referred for patch testing, 57% (16/28) tested positive for at least 1 acrylate.¹⁷

Modern Sources of Acrylate Exposure

Once thought to be a predominantly occupational exposure, acrylates have rapidly made their way into everyday consumer products. Clinicians should be aware of several sources of clinically relevant acrylate exposure, including nail cosmetics, consumer electronics, and medical/surgical adhesives.

A 2016 study found a shift to nail cosmetics as the most common source of acrylate sensitization.¹⁸ Nail cosmetics that contain acrylates include traditional acrylic, gel (shellac), dipped, and press-on (false) nails.¹⁹ The NACDG found that the most common allergen in patients experiencing ACD associated with nail products (2001-2016) was HEMA (56.6% [273/482]), far ahead of the traditional nail polish allergen tosylamide (36.2% [273/755]). Over the study period, the frequency of positive patch tests statistically increased for HEMA (P=.0069) and decreased for tosylamide (P<.0001).²⁰ There is concern that the use of home gel nail kits, which can be purchased online at the click of a button, may be associated with a risk for acrylate sensitization.^21,22 A recent study surveyed a Facebook support group for individuals with self-reported reactions to nail cosmetics, finding that 78% of the 199 individuals had used at-home gel nail kits, and more than 80% of them first developed skin reactions after starting to use at-home kits.²³ The risks for sensitization are thought to be greater when self-applying nail acrylates compared to having them done professionally because individuals are more likely to spill allergenic monomers onto the skin at home; it also is possible that home techniques could lead to incomplete curing. Table 2 reviews the different types of acrylic nail cosmetics.

Medical adhesives and equipment are other important areas where acrylates can be encountered in abundance. A review by Spencer et al¹⁸ cautioned wound dressings as an up-and-coming source of sensitization, and this has been demonstrated in the literature as coming to fruition.²⁶ Another study identified acrylates in 15 of 16 (94%) tested medical adhesives; among 7 medical adhesives labeled as hypoallergenic, 100% still contained acrylates and/or abietic acid.²⁷ Multiple case reports have described ACD to adhesives of electrocardiogram electrodes containing acrylates.^28-31 Physicians providing care to patients with diabetes mellitus also must be aware of acrylates in glucose monitors and insulin pumps, either found in the adhesives or leaching from the inside of the device to reach the skin.³² Isobornyl acrylate in particular has made quite the name for itself in this sector, being crowned the 2020 Allergen of the Year owing to its key role in cases of ACD to diabetes devices.³

Cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives (eg, 2‐octyl cyanoacrylate) are now well documented to cause postoperative ACD.^33,34 Although robust prospective data are limited, studies suggest that 2% to 14% of patients develop postoperative skin reactions following 2-octyl cyanoacrylate application.^35-37 It has been shown that sensitization to tissue adhesives often occurs after the first application, followed by an eruption of ACD as long as a month later, which can create confusion about the nature of the rash for patients and health care providers alike, who may for instance attribute it to infection rather than allergy.³⁸ In the orthopedic literature, a woman with a known history of acrylic nail ACD had knee arthroplasty failure attributed to acrylic bone cement with resolution of the joint symptoms after changing to a cementless device.³⁹

Awareness of the common use of acrylates is important to identify the cause of reactions from products that would otherwise seem nonallergenic. A case of occupational ACD to isobornyl acrylate in UV-cured phone screen protectors has been reported⁴⁰; several cases of ACD to acrylates in headphones^41,42 as well as one related to a wearable fitness device also have been reported.⁴³ Given all these possible sources of exposure, ACD to acrylates should be on your radar.

When to Consider Acrylate ACD

When working up a patient with dermatitis, it is essential to ask about occupational history and hobbies to get a sense of potential contact allergen exposures. The typical presentation of occupational acrylate-associated ACD is hand eczema, specifically involving the fingertips.^5,24,25,44 Acrylate ACD should be considered in patients with nail dystrophy and a history of wearing acrylic nails.⁴⁵ There can even be involvement of the face and eyelids secondary to airborne contact or ectopic spread from the hands.²⁴ Spreading vesicular eruptions associated with adhesives also should raise concern. The Figure depicts several possible presentations of ACD to acrylates. In a time of abundant access to products containing acrylates, dermatologists should consider this allergy in their differential diagnosis and consider patch testing.

Photographs courtesy of Brandon L. Adler, MD.

Patch Testing to Acrylates

The gold standard for ACD diagnosis is patch testing. It should be noted that no acrylates are included in the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test series. Several acrylates are tested in expanded patch test series including the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen series and North American 80 Comprehensive Series. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is thought to be the most important screening allergen to test. Ramos et al¹⁶ reported a positive patch test to HEMA in 81% (30/37) of patients who had any type of acrylate allergy.

If initial testing to a limited number of acrylates is negative but clinical suspicion remains high, expanded acrylates/plastics and glue series also are available from commercial patch test suppliers. Testing to an expanded panel of acrylates is especially pertinent to consider in suspected occupational cases given the risk of workplace absenteeism and even disability that come with continued exposure to the allergen. Of note, isobornyl acrylate is not included in the baseline patch test series and must be tested separately, particularly because it usually does not cross-react with other acrylates, and therefore allergy could be missed if not tested on its own.

Acrylates are volatile substances that have been shown to degrade at room temperature and to a lesser degree when refrigerated. Ideally, they should be stored in a freezer and not used beyond their expiration date. Furthermore, it is advised that acrylate patch tests be prepared immediately prior to placement on the patient and to discard the initial extrusion from the syringe, as the concentration at the tip may be decreased.^46,47

With regard to tissue adhesives, the actual product should be tested as-is because these are not commercially available patch test substances.⁴⁸ Occasionally, patients who are sensitized to the tissue adhesive will not react when patch tested on intact skin. If clinical suspicion remains high, scratch patch testing may confirm contact allergy in cases of negative testing on intact skin.⁴⁹

Management and Prevention

Once a diagnosis of ACD secondary to acrylates has been established, counseling patients on allergen avoidance strategies is essential. For (meth)acrylate-allergic patients who want to continue using modern nail products, cyanoacrylate-based options (eg, dipped, press-on nails) can be considered as an alternative, as they do not cross-react, though independent sensitization is still possible. However, traditional nail polish is the safest option to recommend.

The concern with acrylate sensitization extends beyond the immediate issue that brought the patient into your clinic. Dermatologists must counsel patients who are sensitized to acrylates on the possible sequelae of acrylate-containing dental or orthopedic procedures. Oral lichenoid lesions, denture stomatitis, burning mouth syndrome, or even acute facial swelling have been reported following dental work in patients with acrylate allergy.^50-53 Dentists of patients with acrylate ACD should be informed of the diagnosis so acrylates can be avoided during dental work; if unavoidable, all possible steps should be taken to ensure complete curing of the monomers. In the surgical setting, patients sensitized to cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives should be offered wound closure alternatives such as sutures or staples.³⁴

In patients with diabetes mellitus who develop ACD to their glucose monitor or insulin pump, ideally they should be switched to a device that does not contain acrylates. Problematically, these devices are constantly being reformulated, and manufacturers do not always divulge their components, which can make it challenging to determine safe alternative options.^32,54 Various barrier products may help on a case-by-case basis.⁵⁵Preventative measures should be implemented in workplaces that utilize acrylates, including dental practices and nail salons. Acrylic monomers have been shown to penetrate most gloves within minutes of exposure.^56,57 Double gloving with nitrile gloves affords some protection for no longer than 60 minutes.⁶ 4H gloves have been shown to provide true protection but result in a loss of dexterity.⁵⁸ The fingerstall technique involves removing the fingers from a 4H glove, inserting them on the fingers, and applying a more flexible glove on top to hold them in place; this offers a hybrid between protection and finger dexterity.⁵⁹

Final Interpretation

In a world characterized by technological advancements and increasing accessibility to acrylate-containing products, we hope this brief review serves as a resource and reminder to dermatologists to consider acrylates as a potential cause of ACD with diverse presentations and important future implications for affected individuals. The rising trend of acrylate allergy necessitates comprehensive assessment and shared decision-making between physicians and patients. As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of materials and technologies, clinicians must remain vigilant to avoid some potentially sticky situations for patients.

Acrylates are a ubiquitous family of synthetic thermoplastic resins that are employed in a wide array of products. Since the discovery of acrylic acid in 1843 and its industrialization in the early 20th century, acrylates have been used by many different sectors of industry.¹ Today, acrylates can be found in diverse sources such as adhesives, coatings, electronics, nail cosmetics, dental materials, and medical devices. Although these versatile compounds have revolutionized numerous sectors, their potential to trigger allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has garnered considerable attention in recent years. In 2012, acrylates as a group were named Allergen of the Year by the American Contact Dermatitis Society,² and one member—isobornyl acrylate—also was given the infamous award in 2020.³ In this article, we highlight the chemistry of acrylates, the growing prevalence of acrylate contact allergy, common sources of exposure, patch testing considerations, and management/prevention strategies.

Chemistry and Uses of Acrylates

Acrylates are widely used due to their pliable and resilient properties.⁴ They begin as liquid monomers of (meth)acrylic acid or cyanoacrylic acid that are molded to the desired application before being cured or hardened by one of several means: spontaneously, using chemical catalysts, or with heat, UV light, or a light-emitting diode. Once cured, the final polymers (ie, [meth]acrylates, cyanoacrylates) serve a myriad of different purposes. Table 1 includes some of the more clinically relevant sources of acrylate exposure. Although this list is not comprehensive, it offers a glimpse into the vast array of uses for acrylates.

Acrylate Contact Allergy

Acrylic monomers are potent contact allergens, but the polymerized final products are not considered allergenic, assuming they are completely cured; however, ACD can occur with incomplete curing.⁶ It is of clinical importance that once an individual becomes sensitized to one type of acrylate, they may develop cross-reactions to others contained in different products. Notably, cyanoacrylates generally do not cross-react with (meth)acrylates; this has important implications for choosing safe alternative products in sensitized patients, though independent sensitization to cyanoacrylates is possible.^7,8

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

The prevalence of acrylate allergy in the general population is unknown; however, there is a trend of increased patch test positivity in studies of patients referred for patch testing. A 2018 study by the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group reported positive patch tests to acrylates in 1.1% of 18,228 patients tested from 2013 to 2015.⁹ More recently, a multicenter European study (2019-2020) reported a 2.3% patch test positivity to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) among 7675 tested individuals,¹⁰ and even higher HEMA positivity was reported in Spain (3.7% of 1884 patients in 2019-2020).¹¹ In addition, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported positive patch test reactions to HEMA in 3.2% of 4111 patients tested from 2019 to 2020, a statistically significant increase compared with those tested in 2009 to 2018 (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.03-1.51]; P=.02).¹²

Historically, acrylate sensitization primarily stemmed from occupational exposure. A retrospective analysis of occupational dermatitis performed by the NACDG (2001-2016) showed that HEMA was among the top 10 most common occupational allergens (3.4% positivity [83/2461]) and had the fifth highest percentage of occupationally relevant reactions (73.5% [83/113]).¹³ High-risk occupations include dental providers and nail technicians. Dentistry utilizes many materials containing acrylates, including uncured plastic resins used in dental prostheses, dentin bonding materials, and glass ionomers.¹⁴ A retrospective analysis of 585 dental personnel who were patch tested by the NACDG (2001-2018) found that more than 20% of occupational ACD cases were related to acrylates.¹⁵ Nail technicians are another group routinely exposed to acrylates through a variety of modern nail cosmetics. In a 7-year study from Portugal evaluating acrylate ACD, 68% (25/37) of cases were attributed to occupation, 80% (20/25) of which were in nail technicians.¹⁶ Likewise, among 28 nail technicians in Sweden who were referred for patch testing, 57% (16/28) tested positive for at least 1 acrylate.¹⁷

Modern Sources of Acrylate Exposure

Once thought to be a predominantly occupational exposure, acrylates have rapidly made their way into everyday consumer products. Clinicians should be aware of several sources of clinically relevant acrylate exposure, including nail cosmetics, consumer electronics, and medical/surgical adhesives.

A 2016 study found a shift to nail cosmetics as the most common source of acrylate sensitization.¹⁸ Nail cosmetics that contain acrylates include traditional acrylic, gel (shellac), dipped, and press-on (false) nails.¹⁹ The NACDG found that the most common allergen in patients experiencing ACD associated with nail products (2001-2016) was HEMA (56.6% [273/482]), far ahead of the traditional nail polish allergen tosylamide (36.2% [273/755]). Over the study period, the frequency of positive patch tests statistically increased for HEMA (P=.0069) and decreased for tosylamide (P<.0001).²⁰ There is concern that the use of home gel nail kits, which can be purchased online at the click of a button, may be associated with a risk for acrylate sensitization.^21,22 A recent study surveyed a Facebook support group for individuals with self-reported reactions to nail cosmetics, finding that 78% of the 199 individuals had used at-home gel nail kits, and more than 80% of them first developed skin reactions after starting to use at-home kits.²³ The risks for sensitization are thought to be greater when self-applying nail acrylates compared to having them done professionally because individuals are more likely to spill allergenic monomers onto the skin at home; it also is possible that home techniques could lead to incomplete curing. Table 2 reviews the different types of acrylic nail cosmetics.

Medical adhesives and equipment are other important areas where acrylates can be encountered in abundance. A review by Spencer et al¹⁸ cautioned wound dressings as an up-and-coming source of sensitization, and this has been demonstrated in the literature as coming to fruition.²⁶ Another study identified acrylates in 15 of 16 (94%) tested medical adhesives; among 7 medical adhesives labeled as hypoallergenic, 100% still contained acrylates and/or abietic acid.²⁷ Multiple case reports have described ACD to adhesives of electrocardiogram electrodes containing acrylates.^28-31 Physicians providing care to patients with diabetes mellitus also must be aware of acrylates in glucose monitors and insulin pumps, either found in the adhesives or leaching from the inside of the device to reach the skin.³² Isobornyl acrylate in particular has made quite the name for itself in this sector, being crowned the 2020 Allergen of the Year owing to its key role in cases of ACD to diabetes devices.³

Cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives (eg, 2‐octyl cyanoacrylate) are now well documented to cause postoperative ACD.^33,34 Although robust prospective data are limited, studies suggest that 2% to 14% of patients develop postoperative skin reactions following 2-octyl cyanoacrylate application.^35-37 It has been shown that sensitization to tissue adhesives often occurs after the first application, followed by an eruption of ACD as long as a month later, which can create confusion about the nature of the rash for patients and health care providers alike, who may for instance attribute it to infection rather than allergy.³⁸ In the orthopedic literature, a woman with a known history of acrylic nail ACD had knee arthroplasty failure attributed to acrylic bone cement with resolution of the joint symptoms after changing to a cementless device.³⁹

Awareness of the common use of acrylates is important to identify the cause of reactions from products that would otherwise seem nonallergenic. A case of occupational ACD to isobornyl acrylate in UV-cured phone screen protectors has been reported⁴⁰; several cases of ACD to acrylates in headphones^41,42 as well as one related to a wearable fitness device also have been reported.⁴³ Given all these possible sources of exposure, ACD to acrylates should be on your radar.

When to Consider Acrylate ACD

When working up a patient with dermatitis, it is essential to ask about occupational history and hobbies to get a sense of potential contact allergen exposures. The typical presentation of occupational acrylate-associated ACD is hand eczema, specifically involving the fingertips.^5,24,25,44 Acrylate ACD should be considered in patients with nail dystrophy and a history of wearing acrylic nails.⁴⁵ There can even be involvement of the face and eyelids secondary to airborne contact or ectopic spread from the hands.²⁴ Spreading vesicular eruptions associated with adhesives also should raise concern. The Figure depicts several possible presentations of ACD to acrylates. In a time of abundant access to products containing acrylates, dermatologists should consider this allergy in their differential diagnosis and consider patch testing.

Photographs courtesy of Brandon L. Adler, MD.

Patch Testing to Acrylates

The gold standard for ACD diagnosis is patch testing. It should be noted that no acrylates are included in the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test series. Several acrylates are tested in expanded patch test series including the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen series and North American 80 Comprehensive Series. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is thought to be the most important screening allergen to test. Ramos et al¹⁶ reported a positive patch test to HEMA in 81% (30/37) of patients who had any type of acrylate allergy.

If initial testing to a limited number of acrylates is negative but clinical suspicion remains high, expanded acrylates/plastics and glue series also are available from commercial patch test suppliers. Testing to an expanded panel of acrylates is especially pertinent to consider in suspected occupational cases given the risk of workplace absenteeism and even disability that come with continued exposure to the allergen. Of note, isobornyl acrylate is not included in the baseline patch test series and must be tested separately, particularly because it usually does not cross-react with other acrylates, and therefore allergy could be missed if not tested on its own.

Acrylates are volatile substances that have been shown to degrade at room temperature and to a lesser degree when refrigerated. Ideally, they should be stored in a freezer and not used beyond their expiration date. Furthermore, it is advised that acrylate patch tests be prepared immediately prior to placement on the patient and to discard the initial extrusion from the syringe, as the concentration at the tip may be decreased.^46,47

With regard to tissue adhesives, the actual product should be tested as-is because these are not commercially available patch test substances.⁴⁸ Occasionally, patients who are sensitized to the tissue adhesive will not react when patch tested on intact skin. If clinical suspicion remains high, scratch patch testing may confirm contact allergy in cases of negative testing on intact skin.⁴⁹

Management and Prevention

Once a diagnosis of ACD secondary to acrylates has been established, counseling patients on allergen avoidance strategies is essential. For (meth)acrylate-allergic patients who want to continue using modern nail products, cyanoacrylate-based options (eg, dipped, press-on nails) can be considered as an alternative, as they do not cross-react, though independent sensitization is still possible. However, traditional nail polish is the safest option to recommend.

The concern with acrylate sensitization extends beyond the immediate issue that brought the patient into your clinic. Dermatologists must counsel patients who are sensitized to acrylates on the possible sequelae of acrylate-containing dental or orthopedic procedures. Oral lichenoid lesions, denture stomatitis, burning mouth syndrome, or even acute facial swelling have been reported following dental work in patients with acrylate allergy.^50-53 Dentists of patients with acrylate ACD should be informed of the diagnosis so acrylates can be avoided during dental work; if unavoidable, all possible steps should be taken to ensure complete curing of the monomers. In the surgical setting, patients sensitized to cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives should be offered wound closure alternatives such as sutures or staples.³⁴

In patients with diabetes mellitus who develop ACD to their glucose monitor or insulin pump, ideally they should be switched to a device that does not contain acrylates. Problematically, these devices are constantly being reformulated, and manufacturers do not always divulge their components, which can make it challenging to determine safe alternative options.^32,54 Various barrier products may help on a case-by-case basis.⁵⁵Preventative measures should be implemented in workplaces that utilize acrylates, including dental practices and nail salons. Acrylic monomers have been shown to penetrate most gloves within minutes of exposure.^56,57 Double gloving with nitrile gloves affords some protection for no longer than 60 minutes.⁶ 4H gloves have been shown to provide true protection but result in a loss of dexterity.⁵⁸ The fingerstall technique involves removing the fingers from a 4H glove, inserting them on the fingers, and applying a more flexible glove on top to hold them in place; this offers a hybrid between protection and finger dexterity.⁵⁹

Final Interpretation

In a world characterized by technological advancements and increasing accessibility to acrylate-containing products, we hope this brief review serves as a resource and reminder to dermatologists to consider acrylates as a potential cause of ACD with diverse presentations and important future implications for affected individuals. The rising trend of acrylate allergy necessitates comprehensive assessment and shared decision-making between physicians and patients. As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of materials and technologies, clinicians must remain vigilant to avoid some potentially sticky situations for patients.

Acrylates are a ubiquitous family of synthetic thermoplastic resins that are employed in a wide array of products. Since the discovery of acrylic acid in 1843 and its industrialization in the early 20th century, acrylates have been used by many different sectors of industry.¹ Today, acrylates can be found in diverse sources such as adhesives, coatings, electronics, nail cosmetics, dental materials, and medical devices. Although these versatile compounds have revolutionized numerous sectors, their potential to trigger allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has garnered considerable attention in recent years. In 2012, acrylates as a group were named Allergen of the Year by the American Contact Dermatitis Society,² and one member—isobornyl acrylate—also was given the infamous award in 2020.³ In this article, we highlight the chemistry of acrylates, the growing prevalence of acrylate contact allergy, common sources of exposure, patch testing considerations, and management/prevention strategies.

Chemistry and Uses of Acrylates

Acrylates are widely used due to their pliable and resilient properties.⁴ They begin as liquid monomers of (meth)acrylic acid or cyanoacrylic acid that are molded to the desired application before being cured or hardened by one of several means: spontaneously, using chemical catalysts, or with heat, UV light, or a light-emitting diode. Once cured, the final polymers (ie, [meth]acrylates, cyanoacrylates) serve a myriad of different purposes. Table 1 includes some of the more clinically relevant sources of acrylate exposure. Although this list is not comprehensive, it offers a glimpse into the vast array of uses for acrylates.

Acrylate Contact Allergy

Acrylic monomers are potent contact allergens, but the polymerized final products are not considered allergenic, assuming they are completely cured; however, ACD can occur with incomplete curing.⁶ It is of clinical importance that once an individual becomes sensitized to one type of acrylate, they may develop cross-reactions to others contained in different products. Notably, cyanoacrylates generally do not cross-react with (meth)acrylates; this has important implications for choosing safe alternative products in sensitized patients, though independent sensitization to cyanoacrylates is possible.^7,8

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

The prevalence of acrylate allergy in the general population is unknown; however, there is a trend of increased patch test positivity in studies of patients referred for patch testing. A 2018 study by the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research Group reported positive patch tests to acrylates in 1.1% of 18,228 patients tested from 2013 to 2015.⁹ More recently, a multicenter European study (2019-2020) reported a 2.3% patch test positivity to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) among 7675 tested individuals,¹⁰ and even higher HEMA positivity was reported in Spain (3.7% of 1884 patients in 2019-2020).¹¹ In addition, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported positive patch test reactions to HEMA in 3.2% of 4111 patients tested from 2019 to 2020, a statistically significant increase compared with those tested in 2009 to 2018 (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.03-1.51]; P=.02).¹²

Historically, acrylate sensitization primarily stemmed from occupational exposure. A retrospective analysis of occupational dermatitis performed by the NACDG (2001-2016) showed that HEMA was among the top 10 most common occupational allergens (3.4% positivity [83/2461]) and had the fifth highest percentage of occupationally relevant reactions (73.5% [83/113]).¹³ High-risk occupations include dental providers and nail technicians. Dentistry utilizes many materials containing acrylates, including uncured plastic resins used in dental prostheses, dentin bonding materials, and glass ionomers.¹⁴ A retrospective analysis of 585 dental personnel who were patch tested by the NACDG (2001-2018) found that more than 20% of occupational ACD cases were related to acrylates.¹⁵ Nail technicians are another group routinely exposed to acrylates through a variety of modern nail cosmetics. In a 7-year study from Portugal evaluating acrylate ACD, 68% (25/37) of cases were attributed to occupation, 80% (20/25) of which were in nail technicians.¹⁶ Likewise, among 28 nail technicians in Sweden who were referred for patch testing, 57% (16/28) tested positive for at least 1 acrylate.¹⁷

Modern Sources of Acrylate Exposure

Once thought to be a predominantly occupational exposure, acrylates have rapidly made their way into everyday consumer products. Clinicians should be aware of several sources of clinically relevant acrylate exposure, including nail cosmetics, consumer electronics, and medical/surgical adhesives.

A 2016 study found a shift to nail cosmetics as the most common source of acrylate sensitization.¹⁸ Nail cosmetics that contain acrylates include traditional acrylic, gel (shellac), dipped, and press-on (false) nails.¹⁹ The NACDG found that the most common allergen in patients experiencing ACD associated with nail products (2001-2016) was HEMA (56.6% [273/482]), far ahead of the traditional nail polish allergen tosylamide (36.2% [273/755]). Over the study period, the frequency of positive patch tests statistically increased for HEMA (P=.0069) and decreased for tosylamide (P<.0001).²⁰ There is concern that the use of home gel nail kits, which can be purchased online at the click of a button, may be associated with a risk for acrylate sensitization.^21,22 A recent study surveyed a Facebook support group for individuals with self-reported reactions to nail cosmetics, finding that 78% of the 199 individuals had used at-home gel nail kits, and more than 80% of them first developed skin reactions after starting to use at-home kits.²³ The risks for sensitization are thought to be greater when self-applying nail acrylates compared to having them done professionally because individuals are more likely to spill allergenic monomers onto the skin at home; it also is possible that home techniques could lead to incomplete curing. Table 2 reviews the different types of acrylic nail cosmetics.

Medical adhesives and equipment are other important areas where acrylates can be encountered in abundance. A review by Spencer et al¹⁸ cautioned wound dressings as an up-and-coming source of sensitization, and this has been demonstrated in the literature as coming to fruition.²⁶ Another study identified acrylates in 15 of 16 (94%) tested medical adhesives; among 7 medical adhesives labeled as hypoallergenic, 100% still contained acrylates and/or abietic acid.²⁷ Multiple case reports have described ACD to adhesives of electrocardiogram electrodes containing acrylates.^28-31 Physicians providing care to patients with diabetes mellitus also must be aware of acrylates in glucose monitors and insulin pumps, either found in the adhesives or leaching from the inside of the device to reach the skin.³² Isobornyl acrylate in particular has made quite the name for itself in this sector, being crowned the 2020 Allergen of the Year owing to its key role in cases of ACD to diabetes devices.³

Cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives (eg, 2‐octyl cyanoacrylate) are now well documented to cause postoperative ACD.^33,34 Although robust prospective data are limited, studies suggest that 2% to 14% of patients develop postoperative skin reactions following 2-octyl cyanoacrylate application.^35-37 It has been shown that sensitization to tissue adhesives often occurs after the first application, followed by an eruption of ACD as long as a month later, which can create confusion about the nature of the rash for patients and health care providers alike, who may for instance attribute it to infection rather than allergy.³⁸ In the orthopedic literature, a woman with a known history of acrylic nail ACD had knee arthroplasty failure attributed to acrylic bone cement with resolution of the joint symptoms after changing to a cementless device.³⁹

Awareness of the common use of acrylates is important to identify the cause of reactions from products that would otherwise seem nonallergenic. A case of occupational ACD to isobornyl acrylate in UV-cured phone screen protectors has been reported⁴⁰; several cases of ACD to acrylates in headphones^41,42 as well as one related to a wearable fitness device also have been reported.⁴³ Given all these possible sources of exposure, ACD to acrylates should be on your radar.

When to Consider Acrylate ACD

When working up a patient with dermatitis, it is essential to ask about occupational history and hobbies to get a sense of potential contact allergen exposures. The typical presentation of occupational acrylate-associated ACD is hand eczema, specifically involving the fingertips.^5,24,25,44 Acrylate ACD should be considered in patients with nail dystrophy and a history of wearing acrylic nails.⁴⁵ There can even be involvement of the face and eyelids secondary to airborne contact or ectopic spread from the hands.²⁴ Spreading vesicular eruptions associated with adhesives also should raise concern. The Figure depicts several possible presentations of ACD to acrylates. In a time of abundant access to products containing acrylates, dermatologists should consider this allergy in their differential diagnosis and consider patch testing.

Photographs courtesy of Brandon L. Adler, MD.

Patch Testing to Acrylates

The gold standard for ACD diagnosis is patch testing. It should be noted that no acrylates are included in the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) test series. Several acrylates are tested in expanded patch test series including the American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen series and North American 80 Comprehensive Series. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate is thought to be the most important screening allergen to test. Ramos et al¹⁶ reported a positive patch test to HEMA in 81% (30/37) of patients who had any type of acrylate allergy.

If initial testing to a limited number of acrylates is negative but clinical suspicion remains high, expanded acrylates/plastics and glue series also are available from commercial patch test suppliers. Testing to an expanded panel of acrylates is especially pertinent to consider in suspected occupational cases given the risk of workplace absenteeism and even disability that come with continued exposure to the allergen. Of note, isobornyl acrylate is not included in the baseline patch test series and must be tested separately, particularly because it usually does not cross-react with other acrylates, and therefore allergy could be missed if not tested on its own.

Acrylates are volatile substances that have been shown to degrade at room temperature and to a lesser degree when refrigerated. Ideally, they should be stored in a freezer and not used beyond their expiration date. Furthermore, it is advised that acrylate patch tests be prepared immediately prior to placement on the patient and to discard the initial extrusion from the syringe, as the concentration at the tip may be decreased.^46,47

With regard to tissue adhesives, the actual product should be tested as-is because these are not commercially available patch test substances.⁴⁸ Occasionally, patients who are sensitized to the tissue adhesive will not react when patch tested on intact skin. If clinical suspicion remains high, scratch patch testing may confirm contact allergy in cases of negative testing on intact skin.⁴⁹

Management and Prevention

Once a diagnosis of ACD secondary to acrylates has been established, counseling patients on allergen avoidance strategies is essential. For (meth)acrylate-allergic patients who want to continue using modern nail products, cyanoacrylate-based options (eg, dipped, press-on nails) can be considered as an alternative, as they do not cross-react, though independent sensitization is still possible. However, traditional nail polish is the safest option to recommend.

The concern with acrylate sensitization extends beyond the immediate issue that brought the patient into your clinic. Dermatologists must counsel patients who are sensitized to acrylates on the possible sequelae of acrylate-containing dental or orthopedic procedures. Oral lichenoid lesions, denture stomatitis, burning mouth syndrome, or even acute facial swelling have been reported following dental work in patients with acrylate allergy.^50-53 Dentists of patients with acrylate ACD should be informed of the diagnosis so acrylates can be avoided during dental work; if unavoidable, all possible steps should be taken to ensure complete curing of the monomers. In the surgical setting, patients sensitized to cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives should be offered wound closure alternatives such as sutures or staples.³⁴

In patients with diabetes mellitus who develop ACD to their glucose monitor or insulin pump, ideally they should be switched to a device that does not contain acrylates. Problematically, these devices are constantly being reformulated, and manufacturers do not always divulge their components, which can make it challenging to determine safe alternative options.^32,54 Various barrier products may help on a case-by-case basis.⁵⁵Preventative measures should be implemented in workplaces that utilize acrylates, including dental practices and nail salons. Acrylic monomers have been shown to penetrate most gloves within minutes of exposure.^56,57 Double gloving with nitrile gloves affords some protection for no longer than 60 minutes.⁶ 4H gloves have been shown to provide true protection but result in a loss of dexterity.⁵⁸ The fingerstall technique involves removing the fingers from a 4H glove, inserting them on the fingers, and applying a more flexible glove on top to hold them in place; this offers a hybrid between protection and finger dexterity.⁵⁹

Final Interpretation

In a world characterized by technological advancements and increasing accessibility to acrylate-containing products, we hope this brief review serves as a resource and reminder to dermatologists to consider acrylates as a potential cause of ACD with diverse presentations and important future implications for affected individuals. The rising trend of acrylate allergy necessitates comprehensive assessment and shared decision-making between physicians and patients. As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of materials and technologies, clinicians must remain vigilant to avoid some potentially sticky situations for patients.