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.

Fever and Rash.

Infectious causes of fever and rash pose a diagnostic challenge for the emergency provider. It is often difficult to discern rashes associated with rapidly progressive and life-threatening infections from benign exanthems, which comprise the majority of rashes seen in the emergency department. Physicians must also consider serious noninfectious causes of fever and rash. A correct diagnosis depends on an exhaustive history and head-to-toe skin examination as most emergent causes of fever and rash remain clinical diagnoses. A provisional diagnosis and immediate treatment with antimicrobials and supportive care are usually required prior to the return of confirmatory laboratory testing.

Erupción fija por luz solar, una serie de 13 casos en Bogotá, Colombia / Fixed Sunlight Eruption: A Series of 13 Cases in Bogotá, Columbia

Desde 1975 se han publicado algunos casos que asocian la radiación ultravioleta como un desencadenante de erupciones cutáneas fijas (erupción o exantema fijo por luz solar o síndrome de fotosensibilidad localizada de amplio espectro). Describimos los casos de 13 pacientes con esta dermatosis, 4 varones (30,8%) y 9 mujeres (69,2%), con edades comprendidas entre los 28 y los 56 años, atendidos en un centro de referencia en dermatología en Bogotá, Colombia. Las lesiones se localizaron en la cara interna de los muslos, los glúteos, la región poplítea, la axilar anterior y posterior y el dorso de los pies. La prueba de fotoprovocación logró la reproducción de las lesiones en todos los casos en las áreas afectadas y la histopatología reveló cambios similares a los descritos en los eritemas fijos por medicamentos. Esta enfermedad podría corresponder a un subtipo de erupción fija, aunque no se descarta que sea una dermatosis diferente con una patogenia común.(AU)

Few reports describing an association between UV radiation and fixed skin eruptions have been published since 1975. These reactions have received various names, including fixed sunlight eruption, fixed exanthema due to UV radiation, and broad-spectrum abnormal localized photosensitivity syndrome. We present a series of 13 patients (4 men [30.8%] and 9 women [69.2%]) aged between 28 and 56 years who were evaluated for fixed eruptions induced by UV radiation at a dermatology referral hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. The lesions were located on the inner thighs, buttocks, popliteal region, anterior and posterior axilla, and dorsum of the feet. Photoprovocation reproduced lesions in all the affected areas, and histopathology showed changes similar to those seen in fixed drug eruptions. While these UV-provoked reactions may be a type of fixed skin eruption, we cannot rule out that they may also be a distinct condition that simply shares a pathogenic mechanism with fixed eruptions.(AU)

[Translated article] Fixed Sunlight Eruption: A Series of 13 Cases in Bogotá, Colombia / Erupción fija por luz solar, una serie de 13 casos en Bogotá, Colombia

Desde 1975 se han publicado algunos casos que asocian la radiación ultravioleta como un desencadenante de erupciones cutáneas fijas (erupción o exantema fijo por luz solar o síndrome de fotosensibilidad localizada de amplio espectro). Describimos los casos de 13 pacientes con esta dermatosis, 4 varones (30,8%) y 9 mujeres (69,2%), con edades comprendidas entre los 28 y los 56 años, atendidos en un centro de referencia en dermatología en Bogotá, Colombia. Las lesiones se localizaron en la cara interna de los muslos, los glúteos, la región poplítea, la axilar anterior y posterior y el dorso de los pies. La prueba de fotoprovocación logró la reproducción de las lesiones en todos los casos en las áreas afectadas y la histopatología reveló cambios similares a los descritos en los eritemas fijos por medicamentos. Esta enfermedad podría corresponder a un subtipo de erupción fija, aunque no se descarta que sea una dermatosis diferente con una patogenia común.(AU)

Few reports describing an association between UV radiation and fixed skin eruptions have been published since 1975. These reactions have received various names, including fixed sunlight eruption, fixed exanthema due to UV radiation, and broad-spectrum abnormal localized photosensitivity syndrome. We present a series of 13 patients (4 men [30.8%] and 9 women [69.2%]) aged between 28 and 56 years who were evaluated for fixed eruptions induced by UV radiation at a dermatology referral hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. The lesions were located on the inner thighs, buttocks, popliteal region, anterior and posterior axilla, and dorsum of the feet. Photoprovocation reproduced lesions in all the affected areas, and histopathology showed changes similar to those seen in fixed drug eruptions. While these UV-provoked reactions may be a type of fixed skin eruption, we cannot rule out that they may also be a distinct condition that simply shares a pathogenic mechanism with fixed eruptions.(AU)

Drug Allergy Mimics.

When approaching a case of apparent drug allergy, the consulting clinician should consider a broad differential diagnosis. This article presents a series of cases that could be commonly referred to an allergist for assessment as "drug allergy," however, a real diagnosis exists that mandates a different diagnostic and treatment strategy, including a case of inducible laryngeal obstruction, multiple drug intolerance syndrome, viral rash, seizure due to metastatic malignancy, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis initially diagnosed as drug reaction and eosinophilia with systemic symptoms. The initial misdiagnoses of these patients delayed or interfered with their medical care, emphasizing the importance of accurate diagnoses for the benefit of our patients.

A Classic Presentation of Roseola Infantum.

Roseola is a common viral exanthem of childhood, most frequently affecting infants and toddlers before age three. The syndrome is characterized by an abrupt onset of high fever, which, upon resolution, yields to a centrally located maculopapular rash that spreads peripherally. This report describes the case of an 18-month-old child whose fever and defervescence rash provide insight into the typical presentation and progression of this pervasive yet mostly benign condition.

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.

Fixed Sunlight Eruption: A Series of 13 Cases in Bogotá, Columbia. / Erupción fija por luz solar, una serie de 13 casos en Bogotá, Colombia.

Few reports describing an association between UV radiation and fixed skin eruptions have been published since 1975. These reactions have received various names, including fixed sunlight eruption, fixed exanthema due to UV radiation, and broad-spectrum abnormal localized photosensitivity syndrome. We present a series of 13 patients (4 men [30.8%] and 9 women [69.2%]) aged between 28 and 56 years who were evaluated for fixed eruptions induced by UV radiation at a dermatology referral hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. The lesions were located on the inner thighs, buttocks, popliteal region, anterior and posterior axilla, and dorsum of the feet. Photoprovocation reproduced lesions in all the affected areas, and histopathology showed changes similar to those seen in fixed drug eruptions. While these UV-provoked reactions may be a type of fixed skin eruption, we cannot rule out that they may also be a distinct condition that simply shares a pathogenic mechanism with fixed eruptions.

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease in Adults.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a viral infection primarily affecting children, but it can occur in individuals of all ages. In this article, we present the atypical case of a 36-year-old male with no significant medical history who recurred to the emergency department with a three-day history of fever, sore throat, and a maculopapular rash. After an extended evaluation with normal blood tests, he was discharged home with a diagnosis of HFMD. This case underscores the importance of considering HFMD when evaluating adult patients with rashes, and patients should be reassured about the self-limiting nature of the disease.

Triaging cases of fever with vesicular rash relevant to the monkeypox epidemic.

Fever with a vesicular rash is a common clinical scenario and monkeypox (MPX) characteristically presents as a fever with a vesiculopustular rash. The clinical morphology of MPX mimics many infectious and non-infectious disorders, and narrowing down the differentials of vesiculopustular rash necessitates thorough history taking and physical examination. The clinical evaluation involves the assessment of the primary skin lesions, sites of involvement, distribution, number and size of lesions, and pattern of progression of the rash, along with the onset of the rash relative to the occurrence of fever and other systemic signs. Common disorders which are close differentials include Varicella, Erythema Multiforme, enteroviral exanthems, and disseminated herpes simplex. Distinct clinical indicators of MPX include the presence of deep-seated umbilicated vesiculopustules, lymphadenopathy, involvement of the palms and soles, centrifugal spread, and genital involvement. We delineate and enlist features of common disorders presenting as vesiculopustular rash, which can help the clinician differentiate them from MPX.

Atypical exanthem with acral involvement in adult patients associated with human herpesvirus 7 active replication: A case series.

An "atypical exanthem" (AE) is an eruptive skin eruption that differs in morphology and etiology from classical exanthems and is often a reason for urgent medical evaluation. The most frequent cause of AEs is a viral infection, but an accurate etiology cannot be established basing on the sole clinical features. Human herpesviruses (HHV) have been often suspected as etiologic agents or cofactors in atypical rashes. We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients presenting an atypical exanthem associated with HHV-7 active replication in our center. The charts of patients were reviewed and the demographic, clinical and laboratory data collected. Nine patients (six males and three females) were included in the study, with a mean age of 43 years for men and of 26 years for women. All patients presented active HHV-7 replication in plasma during the rash, which turned negative after the exanthem resolved. The exanthem displayed a maculopapular pattern involving the trunk, limbs and, notably, the acral regions, in six patients. In three cases the exanthem was confined to only the acral sites. In most cases, there was no fever and the inflammatory indices remained unchanged. Antihistamines, topical and systemic corticosteroids were used as treatment, with excellent symptom control. We propose adding skin manifestation associated with HHV-7 to the concept of atypical exanthems, in particular those localized to the acral regions.

A Study of Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions at a Tertiary Care Center in Andhra Pradesh, India.

INTRODUCTION: Practically all physicians encounter a diverse range of suspected cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) in their daily clinical practice. The skin and mucosa are the most often encountered areas for the early presentation of numerous adverse drug reactions. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions are classified as benign or severe. The clinical manifestations of drug eruptions can range from mild maculopapular exanthema to severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the varied clinical and morphological presentations of CADRs and to identify the culprit drug and common drugs causing CADRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical features suspected of CADRs presenting to the outpatient department (OPD) of dermatology, venereology, and leprosy (DVL) between December 2021 to November 2022 at Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital (GEMS), Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India, were considered for the study. This was a cross-sectional, observational study. The patient's clinical history was taken in detail. This included chief complaints (symptoms, site of onset, duration, drug history, latency time between drug administration and the appearance of cutaneous lesions), family history, associated diseases, the morphology of lesions, and mucosal examination. Upon drug discontinuation, improvement in cutaneous lesions and systemic features were noted. A complete general examination, systemic examination, dermatological tests, and mucosal examination were performed. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were involved in the study, of whom 55 were males and 47 were females. The male-to-female ratio was 1.17:1, with a slight male majority. The most common age group was 31 to 40 years for both males and females. Itching was the predominant complaint in 56 patients (54.9%). The mean latency period was shortest in urticaria (2.13+/- 0.99 hours) and longest in lichenoid drug eruption (4.33+/- 3.93 months). Most patients developed symptoms after a week of taking the drug (53.92%). A history of similar complaints was present in 38.23% of patients. Analgesics and antipyretics (39.2%) were the most common culprit drugs followed by antimicrobials (29.4%). Among analgesics and antipyretics, aceclofenac (24.5%) was the commonest culprit drug. Benign CADRs were observed in 89 patients (87.25%), and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) were observed in 13 patients (12.74%). The common CADRs presented were drug-induced exanthem (27.4%). Imatinib-induced psoriasis vulgaris and lithium-induced scalp psoriasis were observed in one patient each. Severe cutaneous adverse reactions were observed in 13 patients (12.74%). Anticonvulsants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antimicrobials were the culprit drugs for SCARs. Eosinophilia was present in three patients, deranged liver enzymes was present in nine patients, a deranged renal profile was present in seven patients, and death occurred in one patient with toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) of SCARs. CONCLUSION: Before prescribing any drug to a patient, a detailed drug history and family history of drug reactions need to be obtained. Patients should be advised to avoid over-the-counter usage of medications and self-administration of drugs. If adverse drug reactions occur, it is advised to avoid readministration of the culprit drug. Drug cards must be prepared and given to the patient, mentioning the culprit drug as well as the cross-reacting drugs.

Localized Delayed T-cell Mediated Hypersensitivity After mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination.

Since the emergency authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the medical literature has been investigating the management of allergic reactions to the vaccines. Anaphylaxis has been reported among a minority of vaccinated individuals, and many trials monitoring the safety profile of the vaccines have identified cases of benign cutaneous reactions. Typical features of delayed benign cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions include localized erythema, pruritus, and rash. However, reports have described rare cases of rash and atopy at sites apart from the injection site following vaccine delivery. We will discuss a unique case of delayed benign cutaneous hypersensitivity presenting in the lower extremity after an upper-extremity administration of an mRNA SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, we describe management strategies to guide clinicians who encounter similar vaccine-induced hypersensitivity reactions.