Dermatology

A 15-year-old Caucasian boy presented for evaluation of an asymptomatic brown patch on his right shoulder. While the patient’s mother first noticed the patch when he was 5 years old, the discolored area had recently been expanding in size and had developed hypertrichosis. The patient was otherwise healthy; he took no medications and denied any symptoms or history of trauma to the area. None of his siblings were similarly affected.

A physical examination revealed a well-demarcated hyperpigmented patch with an irregularly shaped border and an increased number of terminal hairs (FIGURE 1). The affected area was not indurated, and there were no muscular or skeletal abnormalities on inspection. Examination of the patch under a dermatoscope revealed islands of reticular (lattice-like) hyperpigmentation, focal hypopigmentation, and prominent follicles (FIGURE 2).

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

 

 

DIAGNOSIS: Becker melanosis

Becker melanosis (also called Becker’s nevus or Becker’s pigmentary hamartoma) is an organoid hamartoma that is most common among males.¹ This benign area of hyperpigmentation typically manifests as a circumscribed patch with an irregular border on the upper trunk, shoulders, or upper arms of young men. Becker melanosis is usually acquired and typically comes to medical attention around the time of puberty, although there may be a history of discoloration (as was true in this case).

A diagnosis that’s usually made clinically

Androgenic origin. Because of the male predominance and association with hypertrichosis (and for that matter, acne), androgens have been thought to play a role in the development of Becker melanosis.² The condition affects about 1 in 200 young men.¹ To date, no specific gene defect has been identified.

Becker melanosis is a benign condition marked by hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis.

Underlying hypoplasia of the breast or musculoskeletal abnormalities are uncommonly associated with Becker melanosis. When these abnormalities are present, the condition is known as Becker’s nevus syndrome.³

Look for the pattern. Becker melanosis is associated with homogenous brown patches with perifollicular hypopigmentation, sometimes with a faint reticular pattern.^4,5 The diagnosis can usually be made clinically, but a skin biopsy can be helpful to confirm questionable cases. Dermoscopy can also assist in diagnosis. In this case, our patient’s presentation was typical, and additional studies were not needed.

Other causes of hyperpigmentation

The differential diagnosis includes other localized disorders associated with hyperpigmentation (TABLE^1,3,4).

Continue to: Morphea

Morphea represents a thickening of collagen bundles in the skin. Although morphea can affect the shoulder and trunk, as Becker melanosis does, lesions of morphea feel firm to the touch and are not associated with hypertrichosis.

Localized post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation occurs following a traumatic event, such as a burn, or a prior dermatosis, such as zoster. Careful history-taking can uncover an antecedent inflammatory condition. Post-inflammatory pigment changes do not typically result in hypertrichosis.

Café-au-lait macules can manifest as isolated areas of discoloration. These macules can be an important indicator of neurofibromatosis, a genetic disorder in which tumors grow in the nervous system. Melanocytic hamartomas of the iris (Lisch nodules), axillary freckling (Crowe’s sign), or multiple cutaneous neurofibromas serve as additional clues to neurofibromatosis. In ambiguous cases, a skin biopsy can help differentiate a café au lait macule from Becker melanosis.

To treat or not to treat?

No treatment other than reassurance is needed in most cases of Becker melanosis, as it is a benign condition. Protecting the area from sunlight can minimize darkening and contrast with the surrounding skin. Electrolysis and laser therapy can be used to treat the associated hypertrichosis; laser therapy can also reduce the hyperpigmentation. Nonablative fractional resurfacing accompanied by laser hair removal is also reported to be of value.⁶

Our patient was satisfied with reassurance of the benign nature of the condition and did not elect treatment.

CORRESPONDENCE
Matthew F. Helm, MD, 500 University Drive, Suite 4300, Department of Dermatology, HU14, UPC II, Hershey, PA 17033-2360; Mhelm2@pennstatehealth.psu.edu

A 15-year-old Caucasian boy presented for evaluation of an asymptomatic brown patch on his right shoulder. While the patient’s mother first noticed the patch when he was 5 years old, the discolored area had recently been expanding in size and had developed hypertrichosis. The patient was otherwise healthy; he took no medications and denied any symptoms or history of trauma to the area. None of his siblings were similarly affected.

A physical examination revealed a well-demarcated hyperpigmented patch with an irregularly shaped border and an increased number of terminal hairs (FIGURE 1). The affected area was not indurated, and there were no muscular or skeletal abnormalities on inspection. Examination of the patch under a dermatoscope revealed islands of reticular (lattice-like) hyperpigmentation, focal hypopigmentation, and prominent follicles (FIGURE 2).

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

 

 

DIAGNOSIS: Becker melanosis

Becker melanosis (also called Becker’s nevus or Becker’s pigmentary hamartoma) is an organoid hamartoma that is most common among males.¹ This benign area of hyperpigmentation typically manifests as a circumscribed patch with an irregular border on the upper trunk, shoulders, or upper arms of young men. Becker melanosis is usually acquired and typically comes to medical attention around the time of puberty, although there may be a history of discoloration (as was true in this case).

A diagnosis that’s usually made clinically

Androgenic origin. Because of the male predominance and association with hypertrichosis (and for that matter, acne), androgens have been thought to play a role in the development of Becker melanosis.² The condition affects about 1 in 200 young men.¹ To date, no specific gene defect has been identified.

Becker melanosis is a benign condition marked by hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis.

Underlying hypoplasia of the breast or musculoskeletal abnormalities are uncommonly associated with Becker melanosis. When these abnormalities are present, the condition is known as Becker’s nevus syndrome.³

Look for the pattern. Becker melanosis is associated with homogenous brown patches with perifollicular hypopigmentation, sometimes with a faint reticular pattern.^4,5 The diagnosis can usually be made clinically, but a skin biopsy can be helpful to confirm questionable cases. Dermoscopy can also assist in diagnosis. In this case, our patient’s presentation was typical, and additional studies were not needed.

Other causes of hyperpigmentation

The differential diagnosis includes other localized disorders associated with hyperpigmentation (TABLE^1,3,4).

Continue to: Morphea

Morphea represents a thickening of collagen bundles in the skin. Although morphea can affect the shoulder and trunk, as Becker melanosis does, lesions of morphea feel firm to the touch and are not associated with hypertrichosis.

Localized post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation occurs following a traumatic event, such as a burn, or a prior dermatosis, such as zoster. Careful history-taking can uncover an antecedent inflammatory condition. Post-inflammatory pigment changes do not typically result in hypertrichosis.

Café-au-lait macules can manifest as isolated areas of discoloration. These macules can be an important indicator of neurofibromatosis, a genetic disorder in which tumors grow in the nervous system. Melanocytic hamartomas of the iris (Lisch nodules), axillary freckling (Crowe’s sign), or multiple cutaneous neurofibromas serve as additional clues to neurofibromatosis. In ambiguous cases, a skin biopsy can help differentiate a café au lait macule from Becker melanosis.

To treat or not to treat?

No treatment other than reassurance is needed in most cases of Becker melanosis, as it is a benign condition. Protecting the area from sunlight can minimize darkening and contrast with the surrounding skin. Electrolysis and laser therapy can be used to treat the associated hypertrichosis; laser therapy can also reduce the hyperpigmentation. Nonablative fractional resurfacing accompanied by laser hair removal is also reported to be of value.⁶

Our patient was satisfied with reassurance of the benign nature of the condition and did not elect treatment.

CORRESPONDENCE
Matthew F. Helm, MD, 500 University Drive, Suite 4300, Department of Dermatology, HU14, UPC II, Hershey, PA 17033-2360; Mhelm2@pennstatehealth.psu.edu

A 15-year-old Caucasian boy presented for evaluation of an asymptomatic brown patch on his right shoulder. While the patient’s mother first noticed the patch when he was 5 years old, the discolored area had recently been expanding in size and had developed hypertrichosis. The patient was otherwise healthy; he took no medications and denied any symptoms or history of trauma to the area. None of his siblings were similarly affected.

A physical examination revealed a well-demarcated hyperpigmented patch with an irregularly shaped border and an increased number of terminal hairs (FIGURE 1). The affected area was not indurated, and there were no muscular or skeletal abnormalities on inspection. Examination of the patch under a dermatoscope revealed islands of reticular (lattice-like) hyperpigmentation, focal hypopigmentation, and prominent follicles (FIGURE 2).

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

 

 

DIAGNOSIS: Becker melanosis

Becker melanosis (also called Becker’s nevus or Becker’s pigmentary hamartoma) is an organoid hamartoma that is most common among males.¹ This benign area of hyperpigmentation typically manifests as a circumscribed patch with an irregular border on the upper trunk, shoulders, or upper arms of young men. Becker melanosis is usually acquired and typically comes to medical attention around the time of puberty, although there may be a history of discoloration (as was true in this case).

A diagnosis that’s usually made clinically

Androgenic origin. Because of the male predominance and association with hypertrichosis (and for that matter, acne), androgens have been thought to play a role in the development of Becker melanosis.² The condition affects about 1 in 200 young men.¹ To date, no specific gene defect has been identified.

Becker melanosis is a benign condition marked by hyperpigmentation and hypertrichosis.

Underlying hypoplasia of the breast or musculoskeletal abnormalities are uncommonly associated with Becker melanosis. When these abnormalities are present, the condition is known as Becker’s nevus syndrome.³

Look for the pattern. Becker melanosis is associated with homogenous brown patches with perifollicular hypopigmentation, sometimes with a faint reticular pattern.^4,5 The diagnosis can usually be made clinically, but a skin biopsy can be helpful to confirm questionable cases. Dermoscopy can also assist in diagnosis. In this case, our patient’s presentation was typical, and additional studies were not needed.

Other causes of hyperpigmentation

The differential diagnosis includes other localized disorders associated with hyperpigmentation (TABLE^1,3,4).

Continue to: Morphea

Morphea represents a thickening of collagen bundles in the skin. Although morphea can affect the shoulder and trunk, as Becker melanosis does, lesions of morphea feel firm to the touch and are not associated with hypertrichosis.

Localized post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation occurs following a traumatic event, such as a burn, or a prior dermatosis, such as zoster. Careful history-taking can uncover an antecedent inflammatory condition. Post-inflammatory pigment changes do not typically result in hypertrichosis.

Café-au-lait macules can manifest as isolated areas of discoloration. These macules can be an important indicator of neurofibromatosis, a genetic disorder in which tumors grow in the nervous system. Melanocytic hamartomas of the iris (Lisch nodules), axillary freckling (Crowe’s sign), or multiple cutaneous neurofibromas serve as additional clues to neurofibromatosis. In ambiguous cases, a skin biopsy can help differentiate a café au lait macule from Becker melanosis.

To treat or not to treat?

No treatment other than reassurance is needed in most cases of Becker melanosis, as it is a benign condition. Protecting the area from sunlight can minimize darkening and contrast with the surrounding skin. Electrolysis and laser therapy can be used to treat the associated hypertrichosis; laser therapy can also reduce the hyperpigmentation. Nonablative fractional resurfacing accompanied by laser hair removal is also reported to be of value.⁶

Our patient was satisfied with reassurance of the benign nature of the condition and did not elect treatment.

CORRESPONDENCE
Matthew F. Helm, MD, 500 University Drive, Suite 4300, Department of Dermatology, HU14, UPC II, Hershey, PA 17033-2360; Mhelm2@pennstatehealth.psu.edu

THE CASE

A 40-year-old white woman presented to clinic with multiple pruritic skin lesions on her abdomen, arms, and legs that had developed over a 2-month period. The patient reported that she’d been feeling tired and had been experiencing psychological stressors in her personal life. Her medical history was significant for psoriasis (which was controlled), and her family history was significant for breast and bone cancer (mother) and asbestos-related lung cancer (maternal grandfather).

A physical examination, which included breast and pelvic exams, was unremarkable apart from the lesions located on her abdomen, arms, and legs. On skin examination, we noted multiple polygonal, planar papules and plaques of varying size with an overlying scale (FIGURE).

THE DIAGNOSIS

The physician obtained a biopsy of one of the skin lesions, and it was sent to a dermatopathologist to evaluate. Unfortunately, though, the patient’s history and a description of the lesion were not included with the initial biopsy requisition form. Based on the biopsy sample alone, the dermatopathologist’s report indicated a diagnosis of seborrheic keratosis.

A search for malignancy. Any case of sudden, extensive seborrheic keratosis is suspected to be a Leser-Trélat sign, which is known to be associated with human immunodeficiency virus or underlying malignancy—especially in the gastrointestinal system. The physician talked to the patient about the possibility of malignancy, and an extensive work-up was performed, including multiple laboratory tests, computed tomography (CT) imaging, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a colonoscopy, and mammography. None of the test results showed signs of an underlying malignancy.

In light of the negative findings, the physician reached out to the dermatopathologist to further discuss the case. It was determined that the dermatopathologist did not receive any clinical information (prior to this discussion) from the primary care office. This was surprising to the primary care physician, who was under the assumption that the clinical chart would be sent along with the biopsy sample. With this new information, the dermatopathologist reexamined the slides and diagnosed the lesion as lichen planus, a rather common skin disease not associated with cancer.

[polldaddy:10153197]

DISCUSSION

A root-cause analysis of this case identified multiple system failures, focused mainly on a lack of communication between providers:

1. The description of the lesion and of the patient’s history were not included with the initial biopsy requisition form due to a lack of communication between the nurse and the physician performing the procedure.
2. The dermatopathologist did not seek additional clinical information from the referring physician after receiving the sample.
3. When the various providers did communicate, an accurate diagnosis was reached—but only after extensive investigation (and worry).

Communication is key to an accurate diagnosis

In 2000, it was estimated that health care costs due to preventable adverse events represent more than half of the $37.6 billion spent on health care.¹ Since then, considerable effort has been made to address patient safety, misdiagnosis, and cost-effectiveness. Root cause analysis is one of the most popular methods used to evaluate and prevent future serious adverse events.²

Continue to: Diagnostic errors are often unreported...

Diagnostic errors are often unreported or unrecognized, especially in the outpatient setting.³ Studies focused on reducing diagnostic error show that a second review of pathology slides reduces error, controls costs, and improves quality of health care.⁴

Don’t rely (exclusively) on the health record. Gaps in effective communication between providers are a leading cause of preventable adverse events.^5,6 The incorporation of electronic health records has allowed for more streamlined communication between providers. However, the mere presence of patient records in a common system does not guarantee the receipt or communication of information. The next step after entering the information into the record is to communicate it.

Our patient underwent a battery of costly and unnecessary tests and procedures, many of which were unwarranted at her age. In addition to being exposed to harmful radiation, she also experienced significant stress secondary to the tests and anticipation of the results. However, a root cause analysis of the case led to an improved protocol for communication between providers at the outpatient clinic. We now emphasize the necessity of including a clinical history and corresponding physical findings with all biopsies. We also encourage more direct communication between nursing staff, primary care physicians, and specialists.

THE TAKEAWAY

As medical professionals become increasingly reliant on the many emerging studies available to them, we sometimes forget that communication is key to optimal medical care, an accurate diagnosis, and patient safety.

Continue to: In addition, a second review...

In addition, a second review of dermatopathologic slides may be warranted if the pathologic diagnosis is inconsistent with the clinical picture or if the diagnosed condition is resistant to the usual therapies of choice. Incorrect diagnoses are more likely to occur when tests are interpreted in a vacuum without the corresponding clinical correlation. The weight of these mistakes is felt not only by the health care system, but by the patients themselves.

CORRESPONDENCE
Magdalena Pasarica, MD, PhD, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6850 Lake Nona Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827; Magdalena.Pasarica@ucf.edu

THE CASE

A 40-year-old white woman presented to clinic with multiple pruritic skin lesions on her abdomen, arms, and legs that had developed over a 2-month period. The patient reported that she’d been feeling tired and had been experiencing psychological stressors in her personal life. Her medical history was significant for psoriasis (which was controlled), and her family history was significant for breast and bone cancer (mother) and asbestos-related lung cancer (maternal grandfather).

A physical examination, which included breast and pelvic exams, was unremarkable apart from the lesions located on her abdomen, arms, and legs. On skin examination, we noted multiple polygonal, planar papules and plaques of varying size with an overlying scale (FIGURE).

THE DIAGNOSIS

The physician obtained a biopsy of one of the skin lesions, and it was sent to a dermatopathologist to evaluate. Unfortunately, though, the patient’s history and a description of the lesion were not included with the initial biopsy requisition form. Based on the biopsy sample alone, the dermatopathologist’s report indicated a diagnosis of seborrheic keratosis.

A search for malignancy. Any case of sudden, extensive seborrheic keratosis is suspected to be a Leser-Trélat sign, which is known to be associated with human immunodeficiency virus or underlying malignancy—especially in the gastrointestinal system. The physician talked to the patient about the possibility of malignancy, and an extensive work-up was performed, including multiple laboratory tests, computed tomography (CT) imaging, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a colonoscopy, and mammography. None of the test results showed signs of an underlying malignancy.

In light of the negative findings, the physician reached out to the dermatopathologist to further discuss the case. It was determined that the dermatopathologist did not receive any clinical information (prior to this discussion) from the primary care office. This was surprising to the primary care physician, who was under the assumption that the clinical chart would be sent along with the biopsy sample. With this new information, the dermatopathologist reexamined the slides and diagnosed the lesion as lichen planus, a rather common skin disease not associated with cancer.

[polldaddy:10153197]

DISCUSSION

A root-cause analysis of this case identified multiple system failures, focused mainly on a lack of communication between providers:

1. The description of the lesion and of the patient’s history were not included with the initial biopsy requisition form due to a lack of communication between the nurse and the physician performing the procedure.
2. The dermatopathologist did not seek additional clinical information from the referring physician after receiving the sample.
3. When the various providers did communicate, an accurate diagnosis was reached—but only after extensive investigation (and worry).

Communication is key to an accurate diagnosis

In 2000, it was estimated that health care costs due to preventable adverse events represent more than half of the $37.6 billion spent on health care.¹ Since then, considerable effort has been made to address patient safety, misdiagnosis, and cost-effectiveness. Root cause analysis is one of the most popular methods used to evaluate and prevent future serious adverse events.²

Continue to: Diagnostic errors are often unreported...

Diagnostic errors are often unreported or unrecognized, especially in the outpatient setting.³ Studies focused on reducing diagnostic error show that a second review of pathology slides reduces error, controls costs, and improves quality of health care.⁴

Don’t rely (exclusively) on the health record. Gaps in effective communication between providers are a leading cause of preventable adverse events.^5,6 The incorporation of electronic health records has allowed for more streamlined communication between providers. However, the mere presence of patient records in a common system does not guarantee the receipt or communication of information. The next step after entering the information into the record is to communicate it.

Our patient underwent a battery of costly and unnecessary tests and procedures, many of which were unwarranted at her age. In addition to being exposed to harmful radiation, she also experienced significant stress secondary to the tests and anticipation of the results. However, a root cause analysis of the case led to an improved protocol for communication between providers at the outpatient clinic. We now emphasize the necessity of including a clinical history and corresponding physical findings with all biopsies. We also encourage more direct communication between nursing staff, primary care physicians, and specialists.

THE TAKEAWAY

As medical professionals become increasingly reliant on the many emerging studies available to them, we sometimes forget that communication is key to optimal medical care, an accurate diagnosis, and patient safety.

Continue to: In addition, a second review...

In addition, a second review of dermatopathologic slides may be warranted if the pathologic diagnosis is inconsistent with the clinical picture or if the diagnosed condition is resistant to the usual therapies of choice. Incorrect diagnoses are more likely to occur when tests are interpreted in a vacuum without the corresponding clinical correlation. The weight of these mistakes is felt not only by the health care system, but by the patients themselves.

CORRESPONDENCE
Magdalena Pasarica, MD, PhD, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6850 Lake Nona Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827; Magdalena.Pasarica@ucf.edu

THE CASE

A 40-year-old white woman presented to clinic with multiple pruritic skin lesions on her abdomen, arms, and legs that had developed over a 2-month period. The patient reported that she’d been feeling tired and had been experiencing psychological stressors in her personal life. Her medical history was significant for psoriasis (which was controlled), and her family history was significant for breast and bone cancer (mother) and asbestos-related lung cancer (maternal grandfather).

A physical examination, which included breast and pelvic exams, was unremarkable apart from the lesions located on her abdomen, arms, and legs. On skin examination, we noted multiple polygonal, planar papules and plaques of varying size with an overlying scale (FIGURE).

THE DIAGNOSIS

The physician obtained a biopsy of one of the skin lesions, and it was sent to a dermatopathologist to evaluate. Unfortunately, though, the patient’s history and a description of the lesion were not included with the initial biopsy requisition form. Based on the biopsy sample alone, the dermatopathologist’s report indicated a diagnosis of seborrheic keratosis.

A search for malignancy. Any case of sudden, extensive seborrheic keratosis is suspected to be a Leser-Trélat sign, which is known to be associated with human immunodeficiency virus or underlying malignancy—especially in the gastrointestinal system. The physician talked to the patient about the possibility of malignancy, and an extensive work-up was performed, including multiple laboratory tests, computed tomography (CT) imaging, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a colonoscopy, and mammography. None of the test results showed signs of an underlying malignancy.

In light of the negative findings, the physician reached out to the dermatopathologist to further discuss the case. It was determined that the dermatopathologist did not receive any clinical information (prior to this discussion) from the primary care office. This was surprising to the primary care physician, who was under the assumption that the clinical chart would be sent along with the biopsy sample. With this new information, the dermatopathologist reexamined the slides and diagnosed the lesion as lichen planus, a rather common skin disease not associated with cancer.

[polldaddy:10153197]

DISCUSSION

A root-cause analysis of this case identified multiple system failures, focused mainly on a lack of communication between providers:

1. The description of the lesion and of the patient’s history were not included with the initial biopsy requisition form due to a lack of communication between the nurse and the physician performing the procedure.
2. The dermatopathologist did not seek additional clinical information from the referring physician after receiving the sample.
3. When the various providers did communicate, an accurate diagnosis was reached—but only after extensive investigation (and worry).

Communication is key to an accurate diagnosis

In 2000, it was estimated that health care costs due to preventable adverse events represent more than half of the $37.6 billion spent on health care.¹ Since then, considerable effort has been made to address patient safety, misdiagnosis, and cost-effectiveness. Root cause analysis is one of the most popular methods used to evaluate and prevent future serious adverse events.²

Continue to: Diagnostic errors are often unreported...

Diagnostic errors are often unreported or unrecognized, especially in the outpatient setting.³ Studies focused on reducing diagnostic error show that a second review of pathology slides reduces error, controls costs, and improves quality of health care.⁴

Don’t rely (exclusively) on the health record. Gaps in effective communication between providers are a leading cause of preventable adverse events.^5,6 The incorporation of electronic health records has allowed for more streamlined communication between providers. However, the mere presence of patient records in a common system does not guarantee the receipt or communication of information. The next step after entering the information into the record is to communicate it.

Our patient underwent a battery of costly and unnecessary tests and procedures, many of which were unwarranted at her age. In addition to being exposed to harmful radiation, she also experienced significant stress secondary to the tests and anticipation of the results. However, a root cause analysis of the case led to an improved protocol for communication between providers at the outpatient clinic. We now emphasize the necessity of including a clinical history and corresponding physical findings with all biopsies. We also encourage more direct communication between nursing staff, primary care physicians, and specialists.

THE TAKEAWAY

As medical professionals become increasingly reliant on the many emerging studies available to them, we sometimes forget that communication is key to optimal medical care, an accurate diagnosis, and patient safety.

Continue to: In addition, a second review...

In addition, a second review of dermatopathologic slides may be warranted if the pathologic diagnosis is inconsistent with the clinical picture or if the diagnosed condition is resistant to the usual therapies of choice. Incorrect diagnoses are more likely to occur when tests are interpreted in a vacuum without the corresponding clinical correlation. The weight of these mistakes is felt not only by the health care system, but by the patients themselves.

CORRESPONDENCE
Magdalena Pasarica, MD, PhD, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6850 Lake Nona Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827; Magdalena.Pasarica@ucf.edu

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adalimumab biosimilar Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) for a variety of conditions, according to Sandoz, the drug’s manufacturer and a division of Novartis.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

FDA approval for Hyrimoz is based on a randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel biosimilarity study that demonstrated equivalence for all primary pharmacokinetic parameters, according to the press release. A second study confirmed these results in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, with Hyrimoz having a safety profile similar to that of adalimumab. Hyrimoz was approved in Europe in July 2018.

Hyrimoz has been approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients aged 4 years and older, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The most common adverse events associated with the drug, according to the label, are infections, injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

Hyrimoz is the third adalimumab biosimilar approved by the FDA.

“Biosimilars can help people suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions gain expanded access to important medicines that may change the outcome of their disease. With the FDA approval of Hyrimoz, Sandoz is one step closer to offering U.S. patients with autoimmune diseases the same critical access already available in Europe,” Stefan Hendriks, global head of biopharmaceuticals at Sandoz, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the Novartis website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adalimumab biosimilar Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) for a variety of conditions, according to Sandoz, the drug’s manufacturer and a division of Novartis.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

FDA approval for Hyrimoz is based on a randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel biosimilarity study that demonstrated equivalence for all primary pharmacokinetic parameters, according to the press release. A second study confirmed these results in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, with Hyrimoz having a safety profile similar to that of adalimumab. Hyrimoz was approved in Europe in July 2018.

Hyrimoz has been approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients aged 4 years and older, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The most common adverse events associated with the drug, according to the label, are infections, injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

Hyrimoz is the third adalimumab biosimilar approved by the FDA.

“Biosimilars can help people suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions gain expanded access to important medicines that may change the outcome of their disease. With the FDA approval of Hyrimoz, Sandoz is one step closer to offering U.S. patients with autoimmune diseases the same critical access already available in Europe,” Stefan Hendriks, global head of biopharmaceuticals at Sandoz, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the Novartis website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adalimumab biosimilar Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) for a variety of conditions, according to Sandoz, the drug’s manufacturer and a division of Novartis.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

FDA approval for Hyrimoz is based on a randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel biosimilarity study that demonstrated equivalence for all primary pharmacokinetic parameters, according to the press release. A second study confirmed these results in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, with Hyrimoz having a safety profile similar to that of adalimumab. Hyrimoz was approved in Europe in July 2018.

Hyrimoz has been approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients aged 4 years and older, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The most common adverse events associated with the drug, according to the label, are infections, injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

Hyrimoz is the third adalimumab biosimilar approved by the FDA.

“Biosimilars can help people suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions gain expanded access to important medicines that may change the outcome of their disease. With the FDA approval of Hyrimoz, Sandoz is one step closer to offering U.S. patients with autoimmune diseases the same critical access already available in Europe,” Stefan Hendriks, global head of biopharmaceuticals at Sandoz, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the Novartis website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Patients with psoriasis and hypertension are at a higher risk of having to undergo cardiovascular procedures and surgery, compared with patients with hypertension alone.

“The results suggested that hypertensive patients with concurrent psoriasis experienced an earlier and more aggressive disease progression of hypertension, compared with general hypertensive patients,” Hsien-Yi Chiu, MD, PhD, from the department of dermatology at the National Taiwan University Hospital in Hsinchu, Taiwan, and his colleagues wrote in the Journal of Dermatology. “Thus, patients with hypertension and psoriasis should be considered for more aggressive strategies for prevention of primary [cardiovascular disease] and more intense assessments for cardiovascular interventions needed to improve [cardiovascular disease] outcome in these patients.”

They performed a nationwide cohort study of patients in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database with new onset hypertension from 2005 to 2006. Those with psoriasis (4,039 patients) were matched by age and sex to patients in the database who were diagnosed with hypertension but not psoriasis; the mean follow-up was 5.62 years. Their mean age was 58 years and about 31% of the psoriasis cohort were female. They were divided into groups based on psoriasis severity (mild and severe psoriasis) and type (psoriasis with and without arthritis). Researchers noted patients with both psoriasis and hypertension also had higher rates of cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus during the year prior to the study.

The outcome measured was having a cardiovascular procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention with/without stenting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and transcatheter radiofrequency ablation for arrhythmia) and cardiovascular surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting and other surgery for heart valves, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vessels, and the aorta).

Patients with both psoriasis and hypertension were at an increased risk for having a cardiovascular procedure and surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.53), compared with patients with only hypertension. The risk of this outcome was also increased among patients with severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, compared with patients who had mild psoriasis (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51) and with patients with psoriasis but not arthritis (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.84-1.58); however, the results did not reach statistical significance after adjustment, which the researchers attributed to the small subgroup size.


“Another possible explanation was that the observed increased requirement for cardiovascular procedure and surgery in patients with severe psoriasis was mediated by a complex interplay among inflammation, traditional risk factors for [cardiovascular disease], and antirheumatic drugs, which probably attenuate the effects conferred by psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

Limitations in the study included reliance on administrative claims data for psoriasis diagnosis, unavailability of some details of the cardiovascular procedures and surgery, lack of blood pressure data to identify hypertension severity, as well as unmeasured factors and confounders. Further, “comparative occurrence of a requirement for cardiovascular procedure and surgery in the two groups may be influenced by a competing risk for death,” the researchers noted.


This study was supported in part through grants by the National Taiwan University Hospital, Asia-Pacific La Roche–Posay Foundation 2014, and the Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Chiu is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Another author has conducted clinical trials for or received fees for being a consultant or speaker for companies that include Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celgene. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chiu H-Y et al. J Dermatol. 2018 Oct 16. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.14654.

Patients with psoriasis and hypertension are at a higher risk of having to undergo cardiovascular procedures and surgery, compared with patients with hypertension alone.

“The results suggested that hypertensive patients with concurrent psoriasis experienced an earlier and more aggressive disease progression of hypertension, compared with general hypertensive patients,” Hsien-Yi Chiu, MD, PhD, from the department of dermatology at the National Taiwan University Hospital in Hsinchu, Taiwan, and his colleagues wrote in the Journal of Dermatology. “Thus, patients with hypertension and psoriasis should be considered for more aggressive strategies for prevention of primary [cardiovascular disease] and more intense assessments for cardiovascular interventions needed to improve [cardiovascular disease] outcome in these patients.”

They performed a nationwide cohort study of patients in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database with new onset hypertension from 2005 to 2006. Those with psoriasis (4,039 patients) were matched by age and sex to patients in the database who were diagnosed with hypertension but not psoriasis; the mean follow-up was 5.62 years. Their mean age was 58 years and about 31% of the psoriasis cohort were female. They were divided into groups based on psoriasis severity (mild and severe psoriasis) and type (psoriasis with and without arthritis). Researchers noted patients with both psoriasis and hypertension also had higher rates of cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus during the year prior to the study.

The outcome measured was having a cardiovascular procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention with/without stenting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and transcatheter radiofrequency ablation for arrhythmia) and cardiovascular surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting and other surgery for heart valves, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vessels, and the aorta).

Patients with both psoriasis and hypertension were at an increased risk for having a cardiovascular procedure and surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.53), compared with patients with only hypertension. The risk of this outcome was also increased among patients with severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, compared with patients who had mild psoriasis (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51) and with patients with psoriasis but not arthritis (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.84-1.58); however, the results did not reach statistical significance after adjustment, which the researchers attributed to the small subgroup size.


“Another possible explanation was that the observed increased requirement for cardiovascular procedure and surgery in patients with severe psoriasis was mediated by a complex interplay among inflammation, traditional risk factors for [cardiovascular disease], and antirheumatic drugs, which probably attenuate the effects conferred by psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

Limitations in the study included reliance on administrative claims data for psoriasis diagnosis, unavailability of some details of the cardiovascular procedures and surgery, lack of blood pressure data to identify hypertension severity, as well as unmeasured factors and confounders. Further, “comparative occurrence of a requirement for cardiovascular procedure and surgery in the two groups may be influenced by a competing risk for death,” the researchers noted.


This study was supported in part through grants by the National Taiwan University Hospital, Asia-Pacific La Roche–Posay Foundation 2014, and the Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Chiu is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Another author has conducted clinical trials for or received fees for being a consultant or speaker for companies that include Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celgene. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chiu H-Y et al. J Dermatol. 2018 Oct 16. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.14654.

Patients with psoriasis and hypertension are at a higher risk of having to undergo cardiovascular procedures and surgery, compared with patients with hypertension alone.

“The results suggested that hypertensive patients with concurrent psoriasis experienced an earlier and more aggressive disease progression of hypertension, compared with general hypertensive patients,” Hsien-Yi Chiu, MD, PhD, from the department of dermatology at the National Taiwan University Hospital in Hsinchu, Taiwan, and his colleagues wrote in the Journal of Dermatology. “Thus, patients with hypertension and psoriasis should be considered for more aggressive strategies for prevention of primary [cardiovascular disease] and more intense assessments for cardiovascular interventions needed to improve [cardiovascular disease] outcome in these patients.”

They performed a nationwide cohort study of patients in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database with new onset hypertension from 2005 to 2006. Those with psoriasis (4,039 patients) were matched by age and sex to patients in the database who were diagnosed with hypertension but not psoriasis; the mean follow-up was 5.62 years. Their mean age was 58 years and about 31% of the psoriasis cohort were female. They were divided into groups based on psoriasis severity (mild and severe psoriasis) and type (psoriasis with and without arthritis). Researchers noted patients with both psoriasis and hypertension also had higher rates of cerebrovascular disease, coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus during the year prior to the study.

The outcome measured was having a cardiovascular procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention with/without stenting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and transcatheter radiofrequency ablation for arrhythmia) and cardiovascular surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting and other surgery for heart valves, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vessels, and the aorta).

Patients with both psoriasis and hypertension were at an increased risk for having a cardiovascular procedure and surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.53), compared with patients with only hypertension. The risk of this outcome was also increased among patients with severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, compared with patients who had mild psoriasis (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51) and with patients with psoriasis but not arthritis (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.84-1.58); however, the results did not reach statistical significance after adjustment, which the researchers attributed to the small subgroup size.


“Another possible explanation was that the observed increased requirement for cardiovascular procedure and surgery in patients with severe psoriasis was mediated by a complex interplay among inflammation, traditional risk factors for [cardiovascular disease], and antirheumatic drugs, which probably attenuate the effects conferred by psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

Limitations in the study included reliance on administrative claims data for psoriasis diagnosis, unavailability of some details of the cardiovascular procedures and surgery, lack of blood pressure data to identify hypertension severity, as well as unmeasured factors and confounders. Further, “comparative occurrence of a requirement for cardiovascular procedure and surgery in the two groups may be influenced by a competing risk for death,” the researchers noted.


This study was supported in part through grants by the National Taiwan University Hospital, Asia-Pacific La Roche–Posay Foundation 2014, and the Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Chiu is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Another author has conducted clinical trials for or received fees for being a consultant or speaker for companies that include Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celgene. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chiu H-Y et al. J Dermatol. 2018 Oct 16. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.14654.

MONTEREY, CALIF. – “Consort dermatitis” – when a patient is allergic to his or her partner. “Lime dermatitis” – when gin and tonics are the culprit. And “sample dermatitis” – when an unprescribed drug sample turns out to be the cause of a mysterious reaction.

Pcholik/getty images

Dermatologist Vincent DeLeo, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, has seen them all. He provided insight about how to diagnose these unusual conditions at the Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

The following are a few unusual causes of dermatitis that he discussed:

• Romantic partners. A patient’s partner can be the cause of a reaction, as in the case of a 25-year-old woman who turned out to be allergic to her boyfriend’s cologne. In another case, a 50-year-old man had a 3-year history of recurrent dermatitis on his left arm and the left side of his chest. The cause was a mystery until it became clear that it was caused by exposure to hair dye, but not his. “He didn’t color his hair, but his wife did, and she always slept on that side of him,” Dr. DeLeo recalled. “When she stopped coloring her hair, his disease cleared.”
• Black henna. The dye known as “black henna,” or just “henna,” can cause reactions in adults (who use it as a hair dye or to decorate the skin) and children (who can be exposed to it with temporary tattoos). “Because henna typically produces a brown, orange-brown, or reddish-brown tint, other ingredients must be added to produce other colors, such as those marketed as ‘black henna’ and ‘blue henna,’ ” according to a Food and Drug Administration statement. “Even brown shades of products marketed as henna may contain other ingredients intended to make them darker or make the stain last longer on the skin. The problem? “The extra ingredient used to blacken henna is often a coal-tar hair dye containing p-Phenylenediamine, an ingredient that can cause dangerous skin reactions in some people,” the statement says. Dr. DeLeo said that one good rule of thumb is to consider a reaction to black henna if a patient acknowledges using a henna dye and their hair is any color but red. That’s a sign, he said, that they’re actually using black henna.
• Makeup applicators. Dr. DeLeo has seen two cases of patients with facial dermatitis who turned out to be allergic to thiuram, a component of rubber. Their skin was reacting to the rubber in some sponges used to apply makeup.
• Lime and sun exposure. Patients are impressed when Dr. DeLeo correctly guesses what they were drinking the previous weekend, because of their telltale blisters indicating a lime allergy. Noninflammatory blisters on the fingers or hyperpigmentation can be caused by touching the skin of a lime and then having subsequent exposure to ultraviolet light. It may take days for the blisters to appear, he noted. A weekend after mixing gin and tonics with lime, for example, a patient “may show up on Tuesday of the following week. The patient doesn’t always think of what they did over the weekend.”
• Liquid detergents. As a general rule, laundry detergents do not cause dermatitis, Dr. DeLeo said. “By the time that clothing is rinsed in your washer, there’s not enough left of anything on the clothing to cause a problem.” But there’s an exception: When people hand wash clothing with liquid detergents, such as Woolite. “It’s not the fragrance,” he said. “It’s the preservative in the detergent.”
• Unexpected nickel. Skin allergy to nickel is common, and the metal can lurk in unexpected places, as he discovered when he treated a Columbia University student who was “allergic to his tuba.” The tuba was made of brass, not nickel. But “the little things connecting the tubes to each other are alloy metals,” he said, including nickel.
• Drug samples. Dr. DeLeo recalled the case of a dermatology office administrator with a recurrent neck rash. Dermatologist after dermatologist failed to find the cause. Patch and photopatch testing turned up nothing. Then Dr. DeLeo asked her to bring in every skin product she was using. She returned with a large bag full of dermatologic samples, including Drithocreme (anthralin), which can be an irritant. None of the drugs were prescribed. “This is case of sample dermatitis,” which may occur among employees and family members of dermatologists, he said. “Always think of having patients bring in what they’re using,” he added, “because you can be surprised.”

The Coastal Dermatology Symposium is jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are both owned by Frontline Medical Communications.

Dr. DeLeo disclosed consulting work for Estée Lauder.

MONTEREY, CALIF. – “Consort dermatitis” – when a patient is allergic to his or her partner. “Lime dermatitis” – when gin and tonics are the culprit. And “sample dermatitis” – when an unprescribed drug sample turns out to be the cause of a mysterious reaction.

Pcholik/getty images

Dermatologist Vincent DeLeo, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, has seen them all. He provided insight about how to diagnose these unusual conditions at the Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

The following are a few unusual causes of dermatitis that he discussed:

• Romantic partners. A patient’s partner can be the cause of a reaction, as in the case of a 25-year-old woman who turned out to be allergic to her boyfriend’s cologne. In another case, a 50-year-old man had a 3-year history of recurrent dermatitis on his left arm and the left side of his chest. The cause was a mystery until it became clear that it was caused by exposure to hair dye, but not his. “He didn’t color his hair, but his wife did, and she always slept on that side of him,” Dr. DeLeo recalled. “When she stopped coloring her hair, his disease cleared.”
• Black henna. The dye known as “black henna,” or just “henna,” can cause reactions in adults (who use it as a hair dye or to decorate the skin) and children (who can be exposed to it with temporary tattoos). “Because henna typically produces a brown, orange-brown, or reddish-brown tint, other ingredients must be added to produce other colors, such as those marketed as ‘black henna’ and ‘blue henna,’ ” according to a Food and Drug Administration statement. “Even brown shades of products marketed as henna may contain other ingredients intended to make them darker or make the stain last longer on the skin. The problem? “The extra ingredient used to blacken henna is often a coal-tar hair dye containing p-Phenylenediamine, an ingredient that can cause dangerous skin reactions in some people,” the statement says. Dr. DeLeo said that one good rule of thumb is to consider a reaction to black henna if a patient acknowledges using a henna dye and their hair is any color but red. That’s a sign, he said, that they’re actually using black henna.
• Makeup applicators. Dr. DeLeo has seen two cases of patients with facial dermatitis who turned out to be allergic to thiuram, a component of rubber. Their skin was reacting to the rubber in some sponges used to apply makeup.
• Lime and sun exposure. Patients are impressed when Dr. DeLeo correctly guesses what they were drinking the previous weekend, because of their telltale blisters indicating a lime allergy. Noninflammatory blisters on the fingers or hyperpigmentation can be caused by touching the skin of a lime and then having subsequent exposure to ultraviolet light. It may take days for the blisters to appear, he noted. A weekend after mixing gin and tonics with lime, for example, a patient “may show up on Tuesday of the following week. The patient doesn’t always think of what they did over the weekend.”
• Liquid detergents. As a general rule, laundry detergents do not cause dermatitis, Dr. DeLeo said. “By the time that clothing is rinsed in your washer, there’s not enough left of anything on the clothing to cause a problem.” But there’s an exception: When people hand wash clothing with liquid detergents, such as Woolite. “It’s not the fragrance,” he said. “It’s the preservative in the detergent.”
• Unexpected nickel. Skin allergy to nickel is common, and the metal can lurk in unexpected places, as he discovered when he treated a Columbia University student who was “allergic to his tuba.” The tuba was made of brass, not nickel. But “the little things connecting the tubes to each other are alloy metals,” he said, including nickel.
• Drug samples. Dr. DeLeo recalled the case of a dermatology office administrator with a recurrent neck rash. Dermatologist after dermatologist failed to find the cause. Patch and photopatch testing turned up nothing. Then Dr. DeLeo asked her to bring in every skin product she was using. She returned with a large bag full of dermatologic samples, including Drithocreme (anthralin), which can be an irritant. None of the drugs were prescribed. “This is case of sample dermatitis,” which may occur among employees and family members of dermatologists, he said. “Always think of having patients bring in what they’re using,” he added, “because you can be surprised.”

The Coastal Dermatology Symposium is jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are both owned by Frontline Medical Communications.

Dr. DeLeo disclosed consulting work for Estée Lauder.

MONTEREY, CALIF. – “Consort dermatitis” – when a patient is allergic to his or her partner. “Lime dermatitis” – when gin and tonics are the culprit. And “sample dermatitis” – when an unprescribed drug sample turns out to be the cause of a mysterious reaction.

Pcholik/getty images

Dermatologist Vincent DeLeo, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, has seen them all. He provided insight about how to diagnose these unusual conditions at the Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

The following are a few unusual causes of dermatitis that he discussed:

• Romantic partners. A patient’s partner can be the cause of a reaction, as in the case of a 25-year-old woman who turned out to be allergic to her boyfriend’s cologne. In another case, a 50-year-old man had a 3-year history of recurrent dermatitis on his left arm and the left side of his chest. The cause was a mystery until it became clear that it was caused by exposure to hair dye, but not his. “He didn’t color his hair, but his wife did, and she always slept on that side of him,” Dr. DeLeo recalled. “When she stopped coloring her hair, his disease cleared.”
• Black henna. The dye known as “black henna,” or just “henna,” can cause reactions in adults (who use it as a hair dye or to decorate the skin) and children (who can be exposed to it with temporary tattoos). “Because henna typically produces a brown, orange-brown, or reddish-brown tint, other ingredients must be added to produce other colors, such as those marketed as ‘black henna’ and ‘blue henna,’ ” according to a Food and Drug Administration statement. “Even brown shades of products marketed as henna may contain other ingredients intended to make them darker or make the stain last longer on the skin. The problem? “The extra ingredient used to blacken henna is often a coal-tar hair dye containing p-Phenylenediamine, an ingredient that can cause dangerous skin reactions in some people,” the statement says. Dr. DeLeo said that one good rule of thumb is to consider a reaction to black henna if a patient acknowledges using a henna dye and their hair is any color but red. That’s a sign, he said, that they’re actually using black henna.
• Makeup applicators. Dr. DeLeo has seen two cases of patients with facial dermatitis who turned out to be allergic to thiuram, a component of rubber. Their skin was reacting to the rubber in some sponges used to apply makeup.
• Lime and sun exposure. Patients are impressed when Dr. DeLeo correctly guesses what they were drinking the previous weekend, because of their telltale blisters indicating a lime allergy. Noninflammatory blisters on the fingers or hyperpigmentation can be caused by touching the skin of a lime and then having subsequent exposure to ultraviolet light. It may take days for the blisters to appear, he noted. A weekend after mixing gin and tonics with lime, for example, a patient “may show up on Tuesday of the following week. The patient doesn’t always think of what they did over the weekend.”
• Liquid detergents. As a general rule, laundry detergents do not cause dermatitis, Dr. DeLeo said. “By the time that clothing is rinsed in your washer, there’s not enough left of anything on the clothing to cause a problem.” But there’s an exception: When people hand wash clothing with liquid detergents, such as Woolite. “It’s not the fragrance,” he said. “It’s the preservative in the detergent.”
• Unexpected nickel. Skin allergy to nickel is common, and the metal can lurk in unexpected places, as he discovered when he treated a Columbia University student who was “allergic to his tuba.” The tuba was made of brass, not nickel. But “the little things connecting the tubes to each other are alloy metals,” he said, including nickel.
• Drug samples. Dr. DeLeo recalled the case of a dermatology office administrator with a recurrent neck rash. Dermatologist after dermatologist failed to find the cause. Patch and photopatch testing turned up nothing. Then Dr. DeLeo asked her to bring in every skin product she was using. She returned with a large bag full of dermatologic samples, including Drithocreme (anthralin), which can be an irritant. None of the drugs were prescribed. “This is case of sample dermatitis,” which may occur among employees and family members of dermatologists, he said. “Always think of having patients bring in what they’re using,” he added, “because you can be surprised.”

The Coastal Dermatology Symposium is jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are both owned by Frontline Medical Communications.

Dr. DeLeo disclosed consulting work for Estée Lauder.

PARIS – Treatment with the fixed combination adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel not only reduced facial acne lesions, it also decreased the atrophic acne scar count in a multicenter, randomized trial, Brigitte Dreno, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To my knowledge, this is the first time that we have seen a topical therapy showing a reduction in atrophic acne scars,” said Dr. Dreno, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Nantes (France) University Hospital.

She reported on 67 adolescents and adults with mainly moderate facial acne randomized to treat half their face with adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (Epiduo Forte) and the other half with the product’s vehicle daily for 6 months. Investigators were blinded as to which side was which. At baseline, patients averaged 40 acne lesions and 12 scars per half face.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the atrophic acne scar count per half face at week 24. At that point, the mean total was 9.5 scars on the active treatment side, compared with 13.3 on the control side. This translated to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15.5% decrease in scars with active treatment versus a 14.4% increase with vehicle. The between-side difference achieved statistical significance at week 1 and remained so at all follow-up visits through week 24.

By Scar Global Assessment at week 24, 32.9% of half faces treated with the combination product were rated clear or almost clear, compared with 16.4% with vehicle.

At 24 weeks, 24.1% of participants reported having moderately or very visible holes or indents on the active treatment side of their face, compared with 51.8% on the control side. The number of inflammatory acne lesions fell by 86.7% with the active treatment and 57.9% with vehicle over the course of 24 weeks. Again, the difference became statistically significant starting at week 1. By the Investigator’s Global Assessment at week 24, 64.2% of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel–treated faces were rated clear or almost clear, as were 19.4% with vehicle. In addition, 32% of patients reported a marked improvement in skin texture on their active treatment side at 24 weeks, as did 14% on the control side.

The salutary effect on acne scars documented with a topical therapy in this study represents a real advance in clinical care.

“Facial acne scars are a very important and difficult problem for our patients and also for dermatologists,” Dr. Dreno observed, adding that the evidence base for procedural interventions for acne scars, such as dermabrasion and laser resurfacing, is not top quality.

Not surprisingly with a topical retinoid, skin irritation was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, reported by 14.9% of patients on their active treatment side and 6% with vehicle. This side effect was typically mild and resolved within the first 2-3 weeks.

The improvement in preexisting acne scars documented in this trial was probably caused by drug-induced remodeling of the dermal matrix, according to Dr. Dreno.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Dreno reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to Galderma, Bioderma, Pierre Fabre, and La Roche–Posay.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – Treatment with the fixed combination adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel not only reduced facial acne lesions, it also decreased the atrophic acne scar count in a multicenter, randomized trial, Brigitte Dreno, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To my knowledge, this is the first time that we have seen a topical therapy showing a reduction in atrophic acne scars,” said Dr. Dreno, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Nantes (France) University Hospital.

She reported on 67 adolescents and adults with mainly moderate facial acne randomized to treat half their face with adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (Epiduo Forte) and the other half with the product’s vehicle daily for 6 months. Investigators were blinded as to which side was which. At baseline, patients averaged 40 acne lesions and 12 scars per half face.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the atrophic acne scar count per half face at week 24. At that point, the mean total was 9.5 scars on the active treatment side, compared with 13.3 on the control side. This translated to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15.5% decrease in scars with active treatment versus a 14.4% increase with vehicle. The between-side difference achieved statistical significance at week 1 and remained so at all follow-up visits through week 24.

By Scar Global Assessment at week 24, 32.9% of half faces treated with the combination product were rated clear or almost clear, compared with 16.4% with vehicle.

At 24 weeks, 24.1% of participants reported having moderately or very visible holes or indents on the active treatment side of their face, compared with 51.8% on the control side. The number of inflammatory acne lesions fell by 86.7% with the active treatment and 57.9% with vehicle over the course of 24 weeks. Again, the difference became statistically significant starting at week 1. By the Investigator’s Global Assessment at week 24, 64.2% of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel–treated faces were rated clear or almost clear, as were 19.4% with vehicle. In addition, 32% of patients reported a marked improvement in skin texture on their active treatment side at 24 weeks, as did 14% on the control side.

The salutary effect on acne scars documented with a topical therapy in this study represents a real advance in clinical care.

“Facial acne scars are a very important and difficult problem for our patients and also for dermatologists,” Dr. Dreno observed, adding that the evidence base for procedural interventions for acne scars, such as dermabrasion and laser resurfacing, is not top quality.

Not surprisingly with a topical retinoid, skin irritation was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, reported by 14.9% of patients on their active treatment side and 6% with vehicle. This side effect was typically mild and resolved within the first 2-3 weeks.

The improvement in preexisting acne scars documented in this trial was probably caused by drug-induced remodeling of the dermal matrix, according to Dr. Dreno.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Dreno reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to Galderma, Bioderma, Pierre Fabre, and La Roche–Posay.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – Treatment with the fixed combination adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel not only reduced facial acne lesions, it also decreased the atrophic acne scar count in a multicenter, randomized trial, Brigitte Dreno, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To my knowledge, this is the first time that we have seen a topical therapy showing a reduction in atrophic acne scars,” said Dr. Dreno, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Nantes (France) University Hospital.

She reported on 67 adolescents and adults with mainly moderate facial acne randomized to treat half their face with adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (Epiduo Forte) and the other half with the product’s vehicle daily for 6 months. Investigators were blinded as to which side was which. At baseline, patients averaged 40 acne lesions and 12 scars per half face.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the atrophic acne scar count per half face at week 24. At that point, the mean total was 9.5 scars on the active treatment side, compared with 13.3 on the control side. This translated to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15.5% decrease in scars with active treatment versus a 14.4% increase with vehicle. The between-side difference achieved statistical significance at week 1 and remained so at all follow-up visits through week 24.

By Scar Global Assessment at week 24, 32.9% of half faces treated with the combination product were rated clear or almost clear, compared with 16.4% with vehicle.

At 24 weeks, 24.1% of participants reported having moderately or very visible holes or indents on the active treatment side of their face, compared with 51.8% on the control side. The number of inflammatory acne lesions fell by 86.7% with the active treatment and 57.9% with vehicle over the course of 24 weeks. Again, the difference became statistically significant starting at week 1. By the Investigator’s Global Assessment at week 24, 64.2% of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel–treated faces were rated clear or almost clear, as were 19.4% with vehicle. In addition, 32% of patients reported a marked improvement in skin texture on their active treatment side at 24 weeks, as did 14% on the control side.

The salutary effect on acne scars documented with a topical therapy in this study represents a real advance in clinical care.

“Facial acne scars are a very important and difficult problem for our patients and also for dermatologists,” Dr. Dreno observed, adding that the evidence base for procedural interventions for acne scars, such as dermabrasion and laser resurfacing, is not top quality.

Not surprisingly with a topical retinoid, skin irritation was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, reported by 14.9% of patients on their active treatment side and 6% with vehicle. This side effect was typically mild and resolved within the first 2-3 weeks.

The improvement in preexisting acne scars documented in this trial was probably caused by drug-induced remodeling of the dermal matrix, according to Dr. Dreno.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Dreno reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to Galderma, Bioderma, Pierre Fabre, and La Roche–Posay.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Since birth, this now–13-year-old boy has had redness on his face— the intensity of which has slowly increased with time. Various providers have offered a plethora of diagnoses, but no treatment attempts thus far have helped. The condition is asymptomatic but nonetheless distressing to the patient.

More history-taking reveals that, when he was about 6, crops of tiny papules developed on both triceps, his buttocks, and his upper back. These, too, have resisted treatment with OTC creams.

Neither of the boy’s two siblings have had any similar lesions, and no one in the family has any related health problems (eg, atopic diatheses).

EXAMINATION
The posterior 2/3 of both sides of the patient’s face are strikingly red. His nasolabial folds are spared, but the redness extends posteriorly to the immediate preauricular areas and vertically from the zygoma to the jawline. The erythema is highly blanchable with digital pressure and has a uniformly rough, papular feel. There is no tenderness or increased warmth on palpation.

The papules on the triceps, anterior thighs, and upper back are uniform in size (pinpoint, measuring ≤ 1 mm) and distribution, obviously originating from follicles. Unlike the face, these areas are not erythematous.

What’s the diagnosis?

DISCUSSION
There are several types of keratosis pilaris (KP), including rubra faceii, the form affecting this patient (distinguished in part by involvement of the facial skin). KP is utterly common, affecting 30% to 50% of the white population worldwide, with no gender preference. This autosomal dominant disorder involves follicular keratinization—normal keratin (produced in the hair follicle) builds up and creates a “plug” that manifests as a firm, dry papule. Obstruction of the follicular orifice may be significant enough to prevent hair from exiting, in which case, the hair continues to grow but simply curls in on itself and accentuates the appearance of the papule.

Although KP is a condition and not a disease, it is often considered part of the atopic diatheses, which include the major diagnostic criteria of eczema, urticaria, and seasonal allergies. KP is often mistaken for acne, especially when it affects the face, but its lack of comedones and pustules is a distinguishing characteristic.

Keratosis follicularis (Darier disease) also features follicular papules, but the distribution and morphology differ significantly. Darier is a more serious problem in terms of extent and symptomatology.

Treatment of KP is unsatisfactory at best, but emollients can make it less bumpy. Salicylic acid and lactic acid–containing preparations can also help, but only temporarily. Gentle exfoliation followed by the application of heavy oils is considered the most effective treatment method. The most encouraging thing we can tell our patients: The problem tends to lessen with age.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS

• Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common inherited defect of follicular keratinization that affects 30% to 50% of the white population worldwide.
• KP results in a distribution of follicular rough papules across the face, triceps, thighs, buttocks, and upper back, beginning in early childhood.
• A significant percentage of affected patients exhibit the variant termed rubra faceii, which involves the posterior 2/3 of the bilateral face.
• Treatment is problematic, but the application of emollients after gentle exfoliation can help; most cases improve as the patient ages.

Since birth, this now–13-year-old boy has had redness on his face— the intensity of which has slowly increased with time. Various providers have offered a plethora of diagnoses, but no treatment attempts thus far have helped. The condition is asymptomatic but nonetheless distressing to the patient.

More history-taking reveals that, when he was about 6, crops of tiny papules developed on both triceps, his buttocks, and his upper back. These, too, have resisted treatment with OTC creams.

Neither of the boy’s two siblings have had any similar lesions, and no one in the family has any related health problems (eg, atopic diatheses).

EXAMINATION
The posterior 2/3 of both sides of the patient’s face are strikingly red. His nasolabial folds are spared, but the redness extends posteriorly to the immediate preauricular areas and vertically from the zygoma to the jawline. The erythema is highly blanchable with digital pressure and has a uniformly rough, papular feel. There is no tenderness or increased warmth on palpation.

The papules on the triceps, anterior thighs, and upper back are uniform in size (pinpoint, measuring ≤ 1 mm) and distribution, obviously originating from follicles. Unlike the face, these areas are not erythematous.

What’s the diagnosis?

DISCUSSION
There are several types of keratosis pilaris (KP), including rubra faceii, the form affecting this patient (distinguished in part by involvement of the facial skin). KP is utterly common, affecting 30% to 50% of the white population worldwide, with no gender preference. This autosomal dominant disorder involves follicular keratinization—normal keratin (produced in the hair follicle) builds up and creates a “plug” that manifests as a firm, dry papule. Obstruction of the follicular orifice may be significant enough to prevent hair from exiting, in which case, the hair continues to grow but simply curls in on itself and accentuates the appearance of the papule.

Although KP is a condition and not a disease, it is often considered part of the atopic diatheses, which include the major diagnostic criteria of eczema, urticaria, and seasonal allergies. KP is often mistaken for acne, especially when it affects the face, but its lack of comedones and pustules is a distinguishing characteristic.

Keratosis follicularis (Darier disease) also features follicular papules, but the distribution and morphology differ significantly. Darier is a more serious problem in terms of extent and symptomatology.

Treatment of KP is unsatisfactory at best, but emollients can make it less bumpy. Salicylic acid and lactic acid–containing preparations can also help, but only temporarily. Gentle exfoliation followed by the application of heavy oils is considered the most effective treatment method. The most encouraging thing we can tell our patients: The problem tends to lessen with age.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS

• Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common inherited defect of follicular keratinization that affects 30% to 50% of the white population worldwide.
• KP results in a distribution of follicular rough papules across the face, triceps, thighs, buttocks, and upper back, beginning in early childhood.
• A significant percentage of affected patients exhibit the variant termed rubra faceii, which involves the posterior 2/3 of the bilateral face.
• Treatment is problematic, but the application of emollients after gentle exfoliation can help; most cases improve as the patient ages.

Since birth, this now–13-year-old boy has had redness on his face— the intensity of which has slowly increased with time. Various providers have offered a plethora of diagnoses, but no treatment attempts thus far have helped. The condition is asymptomatic but nonetheless distressing to the patient.

More history-taking reveals that, when he was about 6, crops of tiny papules developed on both triceps, his buttocks, and his upper back. These, too, have resisted treatment with OTC creams.

Neither of the boy’s two siblings have had any similar lesions, and no one in the family has any related health problems (eg, atopic diatheses).

EXAMINATION
The posterior 2/3 of both sides of the patient’s face are strikingly red. His nasolabial folds are spared, but the redness extends posteriorly to the immediate preauricular areas and vertically from the zygoma to the jawline. The erythema is highly blanchable with digital pressure and has a uniformly rough, papular feel. There is no tenderness or increased warmth on palpation.

The papules on the triceps, anterior thighs, and upper back are uniform in size (pinpoint, measuring ≤ 1 mm) and distribution, obviously originating from follicles. Unlike the face, these areas are not erythematous.

What’s the diagnosis?

DISCUSSION
There are several types of keratosis pilaris (KP), including rubra faceii, the form affecting this patient (distinguished in part by involvement of the facial skin). KP is utterly common, affecting 30% to 50% of the white population worldwide, with no gender preference. This autosomal dominant disorder involves follicular keratinization—normal keratin (produced in the hair follicle) builds up and creates a “plug” that manifests as a firm, dry papule. Obstruction of the follicular orifice may be significant enough to prevent hair from exiting, in which case, the hair continues to grow but simply curls in on itself and accentuates the appearance of the papule.

Although KP is a condition and not a disease, it is often considered part of the atopic diatheses, which include the major diagnostic criteria of eczema, urticaria, and seasonal allergies. KP is often mistaken for acne, especially when it affects the face, but its lack of comedones and pustules is a distinguishing characteristic.

Keratosis follicularis (Darier disease) also features follicular papules, but the distribution and morphology differ significantly. Darier is a more serious problem in terms of extent and symptomatology.

Treatment of KP is unsatisfactory at best, but emollients can make it less bumpy. Salicylic acid and lactic acid–containing preparations can also help, but only temporarily. Gentle exfoliation followed by the application of heavy oils is considered the most effective treatment method. The most encouraging thing we can tell our patients: The problem tends to lessen with age.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS

• Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common inherited defect of follicular keratinization that affects 30% to 50% of the white population worldwide.
• KP results in a distribution of follicular rough papules across the face, triceps, thighs, buttocks, and upper back, beginning in early childhood.
• A significant percentage of affected patients exhibit the variant termed rubra faceii, which involves the posterior 2/3 of the bilateral face.
• Treatment is problematic, but the application of emollients after gentle exfoliation can help; most cases improve as the patient ages.

The FP suspected a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma.

Informed consent was obtained, and the FP numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine using a 30 gauge needle. The area was exquisitely tender, so a small needle was used and the anesthesia was injected slowly. (It is safe and recommended to use epinephrine for biopsy on or around the nose.) The physician performed a shave biopsy. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The biopsy results confirmed an infiltrative BCC. The physician recognized this as a more aggressive BCC and its location at the nasolabial fold suggested that the patient was at an increased risk for recurrence. He communicated these risk factors to the patient, and she accepted a referral for Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP suspected a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma.

Informed consent was obtained, and the FP numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine using a 30 gauge needle. The area was exquisitely tender, so a small needle was used and the anesthesia was injected slowly. (It is safe and recommended to use epinephrine for biopsy on or around the nose.) The physician performed a shave biopsy. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The biopsy results confirmed an infiltrative BCC. The physician recognized this as a more aggressive BCC and its location at the nasolabial fold suggested that the patient was at an increased risk for recurrence. He communicated these risk factors to the patient, and she accepted a referral for Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP suspected a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma.

Informed consent was obtained, and the FP numbed the area with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine using a 30 gauge needle. The area was exquisitely tender, so a small needle was used and the anesthesia was injected slowly. (It is safe and recommended to use epinephrine for biopsy on or around the nose.) The physician performed a shave biopsy. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The biopsy results confirmed an infiltrative BCC. The physician recognized this as a more aggressive BCC and its location at the nasolabial fold suggested that the patient was at an increased risk for recurrence. He communicated these risk factors to the patient, and she accepted a referral for Mohs surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP was concerned about a possible melanoma due to the dark pigmentation and the positive “ABDCE criteria” of melanoma. The FP used his dermatoscope to determine whether this was a melanoma or a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

The multiple leaf-like structures and blue-gray ovoid nests seen with dermoscopy suggested that this was a pigmented BCC. (The ulceration could be seen in either melanoma or BCC.) The FP told the patient that this was most certainly a skin cancer and she needed a biopsy that day. The patient consented and anesthesia was obtained with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. The physician used a DermaBlade to perform a deep shave (saucerization) under the pigmentation. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The pathology confirmed pigmented BCC. The physician recommended an elliptical excision and scheduled it for the following week.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP was concerned about a possible melanoma due to the dark pigmentation and the positive “ABDCE criteria” of melanoma. The FP used his dermatoscope to determine whether this was a melanoma or a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

The multiple leaf-like structures and blue-gray ovoid nests seen with dermoscopy suggested that this was a pigmented BCC. (The ulceration could be seen in either melanoma or BCC.) The FP told the patient that this was most certainly a skin cancer and she needed a biopsy that day. The patient consented and anesthesia was obtained with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. The physician used a DermaBlade to perform a deep shave (saucerization) under the pigmentation. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The pathology confirmed pigmented BCC. The physician recommended an elliptical excision and scheduled it for the following week.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The FP was concerned about a possible melanoma due to the dark pigmentation and the positive “ABDCE criteria” of melanoma. The FP used his dermatoscope to determine whether this was a melanoma or a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

The multiple leaf-like structures and blue-gray ovoid nests seen with dermoscopy suggested that this was a pigmented BCC. (The ulceration could be seen in either melanoma or BCC.) The FP told the patient that this was most certainly a skin cancer and she needed a biopsy that day. The patient consented and anesthesia was obtained with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine. The physician used a DermaBlade to perform a deep shave (saucerization) under the pigmentation. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”)

The pathology confirmed pigmented BCC. The physician recommended an elliptical excision and scheduled it for the following week.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Basal cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:989-998.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

Lichen nitidus, which literally means “shiny moss,” is a relatively rare, chronic skin eruption that is characterized clinically by asymptomatic, flat-topped, sharply-demarcated, skin-colored papules, which are sometimes described as being “pinpoint.”

Lichen nitidus mainly affects children and young adults. The most common sites of involvement are the trunk, flexor aspects of upper extremities, dorsal aspects of hands, and genitalia, but lesions can occur anywhere on the skin. The lesions also can develop in sites of trauma (Koebner phenomenon), and this can be a significant clinical clue to aid in the diagnosis of lichen nitidus in favor of other conditions which may present as many small papules.¹ Nail changes can occur but are rare, presenting as dystrophy, pitting, riding, or loss of nail(s).²

Lichen nitidus can be a challenging diagnosis to make, especially if a practitioner is not used to seeing it. Many dermatologic conditions present with many fine papules, including the other answer choices in the given quiz question (molluscum contagiosum, keratosis pilaris, verruca vulgaris, papular eczema). What allows for a clearer diagnosis of lichen nitidus is the history provided by the patient as well as the exam. Lichen nitidus lesions typically arise without a known trigger and often persist for months while remaining asymptomatic.

Molluscum contagiosum tends to include papules that are larger and more substantial than lichen nitidus papules and may be accompanied by background hyperpigmentation or erythema, known as the “beginning of the end” sign. Keratosis pilaris is commonly thought of as a skin type more so than a skin condition, and is more commonly seen in fair-skinned individuals along the lateral arms and cheeks. It is commonly paired with a background of erythema and skin than tends to be more xerotic. Verruca are typically larger lesions, sometimes with a rough surface, and are not typically shiny. Verruca are more likely to present as a single lesion or a few lesions at a given location, as opposed to lichen nitidus which has many individual papules at a single location. Papular eczema typically is intensely pruritic and is associated with xerosis and atopy.

The cause of lichen nitidus is unknown, and there are no reported genetic factors that contribute to its presentation.³ It is thought to be a subtype of lichen planus, although this is still debated. There is more work that needs to be done to find answers to these questions and to assess what triggers these fine papules to present and in whom.

The dermatoscopic features of lichen nitidus were reported in a series of eight cases and include absent dermatoglyphics, radial ridges, ill-defined hypopigmentation, diffuse erythema, linear vessels within the lesion, and peripheral scaling.⁴ These features are distinctive in combination and can in some cases be used to clinically diagnose lichen nitidus without the need for a skin biopsy, which is an invasive procedure that should be avoided when possible, especially given the benign nature of lichen nitidus.

If a biopsy is performed, the histologic features that commonly are seen include well-circumscribed granuloma-like lymphohistiocytic infiltrates in the papillary dermis adjacent to ridges, mimicking a “ball-and-claw” formation.^1,5

Lichen nitidus generally is self-limiting, with minimal cosmetic disruption; therefore, treatment usually is not necessary. The lesions typically resolve within 1 year of presentation – and often sooner. Topical steroids can be used for symptomatic relief of pruritus, but generally do not hasten resolution of the papules themselves. Additionally, there have been reports in the literature of the successful resolution of lesions using topical calcineurin inhibitors and UVB therapy.

In a case report of an 8-year-old child with histologically confirmed lichen nitidus that had been present for 2 years, pimecrolimus 1% cream was used twice daily for 2 months with improvement and flattening of the papules.⁶ This report is compelling because the lesions persisted for twice the expected time of resolution without improvement and then showed relatively quick response to pimecrolimus. In a case of a 32-year-old male with lichen nitidus on his penis, tacrolimus 0.1% was used for 4 weeks with resolution of the papules.⁷ Although given that lichen nitidus can self-resolve in this same time period, it is unclear in this case whether the tacrolimus was the independent cause of the resolution.

With regard to UVB therapy, there have been reports of lichen nitidus resolution after 17-30 irradiation sessions in patients with lesions present for 3-6 months, although again, it is possible that the resolution observed was simply the natural course of the lichen nitidus for these patients rather than a therapeutic benefit of UVB therapy.^8,9

Given that lichen nitidus is benign and typically asymptomatic or with mild pruritus, it is reasonable to monitor the lesions without treating them. If the lesions persist beyond 1 year, it also is reasonable to trial therapies, such as topical calcineurin inhibitors and UVB therapy, although using these treatments earlier in the disease course has only limited supporting data and any improvement seen within 1 year of onset may be attributed to the natural disease course as opposed to an effect of the intervention. Considerations of the cost of therapy, as well as the degree to which the patient is bothered by the lesions and how long the lesions have persisted, should be undertaken when considering whether an intervention should be made.
 

Ms. Natsis is a medical student at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. There are no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures for Ms. Natsis or Dr. Eichenfield. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Cutis. 1999 Aug 1;64(2):135-6.

2. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Oct;51(4):606-24.

3. Papulosquamous diseases, in “Pediatric Dermatology,” 4th ed. (St Louis: Mosby; 2011, Vol. 2.

4. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/pde.13576.

5. Cutis. 2013 Dec;92(6):288, 297-8.

6. Dermatol Online J. 2011 Jul 15;17(7):11.

7. J Drugs Dermatol. 2004 Nov-Dec;3(6):683-4.

8. Int J Dermatol. 2004 Dec 23;45:615-7.

9. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2013 Aug;29(4):215-7.

Lichen nitidus, which literally means “shiny moss,” is a relatively rare, chronic skin eruption that is characterized clinically by asymptomatic, flat-topped, sharply-demarcated, skin-colored papules, which are sometimes described as being “pinpoint.”

Lichen nitidus mainly affects children and young adults. The most common sites of involvement are the trunk, flexor aspects of upper extremities, dorsal aspects of hands, and genitalia, but lesions can occur anywhere on the skin. The lesions also can develop in sites of trauma (Koebner phenomenon), and this can be a significant clinical clue to aid in the diagnosis of lichen nitidus in favor of other conditions which may present as many small papules.¹ Nail changes can occur but are rare, presenting as dystrophy, pitting, riding, or loss of nail(s).²

Lichen nitidus can be a challenging diagnosis to make, especially if a practitioner is not used to seeing it. Many dermatologic conditions present with many fine papules, including the other answer choices in the given quiz question (molluscum contagiosum, keratosis pilaris, verruca vulgaris, papular eczema). What allows for a clearer diagnosis of lichen nitidus is the history provided by the patient as well as the exam. Lichen nitidus lesions typically arise without a known trigger and often persist for months while remaining asymptomatic.

Molluscum contagiosum tends to include papules that are larger and more substantial than lichen nitidus papules and may be accompanied by background hyperpigmentation or erythema, known as the “beginning of the end” sign. Keratosis pilaris is commonly thought of as a skin type more so than a skin condition, and is more commonly seen in fair-skinned individuals along the lateral arms and cheeks. It is commonly paired with a background of erythema and skin than tends to be more xerotic. Verruca are typically larger lesions, sometimes with a rough surface, and are not typically shiny. Verruca are more likely to present as a single lesion or a few lesions at a given location, as opposed to lichen nitidus which has many individual papules at a single location. Papular eczema typically is intensely pruritic and is associated with xerosis and atopy.

The cause of lichen nitidus is unknown, and there are no reported genetic factors that contribute to its presentation.³ It is thought to be a subtype of lichen planus, although this is still debated. There is more work that needs to be done to find answers to these questions and to assess what triggers these fine papules to present and in whom.

The dermatoscopic features of lichen nitidus were reported in a series of eight cases and include absent dermatoglyphics, radial ridges, ill-defined hypopigmentation, diffuse erythema, linear vessels within the lesion, and peripheral scaling.⁴ These features are distinctive in combination and can in some cases be used to clinically diagnose lichen nitidus without the need for a skin biopsy, which is an invasive procedure that should be avoided when possible, especially given the benign nature of lichen nitidus.

If a biopsy is performed, the histologic features that commonly are seen include well-circumscribed granuloma-like lymphohistiocytic infiltrates in the papillary dermis adjacent to ridges, mimicking a “ball-and-claw” formation.^1,5

Lichen nitidus generally is self-limiting, with minimal cosmetic disruption; therefore, treatment usually is not necessary. The lesions typically resolve within 1 year of presentation – and often sooner. Topical steroids can be used for symptomatic relief of pruritus, but generally do not hasten resolution of the papules themselves. Additionally, there have been reports in the literature of the successful resolution of lesions using topical calcineurin inhibitors and UVB therapy.

In a case report of an 8-year-old child with histologically confirmed lichen nitidus that had been present for 2 years, pimecrolimus 1% cream was used twice daily for 2 months with improvement and flattening of the papules.⁶ This report is compelling because the lesions persisted for twice the expected time of resolution without improvement and then showed relatively quick response to pimecrolimus. In a case of a 32-year-old male with lichen nitidus on his penis, tacrolimus 0.1% was used for 4 weeks with resolution of the papules.⁷ Although given that lichen nitidus can self-resolve in this same time period, it is unclear in this case whether the tacrolimus was the independent cause of the resolution.

With regard to UVB therapy, there have been reports of lichen nitidus resolution after 17-30 irradiation sessions in patients with lesions present for 3-6 months, although again, it is possible that the resolution observed was simply the natural course of the lichen nitidus for these patients rather than a therapeutic benefit of UVB therapy.^8,9

Given that lichen nitidus is benign and typically asymptomatic or with mild pruritus, it is reasonable to monitor the lesions without treating them. If the lesions persist beyond 1 year, it also is reasonable to trial therapies, such as topical calcineurin inhibitors and UVB therapy, although using these treatments earlier in the disease course has only limited supporting data and any improvement seen within 1 year of onset may be attributed to the natural disease course as opposed to an effect of the intervention. Considerations of the cost of therapy, as well as the degree to which the patient is bothered by the lesions and how long the lesions have persisted, should be undertaken when considering whether an intervention should be made.
 

Ms. Natsis is a medical student at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. There are no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures for Ms. Natsis or Dr. Eichenfield. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Cutis. 1999 Aug 1;64(2):135-6.

2. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Oct;51(4):606-24.

3. Papulosquamous diseases, in “Pediatric Dermatology,” 4th ed. (St Louis: Mosby; 2011, Vol. 2.

4. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/pde.13576.

5. Cutis. 2013 Dec;92(6):288, 297-8.

6. Dermatol Online J. 2011 Jul 15;17(7):11.

7. J Drugs Dermatol. 2004 Nov-Dec;3(6):683-4.

8. Int J Dermatol. 2004 Dec 23;45:615-7.

9. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2013 Aug;29(4):215-7.

Lichen nitidus, which literally means “shiny moss,” is a relatively rare, chronic skin eruption that is characterized clinically by asymptomatic, flat-topped, sharply-demarcated, skin-colored papules, which are sometimes described as being “pinpoint.”

Lichen nitidus mainly affects children and young adults. The most common sites of involvement are the trunk, flexor aspects of upper extremities, dorsal aspects of hands, and genitalia, but lesions can occur anywhere on the skin. The lesions also can develop in sites of trauma (Koebner phenomenon), and this can be a significant clinical clue to aid in the diagnosis of lichen nitidus in favor of other conditions which may present as many small papules.¹ Nail changes can occur but are rare, presenting as dystrophy, pitting, riding, or loss of nail(s).²

Lichen nitidus can be a challenging diagnosis to make, especially if a practitioner is not used to seeing it. Many dermatologic conditions present with many fine papules, including the other answer choices in the given quiz question (molluscum contagiosum, keratosis pilaris, verruca vulgaris, papular eczema). What allows for a clearer diagnosis of lichen nitidus is the history provided by the patient as well as the exam. Lichen nitidus lesions typically arise without a known trigger and often persist for months while remaining asymptomatic.

Molluscum contagiosum tends to include papules that are larger and more substantial than lichen nitidus papules and may be accompanied by background hyperpigmentation or erythema, known as the “beginning of the end” sign. Keratosis pilaris is commonly thought of as a skin type more so than a skin condition, and is more commonly seen in fair-skinned individuals along the lateral arms and cheeks. It is commonly paired with a background of erythema and skin than tends to be more xerotic. Verruca are typically larger lesions, sometimes with a rough surface, and are not typically shiny. Verruca are more likely to present as a single lesion or a few lesions at a given location, as opposed to lichen nitidus which has many individual papules at a single location. Papular eczema typically is intensely pruritic and is associated with xerosis and atopy.

The cause of lichen nitidus is unknown, and there are no reported genetic factors that contribute to its presentation.³ It is thought to be a subtype of lichen planus, although this is still debated. There is more work that needs to be done to find answers to these questions and to assess what triggers these fine papules to present and in whom.

The dermatoscopic features of lichen nitidus were reported in a series of eight cases and include absent dermatoglyphics, radial ridges, ill-defined hypopigmentation, diffuse erythema, linear vessels within the lesion, and peripheral scaling.⁴ These features are distinctive in combination and can in some cases be used to clinically diagnose lichen nitidus without the need for a skin biopsy, which is an invasive procedure that should be avoided when possible, especially given the benign nature of lichen nitidus.

If a biopsy is performed, the histologic features that commonly are seen include well-circumscribed granuloma-like lymphohistiocytic infiltrates in the papillary dermis adjacent to ridges, mimicking a “ball-and-claw” formation.^1,5

Lichen nitidus generally is self-limiting, with minimal cosmetic disruption; therefore, treatment usually is not necessary. The lesions typically resolve within 1 year of presentation – and often sooner. Topical steroids can be used for symptomatic relief of pruritus, but generally do not hasten resolution of the papules themselves. Additionally, there have been reports in the literature of the successful resolution of lesions using topical calcineurin inhibitors and UVB therapy.

In a case report of an 8-year-old child with histologically confirmed lichen nitidus that had been present for 2 years, pimecrolimus 1% cream was used twice daily for 2 months with improvement and flattening of the papules.⁶ This report is compelling because the lesions persisted for twice the expected time of resolution without improvement and then showed relatively quick response to pimecrolimus. In a case of a 32-year-old male with lichen nitidus on his penis, tacrolimus 0.1% was used for 4 weeks with resolution of the papules.⁷ Although given that lichen nitidus can self-resolve in this same time period, it is unclear in this case whether the tacrolimus was the independent cause of the resolution.

With regard to UVB therapy, there have been reports of lichen nitidus resolution after 17-30 irradiation sessions in patients with lesions present for 3-6 months, although again, it is possible that the resolution observed was simply the natural course of the lichen nitidus for these patients rather than a therapeutic benefit of UVB therapy.^8,9

Given that lichen nitidus is benign and typically asymptomatic or with mild pruritus, it is reasonable to monitor the lesions without treating them. If the lesions persist beyond 1 year, it also is reasonable to trial therapies, such as topical calcineurin inhibitors and UVB therapy, although using these treatments earlier in the disease course has only limited supporting data and any improvement seen within 1 year of onset may be attributed to the natural disease course as opposed to an effect of the intervention. Considerations of the cost of therapy, as well as the degree to which the patient is bothered by the lesions and how long the lesions have persisted, should be undertaken when considering whether an intervention should be made.
 

Ms. Natsis is a medical student at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. There are no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures for Ms. Natsis or Dr. Eichenfield. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Cutis. 1999 Aug 1;64(2):135-6.

2. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Oct;51(4):606-24.

3. Papulosquamous diseases, in “Pediatric Dermatology,” 4th ed. (St Louis: Mosby; 2011, Vol. 2.

4. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/pde.13576.

5. Cutis. 2013 Dec;92(6):288, 297-8.

6. Dermatol Online J. 2011 Jul 15;17(7):11.

7. J Drugs Dermatol. 2004 Nov-Dec;3(6):683-4.

8. Int J Dermatol. 2004 Dec 23;45:615-7.

9. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2013 Aug;29(4):215-7.