Darren J. Guffey, MD

To the Editor:

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous dermatosis characterized by tense subepidermal blisters. It primarily affects older individuals who typically report pruritus in the affected area. Subepidermal blisters are caused by a humoral and cellular autoimmune attack directed against 2 BP antigens—BP180 and BP230—which are 2 critical components of the hemidesmosome whose primary function is to anchor the epidermis to the underlying dermis. Although tense bullae typically prompt immediate consideration of BP in the differential diagnosis, early disease often is characterized by urticarial plaques that require a high degree of suspicion to make the appropriate diagnosis. Locus minoris resistentiae is a term used to describe the phenomenon of skin disease occurring at the point of least resistance.¹

A 79-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension was referred to the dermatology clinic due to concern for allergic contact dermatitis limited to the area of and adjacent to a well-healed surgical wound. History and examination revealed that the patient had sustained a left femoral neck fracture 10 months prior to presentation that required closed reduction and surgical pinning. The surgical site healed well postoperatively; however, 7 months after surgery, she began to develop edema and erythema within and immediately adjacent to the surgical scar. She subsequently developed areas of superficial erosion within the erythema and was evaluated by her surgeon who was concerned for suture granuloma. Superficial wound debridement of the area was performed without improvement. Approximately 9 months after surgery, the patient developed bullae along the old surgical site, which raised concern for an allergic reaction to the implanted screws. Orthopedics elected to remove the hardware but also sent intraoperative tissue for pathologic examination, which revealed subepidermal bullae containing eosinophils and neutrophils, most consistent with a bullous drug eruption. During the ensuing weeks after hardware removal, the plaque spread along the old surgical wound, and several bullous lesions began to appear. The patient’s primary care physician became concerned for allergic contact dermatitis, possibly to the surgical scrub employed during hardware removal. He prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and referred the patient to dermatology.

Upon presentation to dermatology, the patient noted stinging pain and intense pruritus of the affected area. Examination revealed a pink edematous plaque distributed along a well-healed surgical wound (Figure). Numerous fluid-filled tense bullae were superimposed on this plaque as well as areas of superficial erosion with serum crust. An expanded examination revealed similar smaller lesions on the upper arms, inner thighs, and lateral breasts. A 4-mm punch biopsy of lesional and perilesional skin was sent for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence, which demonstrated a subepidermal bullous dermatosis with a predominance of neutrophilic inflammation as well as a band of linear IgG deposition at the dermal-epidermal junction. The patient was diagnosed with BP exhibiting a locus minoris resistentiae phenomenon within the surgical site. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and demonstrated rapid improvement.

Although the tense bullae seen in well-developed BP are fairly characteristic, the prodromal phase of this disease can present with urticarial plaques that are nonspecific. This progression is well described, but our case demonstrates the difficulty of considering BP when a patient presents with an urticarial plaque. As lesions progress to the bullous phase, they may be inappropriately diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis, an error that may lead to unnecessary interventions (eg, removal of an implicated prosthesis). This case is a reminder that not all cutaneous eruptions in and around postsurgical scars are allergic in nature.

This case also depicts BP appearing in the locus minoris resistentiae, a well-healed surgical wound in our patient. Although many diseases have been shown to exhibit this type of isomorphic response, this phenomenon may pose diagnostic and management conundrums. Locus minoris resistentiae has been reported in many different diseases, both cutaneous and otherwise, but there likely are distinct disease- and case-specific mechanisms via which this occurs. Local phenomena reported to trigger BP include contact dermatitis, vaccination, radiation therapy, phototherapy, infection, and surgery.² We suspect that the mechanism of locus minoris resistentiae in our patient was disruption of the architecture of the dermal-epidermal basement membrane zone due to surgical trauma. Disruption of this architecture may have resulted in exposure of previously occult antigens, recognition by T cells, T-cell stimulation of autoantibody production by B cells, binding of autoantibodies to BP180, complement deposition, recruitment of inflammatory cells, release of proteinases, and degradation of BP180 and extracellular matrix proteins.²

To the Editor:

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous dermatosis characterized by tense subepidermal blisters. It primarily affects older individuals who typically report pruritus in the affected area. Subepidermal blisters are caused by a humoral and cellular autoimmune attack directed against 2 BP antigens—BP180 and BP230—which are 2 critical components of the hemidesmosome whose primary function is to anchor the epidermis to the underlying dermis. Although tense bullae typically prompt immediate consideration of BP in the differential diagnosis, early disease often is characterized by urticarial plaques that require a high degree of suspicion to make the appropriate diagnosis. Locus minoris resistentiae is a term used to describe the phenomenon of skin disease occurring at the point of least resistance.¹

A 79-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension was referred to the dermatology clinic due to concern for allergic contact dermatitis limited to the area of and adjacent to a well-healed surgical wound. History and examination revealed that the patient had sustained a left femoral neck fracture 10 months prior to presentation that required closed reduction and surgical pinning. The surgical site healed well postoperatively; however, 7 months after surgery, she began to develop edema and erythema within and immediately adjacent to the surgical scar. She subsequently developed areas of superficial erosion within the erythema and was evaluated by her surgeon who was concerned for suture granuloma. Superficial wound debridement of the area was performed without improvement. Approximately 9 months after surgery, the patient developed bullae along the old surgical site, which raised concern for an allergic reaction to the implanted screws. Orthopedics elected to remove the hardware but also sent intraoperative tissue for pathologic examination, which revealed subepidermal bullae containing eosinophils and neutrophils, most consistent with a bullous drug eruption. During the ensuing weeks after hardware removal, the plaque spread along the old surgical wound, and several bullous lesions began to appear. The patient’s primary care physician became concerned for allergic contact dermatitis, possibly to the surgical scrub employed during hardware removal. He prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and referred the patient to dermatology.

Upon presentation to dermatology, the patient noted stinging pain and intense pruritus of the affected area. Examination revealed a pink edematous plaque distributed along a well-healed surgical wound (Figure). Numerous fluid-filled tense bullae were superimposed on this plaque as well as areas of superficial erosion with serum crust. An expanded examination revealed similar smaller lesions on the upper arms, inner thighs, and lateral breasts. A 4-mm punch biopsy of lesional and perilesional skin was sent for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence, which demonstrated a subepidermal bullous dermatosis with a predominance of neutrophilic inflammation as well as a band of linear IgG deposition at the dermal-epidermal junction. The patient was diagnosed with BP exhibiting a locus minoris resistentiae phenomenon within the surgical site. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and demonstrated rapid improvement.

Although the tense bullae seen in well-developed BP are fairly characteristic, the prodromal phase of this disease can present with urticarial plaques that are nonspecific. This progression is well described, but our case demonstrates the difficulty of considering BP when a patient presents with an urticarial plaque. As lesions progress to the bullous phase, they may be inappropriately diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis, an error that may lead to unnecessary interventions (eg, removal of an implicated prosthesis). This case is a reminder that not all cutaneous eruptions in and around postsurgical scars are allergic in nature.

This case also depicts BP appearing in the locus minoris resistentiae, a well-healed surgical wound in our patient. Although many diseases have been shown to exhibit this type of isomorphic response, this phenomenon may pose diagnostic and management conundrums. Locus minoris resistentiae has been reported in many different diseases, both cutaneous and otherwise, but there likely are distinct disease- and case-specific mechanisms via which this occurs. Local phenomena reported to trigger BP include contact dermatitis, vaccination, radiation therapy, phototherapy, infection, and surgery.² We suspect that the mechanism of locus minoris resistentiae in our patient was disruption of the architecture of the dermal-epidermal basement membrane zone due to surgical trauma. Disruption of this architecture may have resulted in exposure of previously occult antigens, recognition by T cells, T-cell stimulation of autoantibody production by B cells, binding of autoantibodies to BP180, complement deposition, recruitment of inflammatory cells, release of proteinases, and degradation of BP180 and extracellular matrix proteins.²

To the Editor:

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous dermatosis characterized by tense subepidermal blisters. It primarily affects older individuals who typically report pruritus in the affected area. Subepidermal blisters are caused by a humoral and cellular autoimmune attack directed against 2 BP antigens—BP180 and BP230—which are 2 critical components of the hemidesmosome whose primary function is to anchor the epidermis to the underlying dermis. Although tense bullae typically prompt immediate consideration of BP in the differential diagnosis, early disease often is characterized by urticarial plaques that require a high degree of suspicion to make the appropriate diagnosis. Locus minoris resistentiae is a term used to describe the phenomenon of skin disease occurring at the point of least resistance.¹

A 79-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension was referred to the dermatology clinic due to concern for allergic contact dermatitis limited to the area of and adjacent to a well-healed surgical wound. History and examination revealed that the patient had sustained a left femoral neck fracture 10 months prior to presentation that required closed reduction and surgical pinning. The surgical site healed well postoperatively; however, 7 months after surgery, she began to develop edema and erythema within and immediately adjacent to the surgical scar. She subsequently developed areas of superficial erosion within the erythema and was evaluated by her surgeon who was concerned for suture granuloma. Superficial wound debridement of the area was performed without improvement. Approximately 9 months after surgery, the patient developed bullae along the old surgical site, which raised concern for an allergic reaction to the implanted screws. Orthopedics elected to remove the hardware but also sent intraoperative tissue for pathologic examination, which revealed subepidermal bullae containing eosinophils and neutrophils, most consistent with a bullous drug eruption. During the ensuing weeks after hardware removal, the plaque spread along the old surgical wound, and several bullous lesions began to appear. The patient’s primary care physician became concerned for allergic contact dermatitis, possibly to the surgical scrub employed during hardware removal. He prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and referred the patient to dermatology.

Upon presentation to dermatology, the patient noted stinging pain and intense pruritus of the affected area. Examination revealed a pink edematous plaque distributed along a well-healed surgical wound (Figure). Numerous fluid-filled tense bullae were superimposed on this plaque as well as areas of superficial erosion with serum crust. An expanded examination revealed similar smaller lesions on the upper arms, inner thighs, and lateral breasts. A 4-mm punch biopsy of lesional and perilesional skin was sent for hematoxylin and eosin staining and direct immunofluorescence, which demonstrated a subepidermal bullous dermatosis with a predominance of neutrophilic inflammation as well as a band of linear IgG deposition at the dermal-epidermal junction. The patient was diagnosed with BP exhibiting a locus minoris resistentiae phenomenon within the surgical site. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and demonstrated rapid improvement.

Although the tense bullae seen in well-developed BP are fairly characteristic, the prodromal phase of this disease can present with urticarial plaques that are nonspecific. This progression is well described, but our case demonstrates the difficulty of considering BP when a patient presents with an urticarial plaque. As lesions progress to the bullous phase, they may be inappropriately diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis, an error that may lead to unnecessary interventions (eg, removal of an implicated prosthesis). This case is a reminder that not all cutaneous eruptions in and around postsurgical scars are allergic in nature.

This case also depicts BP appearing in the locus minoris resistentiae, a well-healed surgical wound in our patient. Although many diseases have been shown to exhibit this type of isomorphic response, this phenomenon may pose diagnostic and management conundrums. Locus minoris resistentiae has been reported in many different diseases, both cutaneous and otherwise, but there likely are distinct disease- and case-specific mechanisms via which this occurs. Local phenomena reported to trigger BP include contact dermatitis, vaccination, radiation therapy, phototherapy, infection, and surgery.² We suspect that the mechanism of locus minoris resistentiae in our patient was disruption of the architecture of the dermal-epidermal basement membrane zone due to surgical trauma. Disruption of this architecture may have resulted in exposure of previously occult antigens, recognition by T cells, T-cell stimulation of autoantibody production by B cells, binding of autoantibodies to BP180, complement deposition, recruitment of inflammatory cells, release of proteinases, and degradation of BP180 and extracellular matrix proteins.²

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) causes varicella as a primary infection. It is a highly contagious disease characterized by a widespread papulovesicular eruption with fever and malaise.^1,2 After the primary infection, the virus remains latent within the sensory dorsal root ganglia and can reactivate as herpes zoster (HZ).^1-5 Herpes zoster is characterized by unilateral radicular pain and a vesicular rash in a dermatomal pattern.^1,2 It is most common in adults, especially elderly and immunocompromised patients, but rarely occurs in children. Herpes zoster is most often seen in individuals previously infected with VZV, but it also has occurred in individuals without known varicella infection,^1-17 possibly because these individuals had a prior subclinical VZV infection.

A live attenuated VZV vaccine was created after isolation of the virus from a child in Japan.² Since the introduction of the vaccine in 1995 in the United States, the incidence of VZV and HZ has declined.⁵ Herpes zoster rates after vaccination vary from 14 to 19 per 100,000 individuals.^3,5 Breakthrough disease with the wild-type strain does occur in vaccinated children, but vaccine-strain HZ also has been reported.^1-5 The risk for HZ caused by reactivated VZV vaccine in healthy children is unknown. We present a case of HZ in an otherwise healthy 19-month-old boy with no known varicella exposure who received the VZV vaccine at 13 months of age.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 19-month-old boy presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash that began 2 days prior on the right groin and spread to the right leg. The patient’s mother denied that the child had been febrile and noted that the rash did not appear to bother him in any way. The patient was up-to-date on his vaccinations and received the first dose of the varicella series 6 months prior to presentation. He had no personal history of varicella, no exposure to sick contacts with varicella, and no known exposure to the virus. He was otherwise completely healthy with no signs or symptoms of immunocompromise.

Physical examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous base on the right thigh, right sacrum, and lower abdomen that did not cross the midline (Figure). There were no other pertinent physical examination findings. The eruption was most consistent with HZ but concern remained for herpes simplex virus (HSV) or impetigo. A bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction assay for VZV and HSV from skin swabs was ordered. The patient was prescribed acyclovir 20 mg/kg every 6 hours for 5 days. Laboratory testing revealed a positive result for VZV on polymerase chain reaction and a negative result for HSV. The majority of the patient’s lesions had crusted after 2 days of treatment with acyclovir, and the rash had nearly resolved 1 week after presentation. Subsequent evaluation with a complete blood cell count with differential and basic metabolic profile was normal. Levels of IgG, IgA, and IgM also were normal; IgE was slightly elevated.

Comment

Herpes zoster in children is an uncommon clinical entity. Most children with HZ are immunocompromised, have a history of varicella, or were exposed to varicella during gestation.⁸ With the introduction of the live VZV vaccine, the incidence of HZ has declined, but reactivation of the live vaccine leading to HZ infection is possible. The vaccine is 90% effective, and breakthrough varicella has been reported in 15% to 20% of vaccinated patients.^1-17 The cause of HZ in vaccinated children is unclear due to the potential for either wild-type or vaccine-strain VZV to induce HZ.

Twenty-two cases of HZ in healthy children after vaccination were identified with a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms herpes zoster infection after vaccination and herpes zoster infection AND immunocompetent AND vaccination in separate searches for all English-language studies (Table). The search was limited to immunocompetent children and adolescents who were 18 years or younger with no history of varicella or exposure to varicella during gestation.

The mean age for HZ infection was 5.3 years. The average time between vaccination and HZ infection was 3.3 years. There was a spread of dermatomal patterns with cases in the first division of the trigeminal nerve, cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral distributions. Of the 22 cases of HZ we reviewed, 16 underwent genotype testing to determine the source of the infection. The Oka vaccine strain virus was identified in 8 (50%) cases, while wild-type virus was found in 8 (50%) cases.^{1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,16} Twelve cases were treated with acyclovir.^{2,3,5,6,9-12,14-17} The method of delivery, either oral or intravenous, and the length of treatment depended on the severity of the disease. Patients with meningoencephalitis and HZ ophthalmicus received intravenous acyclovir more often and also had a longer course of acyclovir compared to those individuals with involvement limited to the skin.

This review found HZ occurs from reactivation of wild-type or Oka vaccine-strain VZV in immunocompetent children.^1-17 It shows that subclinical varicella infection is not the only explanation for HZ in a healthy vaccinated child. It is currently not clear why some healthy children experience HZ from vaccine-strain VZV. When HZ presents in a vaccinated immunocompetent child without a history of varicella infection or exposure, the possibility for vaccine strain–induced HZ should be considered.

Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) causes varicella as a primary infection. It is a highly contagious disease characterized by a widespread papulovesicular eruption with fever and malaise.^1,2 After the primary infection, the virus remains latent within the sensory dorsal root ganglia and can reactivate as herpes zoster (HZ).^1-5 Herpes zoster is characterized by unilateral radicular pain and a vesicular rash in a dermatomal pattern.^1,2 It is most common in adults, especially elderly and immunocompromised patients, but rarely occurs in children. Herpes zoster is most often seen in individuals previously infected with VZV, but it also has occurred in individuals without known varicella infection,^1-17 possibly because these individuals had a prior subclinical VZV infection.

A live attenuated VZV vaccine was created after isolation of the virus from a child in Japan.² Since the introduction of the vaccine in 1995 in the United States, the incidence of VZV and HZ has declined.⁵ Herpes zoster rates after vaccination vary from 14 to 19 per 100,000 individuals.^3,5 Breakthrough disease with the wild-type strain does occur in vaccinated children, but vaccine-strain HZ also has been reported.^1-5 The risk for HZ caused by reactivated VZV vaccine in healthy children is unknown. We present a case of HZ in an otherwise healthy 19-month-old boy with no known varicella exposure who received the VZV vaccine at 13 months of age.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 19-month-old boy presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash that began 2 days prior on the right groin and spread to the right leg. The patient’s mother denied that the child had been febrile and noted that the rash did not appear to bother him in any way. The patient was up-to-date on his vaccinations and received the first dose of the varicella series 6 months prior to presentation. He had no personal history of varicella, no exposure to sick contacts with varicella, and no known exposure to the virus. He was otherwise completely healthy with no signs or symptoms of immunocompromise.

Physical examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous base on the right thigh, right sacrum, and lower abdomen that did not cross the midline (Figure). There were no other pertinent physical examination findings. The eruption was most consistent with HZ but concern remained for herpes simplex virus (HSV) or impetigo. A bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction assay for VZV and HSV from skin swabs was ordered. The patient was prescribed acyclovir 20 mg/kg every 6 hours for 5 days. Laboratory testing revealed a positive result for VZV on polymerase chain reaction and a negative result for HSV. The majority of the patient’s lesions had crusted after 2 days of treatment with acyclovir, and the rash had nearly resolved 1 week after presentation. Subsequent evaluation with a complete blood cell count with differential and basic metabolic profile was normal. Levels of IgG, IgA, and IgM also were normal; IgE was slightly elevated.

Comment

Herpes zoster in children is an uncommon clinical entity. Most children with HZ are immunocompromised, have a history of varicella, or were exposed to varicella during gestation.⁸ With the introduction of the live VZV vaccine, the incidence of HZ has declined, but reactivation of the live vaccine leading to HZ infection is possible. The vaccine is 90% effective, and breakthrough varicella has been reported in 15% to 20% of vaccinated patients.^1-17 The cause of HZ in vaccinated children is unclear due to the potential for either wild-type or vaccine-strain VZV to induce HZ.

Twenty-two cases of HZ in healthy children after vaccination were identified with a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms herpes zoster infection after vaccination and herpes zoster infection AND immunocompetent AND vaccination in separate searches for all English-language studies (Table). The search was limited to immunocompetent children and adolescents who were 18 years or younger with no history of varicella or exposure to varicella during gestation.

The mean age for HZ infection was 5.3 years. The average time between vaccination and HZ infection was 3.3 years. There was a spread of dermatomal patterns with cases in the first division of the trigeminal nerve, cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral distributions. Of the 22 cases of HZ we reviewed, 16 underwent genotype testing to determine the source of the infection. The Oka vaccine strain virus was identified in 8 (50%) cases, while wild-type virus was found in 8 (50%) cases.^{1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,16} Twelve cases were treated with acyclovir.^{2,3,5,6,9-12,14-17} The method of delivery, either oral or intravenous, and the length of treatment depended on the severity of the disease. Patients with meningoencephalitis and HZ ophthalmicus received intravenous acyclovir more often and also had a longer course of acyclovir compared to those individuals with involvement limited to the skin.

This review found HZ occurs from reactivation of wild-type or Oka vaccine-strain VZV in immunocompetent children.^1-17 It shows that subclinical varicella infection is not the only explanation for HZ in a healthy vaccinated child. It is currently not clear why some healthy children experience HZ from vaccine-strain VZV. When HZ presents in a vaccinated immunocompetent child without a history of varicella infection or exposure, the possibility for vaccine strain–induced HZ should be considered.

Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) causes varicella as a primary infection. It is a highly contagious disease characterized by a widespread papulovesicular eruption with fever and malaise.^1,2 After the primary infection, the virus remains latent within the sensory dorsal root ganglia and can reactivate as herpes zoster (HZ).^1-5 Herpes zoster is characterized by unilateral radicular pain and a vesicular rash in a dermatomal pattern.^1,2 It is most common in adults, especially elderly and immunocompromised patients, but rarely occurs in children. Herpes zoster is most often seen in individuals previously infected with VZV, but it also has occurred in individuals without known varicella infection,^1-17 possibly because these individuals had a prior subclinical VZV infection.

A live attenuated VZV vaccine was created after isolation of the virus from a child in Japan.² Since the introduction of the vaccine in 1995 in the United States, the incidence of VZV and HZ has declined.⁵ Herpes zoster rates after vaccination vary from 14 to 19 per 100,000 individuals.^3,5 Breakthrough disease with the wild-type strain does occur in vaccinated children, but vaccine-strain HZ also has been reported.^1-5 The risk for HZ caused by reactivated VZV vaccine in healthy children is unknown. We present a case of HZ in an otherwise healthy 19-month-old boy with no known varicella exposure who received the VZV vaccine at 13 months of age.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 19-month-old boy presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash that began 2 days prior on the right groin and spread to the right leg. The patient’s mother denied that the child had been febrile and noted that the rash did not appear to bother him in any way. The patient was up-to-date on his vaccinations and received the first dose of the varicella series 6 months prior to presentation. He had no personal history of varicella, no exposure to sick contacts with varicella, and no known exposure to the virus. He was otherwise completely healthy with no signs or symptoms of immunocompromise.

Physical examination revealed grouped vesicles on an erythematous base on the right thigh, right sacrum, and lower abdomen that did not cross the midline (Figure). There were no other pertinent physical examination findings. The eruption was most consistent with HZ but concern remained for herpes simplex virus (HSV) or impetigo. A bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction assay for VZV and HSV from skin swabs was ordered. The patient was prescribed acyclovir 20 mg/kg every 6 hours for 5 days. Laboratory testing revealed a positive result for VZV on polymerase chain reaction and a negative result for HSV. The majority of the patient’s lesions had crusted after 2 days of treatment with acyclovir, and the rash had nearly resolved 1 week after presentation. Subsequent evaluation with a complete blood cell count with differential and basic metabolic profile was normal. Levels of IgG, IgA, and IgM also were normal; IgE was slightly elevated.

Comment

Herpes zoster in children is an uncommon clinical entity. Most children with HZ are immunocompromised, have a history of varicella, or were exposed to varicella during gestation.⁸ With the introduction of the live VZV vaccine, the incidence of HZ has declined, but reactivation of the live vaccine leading to HZ infection is possible. The vaccine is 90% effective, and breakthrough varicella has been reported in 15% to 20% of vaccinated patients.^1-17 The cause of HZ in vaccinated children is unclear due to the potential for either wild-type or vaccine-strain VZV to induce HZ.

Twenty-two cases of HZ in healthy children after vaccination were identified with a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms herpes zoster infection after vaccination and herpes zoster infection AND immunocompetent AND vaccination in separate searches for all English-language studies (Table). The search was limited to immunocompetent children and adolescents who were 18 years or younger with no history of varicella or exposure to varicella during gestation.

The mean age for HZ infection was 5.3 years. The average time between vaccination and HZ infection was 3.3 years. There was a spread of dermatomal patterns with cases in the first division of the trigeminal nerve, cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral distributions. Of the 22 cases of HZ we reviewed, 16 underwent genotype testing to determine the source of the infection. The Oka vaccine strain virus was identified in 8 (50%) cases, while wild-type virus was found in 8 (50%) cases.^{1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,16} Twelve cases were treated with acyclovir.^{2,3,5,6,9-12,14-17} The method of delivery, either oral or intravenous, and the length of treatment depended on the severity of the disease. Patients with meningoencephalitis and HZ ophthalmicus received intravenous acyclovir more often and also had a longer course of acyclovir compared to those individuals with involvement limited to the skin.

This review found HZ occurs from reactivation of wild-type or Oka vaccine-strain VZV in immunocompetent children.^1-17 It shows that subclinical varicella infection is not the only explanation for HZ in a healthy vaccinated child. It is currently not clear why some healthy children experience HZ from vaccine-strain VZV. When HZ presents in a vaccinated immunocompetent child without a history of varicella infection or exposure, the possibility for vaccine strain–induced HZ should be considered.