Acute Interstitial Inflammation on Skin Biopsies and Positive Tissue Cultures in Cellulitis Patients Are Associated a Worse Prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis is a significant public health burden and lacks a gold standard for diagnosis. Up to 1/3 of patients are incorrectly diagnosed. The skin biopsy has been proposed as the gold standard. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluate the histopathologic characteristics and tissue culture positivity of biopsies in patients diagnosed with cellulitis seen by our inpatient dermatology consultation service. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined patients who were hospitalized with a skin and soft tissue infection at our institution between 2011 and 2020 and underwent a skin biopsy. RESULTS: Those with a positive tissue culture were more likely to die within 30 days compared with those with negative tissue cultures (26% vs. 6%, P = 0.048). Patients who died within 30 days were more likely to have acute interstitial inflammation as a feature on histopathology (38%, P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: Single institutional design, unintentional exclusion of patients with organism-specific diagnosis, and selection for a medically complex patient population because of the nonroutine collection of biopsies. CONCLUSION: Positive tissue cultures and histopathology showing acute interstitial space inflammation on skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) biopsies are associated with increased mortality and thus may serve as indicators of poor prognosis.

Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms With Pustulosis.

This cohort study examines patients with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms who also have pustules.

Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema with high-risk systemic features: a unique clinical phenotype in hospitalized patients.

Symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is classically considered a low-risk, self-limiting eruption lacking systemic manifestations and sparing facial and mucosal areas. We present 7 inpatients meeting diagnostic criteria for SDRIFE with concomitant systemic manifestations ± high-risk facial involvement acutely after antibiotic exposure (mean latency 6.71 days). These cases deviate from classic, self-limited SDRIFE and represent a unique phenotype of SDRIFE, characterized by coexisting extracutaneous manifestations. Onset of systemic stigmata coincided with or preceded cutaneous involvement in 4 and 3 patients, respectively. All patients developed peripheral eosinophilia and 6 patients had ≥ 2 extracutaneous systems involved. Facial involvement, a high-risk feature associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions but atypical in classic SDRIFE, occurred in 4 cases. Patients had favorable clinical outcomes following drug cessation and treatment with 4-6 week corticosteroid tapers. We suggest that baseline labs be considered in hospitalized patients with antibiotic-induced SDRIFE. These patients may also necessitate systemic therapy given extracutaneous involvement, deviating from standard SDRIFE treatment with drug cessation alone.

Is it ethical to lie by omission for a patient?

In the age of increasing transparency, dermatologists may encounter requests from patients to alter or withhold key medical information from their electronic medical records. Per the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, patients have the right to view their medical record and request amendments; however, the physician is the final decision maker on what information should be included in the chart. It is integral that medically necessary information is included in the chart in accordance with the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Withholding medically pertinent history may cause harm to the patient. Navigating such challenging situations while maintaining transparency requires a thorough understanding of the patient's dilemma. This contribution provides a framework by applying multiple ethical principles and will empower dermatologists to navigate such requests.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a case report and review of the literature.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use has been associated with numerous autoimmune side effects, known as immune related adverse events (irAEs). Cutaneous irAEs are common and affect up to 50% of patients treated with ICIs. There have been an increasing number of cases reported in the literature regarding ICI-induced subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE). ICI-induced SCLE is important to recognize as it can result in a delayed and/or prolonged skin reaction despite treatment discontinuation. We describe a patient with gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma who developed SCLE following one cycle of nivolumab treatment. A 75-year-old man presented to our clinic with a new photo-distributed rash composed of oval scaly pink papules and plaques involving his chest and arms. Despite treatment with topical corticosteroids, he presented to the emergency department 1 week later with worsening rash. Skin biopsy showed vacuolar interface pattern, along with superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, consistent with a drug eruption. The clinicopathological presentation was consistent with ICI-induced SCLE. Nivolumab treatment was discontinued due to the severity of the rash. The rash remitted with systemic corticosteroids, high potency topical steroids, and hydroxychloroquine. Unfortunately, the patient developed intraperitoneal metastatic disease, and was enrolled in hospice care. In this paper, we highlight the importance of early identification and treatment of this irAE. A review of the literature, including a discussion on the management of ICI-induced SCLE is also provided.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. Part II diagnosis and management.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, also known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction characterized by an exanthem, fever, and hematologic and visceral organ involvement. The differential diagnosis includes other cutaneous adverse reactions, infections, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and neoplastic disorders. Three sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed; however, consensus is lacking. The cornerstone of management is immediate discontinuation of the suspected drug culprit. Systemic corticosteroids remain first-line therapy, but the literature on steroid-sparing agents is expanding. Longitudinal evaluation for sequelae is recommended. Adjunctive tests for risk stratification and drug culprit identification remain under investigation. Part II of this continuing medical education activity begins by exploring the differential diagnosis and diagnosis of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms and concludes with an evidence-based overview of evaluation and treatment.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. Part I. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinicopathological features, and prognosis.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS), also known as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) characterized by an exanthem, fever, and hematologic and visceral organ involvement. Anticonvulsants, antibiotics, and allopurinol are the most common triggers. The pathogenesis involves a complex interplay between drugs, viruses, and the immune system primarily mediated by T-cells. DiHS/DRESS typically presents with a morbilliform eruption 2-6 weeks after drug exposure, and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and risk of relapse. Long-term sequelae primarily relate to organ dysfunction and autoimmune diseases. Part I of this continuing medical education activity on DiHS/DRESS provides an update on epidemiology, novel insights into pathogenesis, and a description of clinicopathological features and prognosis.

Topical Vehicles: A Dermatologist's Perspective.

Topical treatment is mainstay for a variety of dermatologic conditions. There are several different types of topical vehicles, and choosing the most appropriate one is an essential part of treatment. Selection can vary depending on factors such as patient preference and anatomical location. Each topical vehicle has unique advantages and disadvantages that are important to consider. This article reviews some of the most common topical vehicles used in dermatology.