Shaofeng Yan, MD

Leishmaniasis is a neglected parasitic disease with an estimated annual incidence of 1.3 million cases, the majority of which manifest as cutaneous leishmaniasis.¹ The cutaneous and mucosal forms demonstrate substantial global burden with morbidity and socioeconomic repercussions, while the visceral form is responsible for up to 30,000 deaths annually.² Despite increasing prevalence in the United States, awareness and diagnosis remain relatively low.³ We describe 2 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis in New England, United States, in travelers returning from Central America, both successfully treated with miltefosine. We also review prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 47-year-old woman presented with an enlarging, 2-cm, erythematous, ulcerated nodule on the right dorsal hand of 2 weeks’ duration with accompanying right epitrochlear lymphadenopathy (Figure 1A). She noticed the lesion 10 weeks after returning from Panama, where she had been photographing the jungle. Prior to the initial presentation to dermatology, salicylic acid wart remover, intramuscular ceftriaxone, and oral trimethoprim had failed to alleviate the lesion. Her laboratory results were notable for an elevated C-reactive protein level of 5.4 mg/L (reference range, ≤4.9 mg/L). A punch biopsy demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with diffuse dermal lymphohistiocytic inflammation and small intracytoplasmic structures within histiocytes consistent with leishmaniasis (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry was consistent with leishmaniasis (Figure 3), and polymerase chain reaction performed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified the pathogen as Leishmania braziliensis.

Patient 2
An 18-year-old man presented with an enlarging, well-delineated, tender ulcer of 6 weeks’ duration measuring 2.5×2 cm with an erythematous and edematous border on the right medial forearm with associated epitrochlear lymphadenopathy (Figure 4). Nine weeks prior to initial presentation, he had returned from a 3-month outdoor adventure trip to the Florida Keys, Costa Rica, and Panama. He had used bug repellent intermittently, slept under a bug net, and did not recall any trauma or bite at the ulcer site. Biopsy and tissue culture were obtained, and histopathology demonstrated an ulcer with a dense dermal lymphogranulomatous infiltrate and intracytoplasmic organisms consistent with leishmaniasis. Polymerase chain reaction by the CDC identified the pathogen as Leishmania panamensis.

Comment

Epidemiology and Prevention
Risk factors for leishmaniasis include weak immunity, poverty, poor housing, poor sanitation, malnutrition, urbanization, climate change, and human migration.⁴ Our patients were most directly affected by travel to locations where leishmaniasis is endemic. Despite an increasing prevalence of endemic leishmaniasis and new animal hosts in the southern United States, most patients diagnosed in the United States are infected abroad by Leishmania mexicana and L braziliensis, both cutaneous New World species.³ Our patients were infected by species within the New World subgenus Viannia that have potential for mucocutaneous spread.⁴

Because there is no chemoprophylaxis or acquired active immunity such as vaccines that can mitigate the risk for leishmaniasis, public health efforts focus on preventive measures. Although difficult to achieve, avoidance of the phlebotomine sand fly species that transmit the obligate intracellular Leishmania parasite is a most effective measure.⁴ Travelers entering geographic regions with higher risk for leishmaniasis should be aware of the inherent risk and determine which methods of prevention, such as N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) insecticides or permethrin-treated protective clothing, are most feasible. Although higher concentrations of DEET provide longer protection, the effectiveness tends to plateau at approximately 50%.⁵

Presentation and Prognosis
For patients who develop leishmaniasis, the disease course and prognosis depend greatly on the species and manifestation. The most common form of leishmaniasis is localized cutaneous leishmaniasis, which has an annual incidence of up to 1 million cases. It initially presents as macules, usually at the site of inoculation within several months to years of infection.⁶ The macules expand into papules and plaques that reach maximum size over at least 1 week⁴ and then progress into crusted ulcers up to 5 cm in diameter with raised edges. Although usually painless and self-limited, these lesions can take years to spontaneously heal, with the risk for atrophic scarring and altered pigmentation. Lymphatic involvement manifests as lymphadenitis or regional lymphadenopathy and is common with lesions caused by the subgenus Viannia.⁶

Leishmania braziliensis and L panamensis, the species that infected our patients, can uniquely cause cutaneous leishmaniasis that metastasizes into mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, which always affects the nasal mucosa. Risk factors for transformation include a primary lesion site above the waist, multiple or large primary lesions, and delayed healing of primary cutaneous leishmaniasis. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis can result in notable morbidity and even mortality from invasion and destruction of nasal and oropharyngeal mucosa, as well as intercurrent pneumonia, especially if treatment is insufficient or delayed.⁴

Diagnosis
Prompt treatment relies on accurate and timely diagnosis, which is complicated by the relative unfamiliarity with leishmaniasis in the United States. The differential diagnosis for cutaneous leishmaniasis is broad, including deep fungal infection, Mycobacterium infection, cutaneous granulomatous conditions, nonmelanoma cutaneous neoplasms, and trauma. Taking a thorough patient history, including potential exposures and travels; having high clinical suspicion; and being aware of classic presentation allows for identification of leishmaniasis and subsequent stratification by manifestation.⁷

Diagnosis is made by detecting Leishmania organisms or DNA using light microscopy and staining to visualize the kinetoplast in an amastigote, molecular methods, or specialized culturing.⁷ The CDC is a valuable diagnostic partner for confirmation and speciation. Specific instructions for specimen collection and transportation can be found by contacting the CDC or reading their guide.⁸ To provide prompt care and reassurance to patients, it is important to be aware of the coordination effort that may be needed to send samples, receive results, and otherwise correspond with a separate institution.

Treatment
Treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis is indicated to decrease the risk for mucosal dissemination and clinical reactivation of lesions, accelerate healing of lesions, decrease local morbidity caused by large or persistent lesions, and decrease the reservoir of infection in places where infected humans serve as reservoir hosts. Oral treatments include ketoconazole, itraconazole, and fluconazole, recommended at doses ranging from 200 to 600 mg daily for at least 28 days. For severe, refractory, or visceral leishmaniasis, parenteral choices include pentavalent antimonials, amphotericin B deoxycholate, and pentamidine isethionate, each with known toxicity or limited data on efficacy.⁶ Pentavalent antimonials can cause life-threatening cardiotoxicity and are more difficult to administer.⁹ Furthermore, they are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or commercially available in the United States, with only sodium stibogluconate available through the CDC.⁶

Miltefosine is becoming a more common treatment of leishmaniasis because of its oral route, tolerability in nonpregnant patients, and commercial availability. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for cutaneous leishmaniasis due to L braziliensis, L panamensis, and Leishmania guyanensis; mucosal leishmaniasis due to L braziliensis; and visceral leishmaniasis due to Leishmania donovani in patients at least 12 years of age. For cutaneous leishmaniasis, the standard dosage of 50 mg twice daily (for patients weighing 30–44 kg) or 3 times daily (for patients weighing 45 kg or more) for 28 consecutive days has cure rates of 48% to 85% by 6 months after therapy ends. Cure is defined as epithelialization of lesions, no enlargement greater than 50% in lesions, no appearance of new lesions, and/or negative parasitology. The antileishmanial mechanism of action is unknown and likely involves interaction with lipids, inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase, and apoptosislike cell death. Miltefosine is contraindicated in pregnancy. The most common adverse reactions in patients include nausea (35.9%–41.7%), motion sickness (29.2%), headache (28.1%), and emesis (4.5%–27.5%). With the exception of headache, these adverse reactions can decrease with administration of food, fluids, and antiemetics. Potentially more serious but rarer adverse reactions include elevated serum creatinine (5%–25%) and transaminases (5%). Although our patients had mild hyperkalemia, it is not an established adverse reaction. However, renal injury has been reported.¹⁰

Conclusion

Cutaneous leishmaniasis is increasing in prevalence in the United States due to increased foreign travel. Providers should be familiar with the cutaneous presentation of leishmaniasis, even in areas of low prevalence, to limit the risk for mucocutaneous dissemination from infection with the subgenus Viannia. Prompt treatment is vital to ensuring the best prognosis, and first-line treatment with miltefosine should be strongly considered given its efficacy and tolerability.

Leishmaniasis is a neglected parasitic disease with an estimated annual incidence of 1.3 million cases, the majority of which manifest as cutaneous leishmaniasis.¹ The cutaneous and mucosal forms demonstrate substantial global burden with morbidity and socioeconomic repercussions, while the visceral form is responsible for up to 30,000 deaths annually.² Despite increasing prevalence in the United States, awareness and diagnosis remain relatively low.³ We describe 2 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis in New England, United States, in travelers returning from Central America, both successfully treated with miltefosine. We also review prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 47-year-old woman presented with an enlarging, 2-cm, erythematous, ulcerated nodule on the right dorsal hand of 2 weeks’ duration with accompanying right epitrochlear lymphadenopathy (Figure 1A). She noticed the lesion 10 weeks after returning from Panama, where she had been photographing the jungle. Prior to the initial presentation to dermatology, salicylic acid wart remover, intramuscular ceftriaxone, and oral trimethoprim had failed to alleviate the lesion. Her laboratory results were notable for an elevated C-reactive protein level of 5.4 mg/L (reference range, ≤4.9 mg/L). A punch biopsy demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with diffuse dermal lymphohistiocytic inflammation and small intracytoplasmic structures within histiocytes consistent with leishmaniasis (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry was consistent with leishmaniasis (Figure 3), and polymerase chain reaction performed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified the pathogen as Leishmania braziliensis.

Patient 2
An 18-year-old man presented with an enlarging, well-delineated, tender ulcer of 6 weeks’ duration measuring 2.5×2 cm with an erythematous and edematous border on the right medial forearm with associated epitrochlear lymphadenopathy (Figure 4). Nine weeks prior to initial presentation, he had returned from a 3-month outdoor adventure trip to the Florida Keys, Costa Rica, and Panama. He had used bug repellent intermittently, slept under a bug net, and did not recall any trauma or bite at the ulcer site. Biopsy and tissue culture were obtained, and histopathology demonstrated an ulcer with a dense dermal lymphogranulomatous infiltrate and intracytoplasmic organisms consistent with leishmaniasis. Polymerase chain reaction by the CDC identified the pathogen as Leishmania panamensis.

Comment

Epidemiology and Prevention
Risk factors for leishmaniasis include weak immunity, poverty, poor housing, poor sanitation, malnutrition, urbanization, climate change, and human migration.⁴ Our patients were most directly affected by travel to locations where leishmaniasis is endemic. Despite an increasing prevalence of endemic leishmaniasis and new animal hosts in the southern United States, most patients diagnosed in the United States are infected abroad by Leishmania mexicana and L braziliensis, both cutaneous New World species.³ Our patients were infected by species within the New World subgenus Viannia that have potential for mucocutaneous spread.⁴

Because there is no chemoprophylaxis or acquired active immunity such as vaccines that can mitigate the risk for leishmaniasis, public health efforts focus on preventive measures. Although difficult to achieve, avoidance of the phlebotomine sand fly species that transmit the obligate intracellular Leishmania parasite is a most effective measure.⁴ Travelers entering geographic regions with higher risk for leishmaniasis should be aware of the inherent risk and determine which methods of prevention, such as N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) insecticides or permethrin-treated protective clothing, are most feasible. Although higher concentrations of DEET provide longer protection, the effectiveness tends to plateau at approximately 50%.⁵

Presentation and Prognosis
For patients who develop leishmaniasis, the disease course and prognosis depend greatly on the species and manifestation. The most common form of leishmaniasis is localized cutaneous leishmaniasis, which has an annual incidence of up to 1 million cases. It initially presents as macules, usually at the site of inoculation within several months to years of infection.⁶ The macules expand into papules and plaques that reach maximum size over at least 1 week⁴ and then progress into crusted ulcers up to 5 cm in diameter with raised edges. Although usually painless and self-limited, these lesions can take years to spontaneously heal, with the risk for atrophic scarring and altered pigmentation. Lymphatic involvement manifests as lymphadenitis or regional lymphadenopathy and is common with lesions caused by the subgenus Viannia.⁶

Leishmania braziliensis and L panamensis, the species that infected our patients, can uniquely cause cutaneous leishmaniasis that metastasizes into mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, which always affects the nasal mucosa. Risk factors for transformation include a primary lesion site above the waist, multiple or large primary lesions, and delayed healing of primary cutaneous leishmaniasis. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis can result in notable morbidity and even mortality from invasion and destruction of nasal and oropharyngeal mucosa, as well as intercurrent pneumonia, especially if treatment is insufficient or delayed.⁴

Diagnosis
Prompt treatment relies on accurate and timely diagnosis, which is complicated by the relative unfamiliarity with leishmaniasis in the United States. The differential diagnosis for cutaneous leishmaniasis is broad, including deep fungal infection, Mycobacterium infection, cutaneous granulomatous conditions, nonmelanoma cutaneous neoplasms, and trauma. Taking a thorough patient history, including potential exposures and travels; having high clinical suspicion; and being aware of classic presentation allows for identification of leishmaniasis and subsequent stratification by manifestation.⁷

Diagnosis is made by detecting Leishmania organisms or DNA using light microscopy and staining to visualize the kinetoplast in an amastigote, molecular methods, or specialized culturing.⁷ The CDC is a valuable diagnostic partner for confirmation and speciation. Specific instructions for specimen collection and transportation can be found by contacting the CDC or reading their guide.⁸ To provide prompt care and reassurance to patients, it is important to be aware of the coordination effort that may be needed to send samples, receive results, and otherwise correspond with a separate institution.

Treatment
Treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis is indicated to decrease the risk for mucosal dissemination and clinical reactivation of lesions, accelerate healing of lesions, decrease local morbidity caused by large or persistent lesions, and decrease the reservoir of infection in places where infected humans serve as reservoir hosts. Oral treatments include ketoconazole, itraconazole, and fluconazole, recommended at doses ranging from 200 to 600 mg daily for at least 28 days. For severe, refractory, or visceral leishmaniasis, parenteral choices include pentavalent antimonials, amphotericin B deoxycholate, and pentamidine isethionate, each with known toxicity or limited data on efficacy.⁶ Pentavalent antimonials can cause life-threatening cardiotoxicity and are more difficult to administer.⁹ Furthermore, they are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or commercially available in the United States, with only sodium stibogluconate available through the CDC.⁶

Miltefosine is becoming a more common treatment of leishmaniasis because of its oral route, tolerability in nonpregnant patients, and commercial availability. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for cutaneous leishmaniasis due to L braziliensis, L panamensis, and Leishmania guyanensis; mucosal leishmaniasis due to L braziliensis; and visceral leishmaniasis due to Leishmania donovani in patients at least 12 years of age. For cutaneous leishmaniasis, the standard dosage of 50 mg twice daily (for patients weighing 30–44 kg) or 3 times daily (for patients weighing 45 kg or more) for 28 consecutive days has cure rates of 48% to 85% by 6 months after therapy ends. Cure is defined as epithelialization of lesions, no enlargement greater than 50% in lesions, no appearance of new lesions, and/or negative parasitology. The antileishmanial mechanism of action is unknown and likely involves interaction with lipids, inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase, and apoptosislike cell death. Miltefosine is contraindicated in pregnancy. The most common adverse reactions in patients include nausea (35.9%–41.7%), motion sickness (29.2%), headache (28.1%), and emesis (4.5%–27.5%). With the exception of headache, these adverse reactions can decrease with administration of food, fluids, and antiemetics. Potentially more serious but rarer adverse reactions include elevated serum creatinine (5%–25%) and transaminases (5%). Although our patients had mild hyperkalemia, it is not an established adverse reaction. However, renal injury has been reported.¹⁰

Conclusion

Cutaneous leishmaniasis is increasing in prevalence in the United States due to increased foreign travel. Providers should be familiar with the cutaneous presentation of leishmaniasis, even in areas of low prevalence, to limit the risk for mucocutaneous dissemination from infection with the subgenus Viannia. Prompt treatment is vital to ensuring the best prognosis, and first-line treatment with miltefosine should be strongly considered given its efficacy and tolerability.

Leishmaniasis is a neglected parasitic disease with an estimated annual incidence of 1.3 million cases, the majority of which manifest as cutaneous leishmaniasis.¹ The cutaneous and mucosal forms demonstrate substantial global burden with morbidity and socioeconomic repercussions, while the visceral form is responsible for up to 30,000 deaths annually.² Despite increasing prevalence in the United States, awareness and diagnosis remain relatively low.³ We describe 2 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis in New England, United States, in travelers returning from Central America, both successfully treated with miltefosine. We also review prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 47-year-old woman presented with an enlarging, 2-cm, erythematous, ulcerated nodule on the right dorsal hand of 2 weeks’ duration with accompanying right epitrochlear lymphadenopathy (Figure 1A). She noticed the lesion 10 weeks after returning from Panama, where she had been photographing the jungle. Prior to the initial presentation to dermatology, salicylic acid wart remover, intramuscular ceftriaxone, and oral trimethoprim had failed to alleviate the lesion. Her laboratory results were notable for an elevated C-reactive protein level of 5.4 mg/L (reference range, ≤4.9 mg/L). A punch biopsy demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with diffuse dermal lymphohistiocytic inflammation and small intracytoplasmic structures within histiocytes consistent with leishmaniasis (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry was consistent with leishmaniasis (Figure 3), and polymerase chain reaction performed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified the pathogen as Leishmania braziliensis.

Patient 2
An 18-year-old man presented with an enlarging, well-delineated, tender ulcer of 6 weeks’ duration measuring 2.5×2 cm with an erythematous and edematous border on the right medial forearm with associated epitrochlear lymphadenopathy (Figure 4). Nine weeks prior to initial presentation, he had returned from a 3-month outdoor adventure trip to the Florida Keys, Costa Rica, and Panama. He had used bug repellent intermittently, slept under a bug net, and did not recall any trauma or bite at the ulcer site. Biopsy and tissue culture were obtained, and histopathology demonstrated an ulcer with a dense dermal lymphogranulomatous infiltrate and intracytoplasmic organisms consistent with leishmaniasis. Polymerase chain reaction by the CDC identified the pathogen as Leishmania panamensis.

Comment

Epidemiology and Prevention
Risk factors for leishmaniasis include weak immunity, poverty, poor housing, poor sanitation, malnutrition, urbanization, climate change, and human migration.⁴ Our patients were most directly affected by travel to locations where leishmaniasis is endemic. Despite an increasing prevalence of endemic leishmaniasis and new animal hosts in the southern United States, most patients diagnosed in the United States are infected abroad by Leishmania mexicana and L braziliensis, both cutaneous New World species.³ Our patients were infected by species within the New World subgenus Viannia that have potential for mucocutaneous spread.⁴

Because there is no chemoprophylaxis or acquired active immunity such as vaccines that can mitigate the risk for leishmaniasis, public health efforts focus on preventive measures. Although difficult to achieve, avoidance of the phlebotomine sand fly species that transmit the obligate intracellular Leishmania parasite is a most effective measure.⁴ Travelers entering geographic regions with higher risk for leishmaniasis should be aware of the inherent risk and determine which methods of prevention, such as N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) insecticides or permethrin-treated protective clothing, are most feasible. Although higher concentrations of DEET provide longer protection, the effectiveness tends to plateau at approximately 50%.⁵

Presentation and Prognosis
For patients who develop leishmaniasis, the disease course and prognosis depend greatly on the species and manifestation. The most common form of leishmaniasis is localized cutaneous leishmaniasis, which has an annual incidence of up to 1 million cases. It initially presents as macules, usually at the site of inoculation within several months to years of infection.⁶ The macules expand into papules and plaques that reach maximum size over at least 1 week⁴ and then progress into crusted ulcers up to 5 cm in diameter with raised edges. Although usually painless and self-limited, these lesions can take years to spontaneously heal, with the risk for atrophic scarring and altered pigmentation. Lymphatic involvement manifests as lymphadenitis or regional lymphadenopathy and is common with lesions caused by the subgenus Viannia.⁶

Leishmania braziliensis and L panamensis, the species that infected our patients, can uniquely cause cutaneous leishmaniasis that metastasizes into mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, which always affects the nasal mucosa. Risk factors for transformation include a primary lesion site above the waist, multiple or large primary lesions, and delayed healing of primary cutaneous leishmaniasis. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis can result in notable morbidity and even mortality from invasion and destruction of nasal and oropharyngeal mucosa, as well as intercurrent pneumonia, especially if treatment is insufficient or delayed.⁴

Diagnosis
Prompt treatment relies on accurate and timely diagnosis, which is complicated by the relative unfamiliarity with leishmaniasis in the United States. The differential diagnosis for cutaneous leishmaniasis is broad, including deep fungal infection, Mycobacterium infection, cutaneous granulomatous conditions, nonmelanoma cutaneous neoplasms, and trauma. Taking a thorough patient history, including potential exposures and travels; having high clinical suspicion; and being aware of classic presentation allows for identification of leishmaniasis and subsequent stratification by manifestation.⁷

Diagnosis is made by detecting Leishmania organisms or DNA using light microscopy and staining to visualize the kinetoplast in an amastigote, molecular methods, or specialized culturing.⁷ The CDC is a valuable diagnostic partner for confirmation and speciation. Specific instructions for specimen collection and transportation can be found by contacting the CDC or reading their guide.⁸ To provide prompt care and reassurance to patients, it is important to be aware of the coordination effort that may be needed to send samples, receive results, and otherwise correspond with a separate institution.

Treatment
Treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis is indicated to decrease the risk for mucosal dissemination and clinical reactivation of lesions, accelerate healing of lesions, decrease local morbidity caused by large or persistent lesions, and decrease the reservoir of infection in places where infected humans serve as reservoir hosts. Oral treatments include ketoconazole, itraconazole, and fluconazole, recommended at doses ranging from 200 to 600 mg daily for at least 28 days. For severe, refractory, or visceral leishmaniasis, parenteral choices include pentavalent antimonials, amphotericin B deoxycholate, and pentamidine isethionate, each with known toxicity or limited data on efficacy.⁶ Pentavalent antimonials can cause life-threatening cardiotoxicity and are more difficult to administer.⁹ Furthermore, they are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or commercially available in the United States, with only sodium stibogluconate available through the CDC.⁶

Miltefosine is becoming a more common treatment of leishmaniasis because of its oral route, tolerability in nonpregnant patients, and commercial availability. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for cutaneous leishmaniasis due to L braziliensis, L panamensis, and Leishmania guyanensis; mucosal leishmaniasis due to L braziliensis; and visceral leishmaniasis due to Leishmania donovani in patients at least 12 years of age. For cutaneous leishmaniasis, the standard dosage of 50 mg twice daily (for patients weighing 30–44 kg) or 3 times daily (for patients weighing 45 kg or more) for 28 consecutive days has cure rates of 48% to 85% by 6 months after therapy ends. Cure is defined as epithelialization of lesions, no enlargement greater than 50% in lesions, no appearance of new lesions, and/or negative parasitology. The antileishmanial mechanism of action is unknown and likely involves interaction with lipids, inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase, and apoptosislike cell death. Miltefosine is contraindicated in pregnancy. The most common adverse reactions in patients include nausea (35.9%–41.7%), motion sickness (29.2%), headache (28.1%), and emesis (4.5%–27.5%). With the exception of headache, these adverse reactions can decrease with administration of food, fluids, and antiemetics. Potentially more serious but rarer adverse reactions include elevated serum creatinine (5%–25%) and transaminases (5%). Although our patients had mild hyperkalemia, it is not an established adverse reaction. However, renal injury has been reported.¹⁰

Conclusion

Cutaneous leishmaniasis is increasing in prevalence in the United States due to increased foreign travel. Providers should be familiar with the cutaneous presentation of leishmaniasis, even in areas of low prevalence, to limit the risk for mucocutaneous dissemination from infection with the subgenus Viannia. Prompt treatment is vital to ensuring the best prognosis, and first-line treatment with miltefosine should be strongly considered given its efficacy and tolerability.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old man presented with fever, easy bruising, and pancytopenia with increased peripheral blasts of 77%. Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with 80% to 90% involvement by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with complex cytogenetics: 47,XY,t(4;17;18)(p16;q21,q25;q21.1),+8, ins(15;17)(q22;q21q25). He underwent induction chemotherapy with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and idarubicin, which was complicated by differentiation syndrome that presented with fever and fluid retention. Discontinuation of ATRA and initiation of dexamethasone led to resolution of the symptoms. Complete hematologic and molecular remission was achieved after the induction chemotherapy.

Following a risk-adapted treatment protocol for consolidation therapy,¹ he underwent an uneventful first cycle of consolidation therapy. On day 15 of the second cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone he was hospitalized with a fever (temperature, 38°C) in a setting of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], 0/µL [reference range, 1500–7200/µL]). He was empirically treated with ceftazidime and vancomycin and maintained on prophylactic acyclovir and fluconazole. Routine workup was negative for infection. He became afebrile within 24 hours. With negative infectious workup, vancomycin was discontinued on day 17. On day 33 he again developed a fever (temperature, 38.8°C) when the ANC started to recover (570/µL). A new skin rash was noted at this time. Physical examination revealed generalized, nonpruritic, tender, pink papules and plaques with dusky centers and central pustules on the trunk as well as the upper and lower extremities. The palms and soles were spared. The rash was somewhat reminiscent of Sweet syndrome (SS). No vesicles, bullae, or erosions were seen (Figure 1). Repeat blood and urine cultures and chest radiograph were unremarkable. Ceftazidime was discontinued due to concern of drug-associated rash. Within the next 48 hours, the patient developed rigors and a worsening rash that led to reinitiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage with meropenem and vancomycin. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of infection or other abnormalities. Skin biopsy showed an acute folliculitis and multiple foci of mixed granulomatous inflammation consisting of histiocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils with focal necrosis present in the dermis, dermis-subcutis junction, and subcutis (Figure 2). Diagnostic features of vasculitis were not seen. Viral cytopathic features were not identified. Tissue culture and special stains including Gram, acid-fast bacteria, and Grocott methenamine silver stains were negative for infectious organisms in the biopsy. Both direct fluorescent antibody study and cell cultures for varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus also were negative.

In the absence of microorganisms on skin biopsy and low clinical suspicion of infection, vancomycin and meropenem were discontinued on day 35 and empiric treatment with oral prednisone 40 mg daily was initiated on day 38, which resulted in a rapid improvement of the patient’s rash within 24 hours with complete resolution after a 7-day course of prednisone. Notably, the patient manifested concomitant recovery of the ANC. The patient completed his last cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and idarubicin without further complications and remains in molecular remission.

Neutrophilic dermatoses (NDs) are a group of disorders characterized by neutrophilic cutaneous infiltration without evidence of infection. These entities include SS, pyoderma gangrenosum, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, erythema elevatum diutinum, and neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.² Neutrophilic dermatoses commonly present with acute onset of skin lesions and fever. Underlying systemic disease such as malignancy, inflammatory disease, autoimmune disease, pregnancy, and medications are known to be associated with ND. Although the rash clinically was reminiscent of SS, the histopathologic features were inconsistent with SS. Sweet syndrome typically presents with extensive monotonous neutrophilic infiltrates in the dermis. In this case, the neutrophilic infiltrates were localized and associated with the hair follicle, in the dermis and subcutis, and were accompanied by a granulomatous inflammation. Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis clinically is similar to SS and the distinction usually is made on the basis of histopathologic examination. Lack of the neutrophilic infiltrates within the eccrine secretary coils in our case did not support the diagnosis of neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.

Although the histopathologic features of the presented case were inconsistent with a particular subtype of ND, the clinical presentation and response to corticosteroids suggested that this unusual mixed inflammatory skin reaction might share a similar pathophysiologic mechanism.

A review of 20 patients with sterile neutrophilic folliculitis demonstrated an association with systemic diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, monoclonal gammopathy, Crohn disease, and autoimmune disorders.³ In acute myeloid leukemia, sterile neutrophilic folliculitis may be part of the initial presentation and responds to induction chemotherapy.⁴ An extensive search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms folliculitis, APL, and neutrophilic dermatoses did not reveal any prior reports of isolated neutrophilic folliculitis or mixed granulomatous reaction in patients with APL in molecular remission.

Although rare, cases of ATRA-induced SS have been reported. Some authors believe that SS in APL may represent a partial form of differentiation syndrome.⁵ Those cases usually occur during first induction. However, a recurrent episode of differentiation syndrome cannot be excluded in this patient.

A cutaneous reaction to chemotherapy with mitoxantrone as a cause also should be considered, given that the rash occurred only during the second cycle of consolidation therapy when mitoxantrone was used. However, this rash is rare in patients receiving mitoxantrone. The late onset of the rash from the time of last mitoxantrone administration argues against this diagnosis.

In summary, we describe an unusual presentation of a sterile mixed inflammatory skin reaction that occurred in a setting of neutrophil recovery following a second cycle of induction chemotherapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone for APL.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old man presented with fever, easy bruising, and pancytopenia with increased peripheral blasts of 77%. Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with 80% to 90% involvement by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with complex cytogenetics: 47,XY,t(4;17;18)(p16;q21,q25;q21.1),+8, ins(15;17)(q22;q21q25). He underwent induction chemotherapy with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and idarubicin, which was complicated by differentiation syndrome that presented with fever and fluid retention. Discontinuation of ATRA and initiation of dexamethasone led to resolution of the symptoms. Complete hematologic and molecular remission was achieved after the induction chemotherapy.

Following a risk-adapted treatment protocol for consolidation therapy,¹ he underwent an uneventful first cycle of consolidation therapy. On day 15 of the second cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone he was hospitalized with a fever (temperature, 38°C) in a setting of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], 0/µL [reference range, 1500–7200/µL]). He was empirically treated with ceftazidime and vancomycin and maintained on prophylactic acyclovir and fluconazole. Routine workup was negative for infection. He became afebrile within 24 hours. With negative infectious workup, vancomycin was discontinued on day 17. On day 33 he again developed a fever (temperature, 38.8°C) when the ANC started to recover (570/µL). A new skin rash was noted at this time. Physical examination revealed generalized, nonpruritic, tender, pink papules and plaques with dusky centers and central pustules on the trunk as well as the upper and lower extremities. The palms and soles were spared. The rash was somewhat reminiscent of Sweet syndrome (SS). No vesicles, bullae, or erosions were seen (Figure 1). Repeat blood and urine cultures and chest radiograph were unremarkable. Ceftazidime was discontinued due to concern of drug-associated rash. Within the next 48 hours, the patient developed rigors and a worsening rash that led to reinitiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage with meropenem and vancomycin. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of infection or other abnormalities. Skin biopsy showed an acute folliculitis and multiple foci of mixed granulomatous inflammation consisting of histiocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils with focal necrosis present in the dermis, dermis-subcutis junction, and subcutis (Figure 2). Diagnostic features of vasculitis were not seen. Viral cytopathic features were not identified. Tissue culture and special stains including Gram, acid-fast bacteria, and Grocott methenamine silver stains were negative for infectious organisms in the biopsy. Both direct fluorescent antibody study and cell cultures for varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus also were negative.

In the absence of microorganisms on skin biopsy and low clinical suspicion of infection, vancomycin and meropenem were discontinued on day 35 and empiric treatment with oral prednisone 40 mg daily was initiated on day 38, which resulted in a rapid improvement of the patient’s rash within 24 hours with complete resolution after a 7-day course of prednisone. Notably, the patient manifested concomitant recovery of the ANC. The patient completed his last cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and idarubicin without further complications and remains in molecular remission.

Neutrophilic dermatoses (NDs) are a group of disorders characterized by neutrophilic cutaneous infiltration without evidence of infection. These entities include SS, pyoderma gangrenosum, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, erythema elevatum diutinum, and neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.² Neutrophilic dermatoses commonly present with acute onset of skin lesions and fever. Underlying systemic disease such as malignancy, inflammatory disease, autoimmune disease, pregnancy, and medications are known to be associated with ND. Although the rash clinically was reminiscent of SS, the histopathologic features were inconsistent with SS. Sweet syndrome typically presents with extensive monotonous neutrophilic infiltrates in the dermis. In this case, the neutrophilic infiltrates were localized and associated with the hair follicle, in the dermis and subcutis, and were accompanied by a granulomatous inflammation. Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis clinically is similar to SS and the distinction usually is made on the basis of histopathologic examination. Lack of the neutrophilic infiltrates within the eccrine secretary coils in our case did not support the diagnosis of neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.

Although the histopathologic features of the presented case were inconsistent with a particular subtype of ND, the clinical presentation and response to corticosteroids suggested that this unusual mixed inflammatory skin reaction might share a similar pathophysiologic mechanism.

A review of 20 patients with sterile neutrophilic folliculitis demonstrated an association with systemic diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, monoclonal gammopathy, Crohn disease, and autoimmune disorders.³ In acute myeloid leukemia, sterile neutrophilic folliculitis may be part of the initial presentation and responds to induction chemotherapy.⁴ An extensive search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms folliculitis, APL, and neutrophilic dermatoses did not reveal any prior reports of isolated neutrophilic folliculitis or mixed granulomatous reaction in patients with APL in molecular remission.

Although rare, cases of ATRA-induced SS have been reported. Some authors believe that SS in APL may represent a partial form of differentiation syndrome.⁵ Those cases usually occur during first induction. However, a recurrent episode of differentiation syndrome cannot be excluded in this patient.

A cutaneous reaction to chemotherapy with mitoxantrone as a cause also should be considered, given that the rash occurred only during the second cycle of consolidation therapy when mitoxantrone was used. However, this rash is rare in patients receiving mitoxantrone. The late onset of the rash from the time of last mitoxantrone administration argues against this diagnosis.

In summary, we describe an unusual presentation of a sterile mixed inflammatory skin reaction that occurred in a setting of neutrophil recovery following a second cycle of induction chemotherapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone for APL.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old man presented with fever, easy bruising, and pancytopenia with increased peripheral blasts of 77%. Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with 80% to 90% involvement by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with complex cytogenetics: 47,XY,t(4;17;18)(p16;q21,q25;q21.1),+8, ins(15;17)(q22;q21q25). He underwent induction chemotherapy with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and idarubicin, which was complicated by differentiation syndrome that presented with fever and fluid retention. Discontinuation of ATRA and initiation of dexamethasone led to resolution of the symptoms. Complete hematologic and molecular remission was achieved after the induction chemotherapy.

Following a risk-adapted treatment protocol for consolidation therapy,¹ he underwent an uneventful first cycle of consolidation therapy. On day 15 of the second cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone he was hospitalized with a fever (temperature, 38°C) in a setting of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], 0/µL [reference range, 1500–7200/µL]). He was empirically treated with ceftazidime and vancomycin and maintained on prophylactic acyclovir and fluconazole. Routine workup was negative for infection. He became afebrile within 24 hours. With negative infectious workup, vancomycin was discontinued on day 17. On day 33 he again developed a fever (temperature, 38.8°C) when the ANC started to recover (570/µL). A new skin rash was noted at this time. Physical examination revealed generalized, nonpruritic, tender, pink papules and plaques with dusky centers and central pustules on the trunk as well as the upper and lower extremities. The palms and soles were spared. The rash was somewhat reminiscent of Sweet syndrome (SS). No vesicles, bullae, or erosions were seen (Figure 1). Repeat blood and urine cultures and chest radiograph were unremarkable. Ceftazidime was discontinued due to concern of drug-associated rash. Within the next 48 hours, the patient developed rigors and a worsening rash that led to reinitiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage with meropenem and vancomycin. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of infection or other abnormalities. Skin biopsy showed an acute folliculitis and multiple foci of mixed granulomatous inflammation consisting of histiocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils with focal necrosis present in the dermis, dermis-subcutis junction, and subcutis (Figure 2). Diagnostic features of vasculitis were not seen. Viral cytopathic features were not identified. Tissue culture and special stains including Gram, acid-fast bacteria, and Grocott methenamine silver stains were negative for infectious organisms in the biopsy. Both direct fluorescent antibody study and cell cultures for varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus also were negative.

In the absence of microorganisms on skin biopsy and low clinical suspicion of infection, vancomycin and meropenem were discontinued on day 35 and empiric treatment with oral prednisone 40 mg daily was initiated on day 38, which resulted in a rapid improvement of the patient’s rash within 24 hours with complete resolution after a 7-day course of prednisone. Notably, the patient manifested concomitant recovery of the ANC. The patient completed his last cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and idarubicin without further complications and remains in molecular remission.

Neutrophilic dermatoses (NDs) are a group of disorders characterized by neutrophilic cutaneous infiltration without evidence of infection. These entities include SS, pyoderma gangrenosum, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, erythema elevatum diutinum, and neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.² Neutrophilic dermatoses commonly present with acute onset of skin lesions and fever. Underlying systemic disease such as malignancy, inflammatory disease, autoimmune disease, pregnancy, and medications are known to be associated with ND. Although the rash clinically was reminiscent of SS, the histopathologic features were inconsistent with SS. Sweet syndrome typically presents with extensive monotonous neutrophilic infiltrates in the dermis. In this case, the neutrophilic infiltrates were localized and associated with the hair follicle, in the dermis and subcutis, and were accompanied by a granulomatous inflammation. Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis clinically is similar to SS and the distinction usually is made on the basis of histopathologic examination. Lack of the neutrophilic infiltrates within the eccrine secretary coils in our case did not support the diagnosis of neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.

Although the histopathologic features of the presented case were inconsistent with a particular subtype of ND, the clinical presentation and response to corticosteroids suggested that this unusual mixed inflammatory skin reaction might share a similar pathophysiologic mechanism.

A review of 20 patients with sterile neutrophilic folliculitis demonstrated an association with systemic diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, monoclonal gammopathy, Crohn disease, and autoimmune disorders.³ In acute myeloid leukemia, sterile neutrophilic folliculitis may be part of the initial presentation and responds to induction chemotherapy.⁴ An extensive search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms folliculitis, APL, and neutrophilic dermatoses did not reveal any prior reports of isolated neutrophilic folliculitis or mixed granulomatous reaction in patients with APL in molecular remission.

Although rare, cases of ATRA-induced SS have been reported. Some authors believe that SS in APL may represent a partial form of differentiation syndrome.⁵ Those cases usually occur during first induction. However, a recurrent episode of differentiation syndrome cannot be excluded in this patient.

A cutaneous reaction to chemotherapy with mitoxantrone as a cause also should be considered, given that the rash occurred only during the second cycle of consolidation therapy when mitoxantrone was used. However, this rash is rare in patients receiving mitoxantrone. The late onset of the rash from the time of last mitoxantrone administration argues against this diagnosis.

In summary, we describe an unusual presentation of a sterile mixed inflammatory skin reaction that occurred in a setting of neutrophil recovery following a second cycle of induction chemotherapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone for APL.