Urticaria

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

[embed:render:related:node:264226]

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

[embed:render:related:node:264226]

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

[embed:render:related:node:264226]

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – Assessing underlying mechanisms for the effects of age, mean platelet volume (MPV), and tryptase may help identify pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who will respond to different treatment options, results from a single-center prospective study showed.

“Given that the majority of CSU cases in adults are due to autoimmunity and there being very [few] studies on biomarkers for CSU in children, our study furthers our current understanding of the role of different biomarkers in treatment response,” lead study author Alex Nguyen, MsC, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.

Nguyen_Alex_CANADA_web.JPG

NEW ORLEANS – Assessing underlying mechanisms for the effects of age, mean platelet volume (MPV), and tryptase may help identify pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who will respond to different treatment options, results from a single-center prospective study showed.

“Given that the majority of CSU cases in adults are due to autoimmunity and there being very [few] studies on biomarkers for CSU in children, our study furthers our current understanding of the role of different biomarkers in treatment response,” lead study author Alex Nguyen, MsC, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.

Nguyen_Alex_CANADA_web.JPG

NEW ORLEANS – Assessing underlying mechanisms for the effects of age, mean platelet volume (MPV), and tryptase may help identify pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who will respond to different treatment options, results from a single-center prospective study showed.

“Given that the majority of CSU cases in adults are due to autoimmunity and there being very [few] studies on biomarkers for CSU in children, our study furthers our current understanding of the role of different biomarkers in treatment response,” lead study author Alex Nguyen, MsC, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.

Nguyen_Alex_CANADA_web.JPG

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

[embed:render:related:node:244733]

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

[embed:render:related:node:244733]

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

[embed:render:related:node:244733]

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

My inspiration to write about cupping this month stems from the perception that everyone seems to be talking about it, from a facialist who suggested it for me to a coworker who swears by cupping to treat her allergies. Cupping is by no means a novel procedure. Its use as a health therapy dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt (1500 BCE), ancient Greece (described by Hippocrates), ancient Rome (described by the Greek physician Galen), China (during the Han dynasty, 206 BCE to 220 CE) and traditional Islamic culture.¹ Over the past decade, the popularity of this ancient procedure has been increasing in the United States.¹ Cupping has been applied as a remedy for various dermatologic and medical conditions, including herpes zoster, headaches, diminished appetite, maldigestion, abscess evacuation, narcolepsy, pain, fever, dysmenorrhea, and gout.^1,2

Goldman_Chloe_MIAMI_web.jpg

Theories on the mechanism(s) of action

The practice of cupping is differentiated into dry and wet cupping.^1,2 Traditionally, with dry cupping, a flame is applied to heat the air inside a thick glass cup (rather than the cup itself).¹ The cup is placed on the skin surface, and negative pressure suctions the skin into the cup. Wet cupping differs mainly from dry cupping in that it involves blood-letting. Cups made of either silicone or glass of varying size and shapes are used. Modern adaptations to cupping include needle, herbal, and pulsatile cupping, as well as a “moving cupping” technique (vs. traditionally stationary cups).¹

cupping vacuum therapy_web.jpg

There are several theories, many of which are derived from the nondermatologic literature (that is, pain management), as to how cupping may deliver a clinical benefit. Some theories are based in scientific and medical principles, whereas other theories are more whimsical – specifically, that cupping draws out evil spirits.² Studies of dry cupping have suggested that the procedure results in increased oxygenation of muscles via a local increase in oxygenated hemoglobin, which may help improve muscular activity and reduce pain.¹ As theorized by Lowe in 2017, negative pressure exerted by dry cupping leads to stretching and dilation of capillaries, which increases blood flow.³ Wet cupping has been shown to increase heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and beta-endorphin expression in rat models, which is thought to facilitate pain management.1 Removal of oxidants and reduction of reactive oxygen species in the blood is believed to be among the benefits of wet cupping.¹
 

Cupping in general dermatology

While cupping has been used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, the ancient practice has been utilized in dermatology as a therapy mainly for herpes zoster and associated postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various inflammatory conditions.

Herpes zoster

In 2010, Cao et al. reported on their systematic review of wet cupping after completing searches of multiple databases (that is, PubMed, the Cochrane Library [Issue 3, 2008], China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan Fang Database). They identified eight randomized controlled trials involving 651 patients, with meta-analyses revealing that wet cupping performed better than medications in terms of the number of “cured” patients, number of patients with improved symptoms, and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. Wet cupping, in addition to medication, was also found to be superior to medication alone in multiple patients. The researchers concluded that wet cupping appears to effectively treat herpes zoster.⁴ However, the study failed to identify which medications were used to treat herpes zoster. In the United States, common medications for herpes zoster include acyclovir, valacyclovir, steroids, gabapentin, and other neuromodulators. Without knowing which medications were used, it is difficult to compare cupping to medication in terms of efficacy in treating herpes zoster.

Urticaria

Urticaria (hives) is an inflammatory skin condition that can be very uncomfortable for patients but often resolves without intervention within several months after onset. In 2001, Li and Ding reported on the treatment with cupping of 40 patients with urticaria. The cure rate among the treatment group was cited as 55%, compared with 30% in the control group, who were treated with a traditional Chinese remedy and an unidentified first-generation antihistamine.^1,5 In 2020, Xiao et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria. They identified 13 comparisons from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 842 subjects. The investigators found no significant differences between wet cupping and medication usage. They also found that cupping combined with antihistamine treatment was superior to antihistamines alone, and cupping therapy with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone. The investigators did call for caution, citing the poor quality of the studies reviewed.⁶

It is important to note that it is difficult to attribute resolution of urticaria to the use of cupping given the self-resolution often associated with this condition. Antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for urticaria, but in my personal experience, patients are not entirely satisfied with the level of symptom control with antihistamines alone and often search for alternative therapies to control the pesky hives and associated itch. In 2014, omalizumab (Xolair) was approved for treating chronic idiopathic urticaria, which has helped patients control symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria without needing to take antihistamines. There was no indication that the studies reviewed by Xiao et al. compared cupping against this new effective treatment. Therefore, these studies comparing cupping to medical management are outdated.

[embed:render:related:node:251995]

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis

Soliman’s 2018 review of cupping in dermatology included a few studies on these common cutaneous conditions. For instance, a 2013 single-blind prospective study by Xu et al. reported on the results of patients with moderate acne who received wet cupping (in the form of prickling bloodletting) twice weekly for 6 weeks.⁷ They reported that patients demonstrated improvement in the global acne grading system (GAGS) score by the end of the trial.^1,7 Unfortunately, cupping was not compared with standard acne treatments (that is, benzoyl peroxide, topical and oral antibiotics, isotretinoin, topical retinoids, spironolactone).

In evaluating cupping for acute eczema, wet cupping was compared with oral loratadine and topical ointments in a 2007 study by Yao and Li. They divided 88 cases into treatment and control groups, with the former group (n = 46) receiving bloodletting puncturing and cupping and the control group (n = 42) receiving oral loratadine and topical Pairuisong (an herbal ointment used in Chinese medicine). The investigators observed no significant difference in total effective rates but a superior difference in the rates of responses that were considered “cured” and “markedly effective” in favor of the cupping treatment.^1,8 However, a case report by Hon et al. has indicated that cupping therapy may be associated with more harm than benefit when used as an eczema treatment.^1,9

In addition, it is important to note that the past 5 years have been gamechanging in the management of chronic eczema in terms of the array of novel and effective therapies (e.g., dupilumab and JAK inhibitors) and chronic moderate-to-severe eczema has become very treatable. Similarly, acute eczema is often successfully managed with topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and emollients. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider an unproven treatment such as cupping.

In 2020, Xing et al. reviewed 16 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of “moving cupping” for plaque psoriasis, with 1,164 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Moving cupping was found to be significantly more effective than “no-moving” cupping therapy, and moving cupping, combined with medications, performed better than medications alone.¹⁰ None of the trials evaluated in this study included randomized controlled trials that compared patients using any of the more modern psoriasis medications, specifically biologics. And, again, the studies evaluated were not of the highest quality.

The data that support cupping, as summarized above, are based mostly on case reports, and strong double-blind prospective studies are lacking. Additionally, most of the studies cited gauged the efficacy of cupping using qualitative endpoints, rather than standardized quantitative endpoints and scales. Moreover, spontaneous remission of various dermatoses can occur, or they can improve over time, including acute eczema, psoriasis, and, especially, urticaria.
 

Adverse effects of cupping

Often alternative therapies are seen as “benign” and without adverse effects. However, complications can result from cupping. Trauma can be induced from the cupping itself by damaging superficial blood vessels and causing bruising.^1,11 Blistering can also occur secondary to the suction effect, and the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin can be separated.^1,11 Further, burns and discoloration have also been noted secondary to heat, trauma, and post inflammatory pigmentary changes.^1,11 Another risk of cupping is the Koebner phenomenon, which occurs with psoriasis, with new lesions appearing in traumatized skin.¹² Other adverse outcomes that have been reported with cupping include reactivation of herpes simplex virus secondary to skin trauma, iron deficiency anemia (secondary to blood loss), panniculitis, infections, and residual marks mistaken for signs of child abuse.^1,11

Cupping in aesthetic dermatology

Facial cupping, a distinct practice from body cupping used to treat general dermatology conditions described previously, is also increasing in popularity. This practice is usually conducted in association with a facial or facial acupuncture by an aesthetician or other licensed professional. It can also be performed using at-home kits. The marketing claims for facial cupping cite improved tightening and contouring of facial skin, increased facial microcirculation and collagen synthesis, and enhanced lymphatic flow to aid with facial puffiness or swelling. One supposed mechanism for these benefits is that cupping increases blood flow. Interestingly, there was a 2020 animal study in which photoacoustic imaging of a mouse ear revealed increased temporary blood flow in the cupping microenvironment.¹³ Currently, however, there is no evidence in the English scientific literature that supports facial cupping. The benefits attributed to facial cupping for aesthetic purposes have emerged only in personal anecdotes. The temporary increase in blood flow may induce inflammation and swelling that adds volume to the face and temporarily diminishes wrinkles. However, this temporary plumpness may be associated with adverse effects, such as local trauma, irritation, bruising, postinflammatory pigmentary alteration, or even herpes reactivation. In my opinion, the possible adverse effects of cupping outweigh any potential benefit, especially given the insufficient evidence supporting the utility of cupping for cosmetic enhancement.

Summary

There is increasing interest among patients to incorporate complementary and alternative medicine – including the ancient tradition of cupping – in managing medical dermatologic conditions. However, current evidence supporting cupping as an effective therapeutic strategy is not strong, with most studies to date appearing to be of poor quality or not sufficiently convincing to displace standard therapies. Our medical strategies for managing chronic dermatologic conditions, particularly inflammatory disorders, continue to improve from both a safety and a proven efficacy standpoint. Therefore, I would not forgo medical management in favor of cupping. While cupping can be used as an adjunct therapy, I would caution patients about possible adverse side effects. In the aesthetic world, cupping is also gaining popularity, but this trend is also not supported by current evidence or studies, at least in the Western literature.

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instragram @DrChloeGoldman. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other disclosures.

References

1. Soliman Y et al. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Jun;27(2):103-7.

2. França K and Lotti T. Advances in Integrative Dermatology. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

3. Lowe DT. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;29:162-8.

4.Cao H et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):48-54.

5. Li L and Ding J. J Tradit Chin Med. 2001 Mar;21(1):37-8.

6. Xiao XJ et al. J Integr Med. 2020 Jul;18(4):303-12.

7. Xu J et al. J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Dec;33(6):752-6.

8. Yao J et al. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007; Jun;27(6):424-6.

9. Hon KL et al. Case Rep Pediatr. 2013;2013:605829.

10. Xing M et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22539.

11. Kim TH et al. Eur J Integr Med. 2014 Aug 1;6(4):434-40.

12. Vender R and Vender R. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015 May-Jun;19(3):320-2.

13. Zhou Y et al. Biomed Opt Express. 2020 Apr 6;11(5):2394-401.

This article was updated 4/25/22.

My inspiration to write about cupping this month stems from the perception that everyone seems to be talking about it, from a facialist who suggested it for me to a coworker who swears by cupping to treat her allergies. Cupping is by no means a novel procedure. Its use as a health therapy dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt (1500 BCE), ancient Greece (described by Hippocrates), ancient Rome (described by the Greek physician Galen), China (during the Han dynasty, 206 BCE to 220 CE) and traditional Islamic culture.¹ Over the past decade, the popularity of this ancient procedure has been increasing in the United States.¹ Cupping has been applied as a remedy for various dermatologic and medical conditions, including herpes zoster, headaches, diminished appetite, maldigestion, abscess evacuation, narcolepsy, pain, fever, dysmenorrhea, and gout.^1,2

Goldman_Chloe_MIAMI_web.jpg

Theories on the mechanism(s) of action

The practice of cupping is differentiated into dry and wet cupping.^1,2 Traditionally, with dry cupping, a flame is applied to heat the air inside a thick glass cup (rather than the cup itself).¹ The cup is placed on the skin surface, and negative pressure suctions the skin into the cup. Wet cupping differs mainly from dry cupping in that it involves blood-letting. Cups made of either silicone or glass of varying size and shapes are used. Modern adaptations to cupping include needle, herbal, and pulsatile cupping, as well as a “moving cupping” technique (vs. traditionally stationary cups).¹

cupping vacuum therapy_web.jpg

There are several theories, many of which are derived from the nondermatologic literature (that is, pain management), as to how cupping may deliver a clinical benefit. Some theories are based in scientific and medical principles, whereas other theories are more whimsical – specifically, that cupping draws out evil spirits.² Studies of dry cupping have suggested that the procedure results in increased oxygenation of muscles via a local increase in oxygenated hemoglobin, which may help improve muscular activity and reduce pain.¹ As theorized by Lowe in 2017, negative pressure exerted by dry cupping leads to stretching and dilation of capillaries, which increases blood flow.³ Wet cupping has been shown to increase heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and beta-endorphin expression in rat models, which is thought to facilitate pain management.1 Removal of oxidants and reduction of reactive oxygen species in the blood is believed to be among the benefits of wet cupping.¹
 

Cupping in general dermatology

While cupping has been used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, the ancient practice has been utilized in dermatology as a therapy mainly for herpes zoster and associated postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various inflammatory conditions.

Herpes zoster

In 2010, Cao et al. reported on their systematic review of wet cupping after completing searches of multiple databases (that is, PubMed, the Cochrane Library [Issue 3, 2008], China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan Fang Database). They identified eight randomized controlled trials involving 651 patients, with meta-analyses revealing that wet cupping performed better than medications in terms of the number of “cured” patients, number of patients with improved symptoms, and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. Wet cupping, in addition to medication, was also found to be superior to medication alone in multiple patients. The researchers concluded that wet cupping appears to effectively treat herpes zoster.⁴ However, the study failed to identify which medications were used to treat herpes zoster. In the United States, common medications for herpes zoster include acyclovir, valacyclovir, steroids, gabapentin, and other neuromodulators. Without knowing which medications were used, it is difficult to compare cupping to medication in terms of efficacy in treating herpes zoster.

Urticaria

Urticaria (hives) is an inflammatory skin condition that can be very uncomfortable for patients but often resolves without intervention within several months after onset. In 2001, Li and Ding reported on the treatment with cupping of 40 patients with urticaria. The cure rate among the treatment group was cited as 55%, compared with 30% in the control group, who were treated with a traditional Chinese remedy and an unidentified first-generation antihistamine.^1,5 In 2020, Xiao et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria. They identified 13 comparisons from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 842 subjects. The investigators found no significant differences between wet cupping and medication usage. They also found that cupping combined with antihistamine treatment was superior to antihistamines alone, and cupping therapy with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone. The investigators did call for caution, citing the poor quality of the studies reviewed.⁶

It is important to note that it is difficult to attribute resolution of urticaria to the use of cupping given the self-resolution often associated with this condition. Antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for urticaria, but in my personal experience, patients are not entirely satisfied with the level of symptom control with antihistamines alone and often search for alternative therapies to control the pesky hives and associated itch. In 2014, omalizumab (Xolair) was approved for treating chronic idiopathic urticaria, which has helped patients control symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria without needing to take antihistamines. There was no indication that the studies reviewed by Xiao et al. compared cupping against this new effective treatment. Therefore, these studies comparing cupping to medical management are outdated.

[embed:render:related:node:251995]

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis

Soliman’s 2018 review of cupping in dermatology included a few studies on these common cutaneous conditions. For instance, a 2013 single-blind prospective study by Xu et al. reported on the results of patients with moderate acne who received wet cupping (in the form of prickling bloodletting) twice weekly for 6 weeks.⁷ They reported that patients demonstrated improvement in the global acne grading system (GAGS) score by the end of the trial.^1,7 Unfortunately, cupping was not compared with standard acne treatments (that is, benzoyl peroxide, topical and oral antibiotics, isotretinoin, topical retinoids, spironolactone).

In evaluating cupping for acute eczema, wet cupping was compared with oral loratadine and topical ointments in a 2007 study by Yao and Li. They divided 88 cases into treatment and control groups, with the former group (n = 46) receiving bloodletting puncturing and cupping and the control group (n = 42) receiving oral loratadine and topical Pairuisong (an herbal ointment used in Chinese medicine). The investigators observed no significant difference in total effective rates but a superior difference in the rates of responses that were considered “cured” and “markedly effective” in favor of the cupping treatment.^1,8 However, a case report by Hon et al. has indicated that cupping therapy may be associated with more harm than benefit when used as an eczema treatment.^1,9

In addition, it is important to note that the past 5 years have been gamechanging in the management of chronic eczema in terms of the array of novel and effective therapies (e.g., dupilumab and JAK inhibitors) and chronic moderate-to-severe eczema has become very treatable. Similarly, acute eczema is often successfully managed with topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and emollients. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider an unproven treatment such as cupping.

In 2020, Xing et al. reviewed 16 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of “moving cupping” for plaque psoriasis, with 1,164 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Moving cupping was found to be significantly more effective than “no-moving” cupping therapy, and moving cupping, combined with medications, performed better than medications alone.¹⁰ None of the trials evaluated in this study included randomized controlled trials that compared patients using any of the more modern psoriasis medications, specifically biologics. And, again, the studies evaluated were not of the highest quality.

The data that support cupping, as summarized above, are based mostly on case reports, and strong double-blind prospective studies are lacking. Additionally, most of the studies cited gauged the efficacy of cupping using qualitative endpoints, rather than standardized quantitative endpoints and scales. Moreover, spontaneous remission of various dermatoses can occur, or they can improve over time, including acute eczema, psoriasis, and, especially, urticaria.
 

Adverse effects of cupping

Often alternative therapies are seen as “benign” and without adverse effects. However, complications can result from cupping. Trauma can be induced from the cupping itself by damaging superficial blood vessels and causing bruising.^1,11 Blistering can also occur secondary to the suction effect, and the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin can be separated.^1,11 Further, burns and discoloration have also been noted secondary to heat, trauma, and post inflammatory pigmentary changes.^1,11 Another risk of cupping is the Koebner phenomenon, which occurs with psoriasis, with new lesions appearing in traumatized skin.¹² Other adverse outcomes that have been reported with cupping include reactivation of herpes simplex virus secondary to skin trauma, iron deficiency anemia (secondary to blood loss), panniculitis, infections, and residual marks mistaken for signs of child abuse.^1,11

Cupping in aesthetic dermatology

Facial cupping, a distinct practice from body cupping used to treat general dermatology conditions described previously, is also increasing in popularity. This practice is usually conducted in association with a facial or facial acupuncture by an aesthetician or other licensed professional. It can also be performed using at-home kits. The marketing claims for facial cupping cite improved tightening and contouring of facial skin, increased facial microcirculation and collagen synthesis, and enhanced lymphatic flow to aid with facial puffiness or swelling. One supposed mechanism for these benefits is that cupping increases blood flow. Interestingly, there was a 2020 animal study in which photoacoustic imaging of a mouse ear revealed increased temporary blood flow in the cupping microenvironment.¹³ Currently, however, there is no evidence in the English scientific literature that supports facial cupping. The benefits attributed to facial cupping for aesthetic purposes have emerged only in personal anecdotes. The temporary increase in blood flow may induce inflammation and swelling that adds volume to the face and temporarily diminishes wrinkles. However, this temporary plumpness may be associated with adverse effects, such as local trauma, irritation, bruising, postinflammatory pigmentary alteration, or even herpes reactivation. In my opinion, the possible adverse effects of cupping outweigh any potential benefit, especially given the insufficient evidence supporting the utility of cupping for cosmetic enhancement.

Summary

There is increasing interest among patients to incorporate complementary and alternative medicine – including the ancient tradition of cupping – in managing medical dermatologic conditions. However, current evidence supporting cupping as an effective therapeutic strategy is not strong, with most studies to date appearing to be of poor quality or not sufficiently convincing to displace standard therapies. Our medical strategies for managing chronic dermatologic conditions, particularly inflammatory disorders, continue to improve from both a safety and a proven efficacy standpoint. Therefore, I would not forgo medical management in favor of cupping. While cupping can be used as an adjunct therapy, I would caution patients about possible adverse side effects. In the aesthetic world, cupping is also gaining popularity, but this trend is also not supported by current evidence or studies, at least in the Western literature.

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instragram @DrChloeGoldman. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other disclosures.

References

1. Soliman Y et al. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Jun;27(2):103-7.

2. França K and Lotti T. Advances in Integrative Dermatology. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

3. Lowe DT. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;29:162-8.

4.Cao H et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):48-54.

5. Li L and Ding J. J Tradit Chin Med. 2001 Mar;21(1):37-8.

6. Xiao XJ et al. J Integr Med. 2020 Jul;18(4):303-12.

7. Xu J et al. J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Dec;33(6):752-6.

8. Yao J et al. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007; Jun;27(6):424-6.

9. Hon KL et al. Case Rep Pediatr. 2013;2013:605829.

10. Xing M et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22539.

11. Kim TH et al. Eur J Integr Med. 2014 Aug 1;6(4):434-40.

12. Vender R and Vender R. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015 May-Jun;19(3):320-2.

13. Zhou Y et al. Biomed Opt Express. 2020 Apr 6;11(5):2394-401.

This article was updated 4/25/22.

My inspiration to write about cupping this month stems from the perception that everyone seems to be talking about it, from a facialist who suggested it for me to a coworker who swears by cupping to treat her allergies. Cupping is by no means a novel procedure. Its use as a health therapy dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt (1500 BCE), ancient Greece (described by Hippocrates), ancient Rome (described by the Greek physician Galen), China (during the Han dynasty, 206 BCE to 220 CE) and traditional Islamic culture.¹ Over the past decade, the popularity of this ancient procedure has been increasing in the United States.¹ Cupping has been applied as a remedy for various dermatologic and medical conditions, including herpes zoster, headaches, diminished appetite, maldigestion, abscess evacuation, narcolepsy, pain, fever, dysmenorrhea, and gout.^1,2

Goldman_Chloe_MIAMI_web.jpg

Theories on the mechanism(s) of action

The practice of cupping is differentiated into dry and wet cupping.^1,2 Traditionally, with dry cupping, a flame is applied to heat the air inside a thick glass cup (rather than the cup itself).¹ The cup is placed on the skin surface, and negative pressure suctions the skin into the cup. Wet cupping differs mainly from dry cupping in that it involves blood-letting. Cups made of either silicone or glass of varying size and shapes are used. Modern adaptations to cupping include needle, herbal, and pulsatile cupping, as well as a “moving cupping” technique (vs. traditionally stationary cups).¹

cupping vacuum therapy_web.jpg

There are several theories, many of which are derived from the nondermatologic literature (that is, pain management), as to how cupping may deliver a clinical benefit. Some theories are based in scientific and medical principles, whereas other theories are more whimsical – specifically, that cupping draws out evil spirits.² Studies of dry cupping have suggested that the procedure results in increased oxygenation of muscles via a local increase in oxygenated hemoglobin, which may help improve muscular activity and reduce pain.¹ As theorized by Lowe in 2017, negative pressure exerted by dry cupping leads to stretching and dilation of capillaries, which increases blood flow.³ Wet cupping has been shown to increase heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and beta-endorphin expression in rat models, which is thought to facilitate pain management.1 Removal of oxidants and reduction of reactive oxygen species in the blood is believed to be among the benefits of wet cupping.¹
 

Cupping in general dermatology

While cupping has been used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, the ancient practice has been utilized in dermatology as a therapy mainly for herpes zoster and associated postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various inflammatory conditions.

Herpes zoster

In 2010, Cao et al. reported on their systematic review of wet cupping after completing searches of multiple databases (that is, PubMed, the Cochrane Library [Issue 3, 2008], China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan Fang Database). They identified eight randomized controlled trials involving 651 patients, with meta-analyses revealing that wet cupping performed better than medications in terms of the number of “cured” patients, number of patients with improved symptoms, and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. Wet cupping, in addition to medication, was also found to be superior to medication alone in multiple patients. The researchers concluded that wet cupping appears to effectively treat herpes zoster.⁴ However, the study failed to identify which medications were used to treat herpes zoster. In the United States, common medications for herpes zoster include acyclovir, valacyclovir, steroids, gabapentin, and other neuromodulators. Without knowing which medications were used, it is difficult to compare cupping to medication in terms of efficacy in treating herpes zoster.

Urticaria

Urticaria (hives) is an inflammatory skin condition that can be very uncomfortable for patients but often resolves without intervention within several months after onset. In 2001, Li and Ding reported on the treatment with cupping of 40 patients with urticaria. The cure rate among the treatment group was cited as 55%, compared with 30% in the control group, who were treated with a traditional Chinese remedy and an unidentified first-generation antihistamine.^1,5 In 2020, Xiao et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria. They identified 13 comparisons from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 842 subjects. The investigators found no significant differences between wet cupping and medication usage. They also found that cupping combined with antihistamine treatment was superior to antihistamines alone, and cupping therapy with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone. The investigators did call for caution, citing the poor quality of the studies reviewed.⁶

It is important to note that it is difficult to attribute resolution of urticaria to the use of cupping given the self-resolution often associated with this condition. Antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for urticaria, but in my personal experience, patients are not entirely satisfied with the level of symptom control with antihistamines alone and often search for alternative therapies to control the pesky hives and associated itch. In 2014, omalizumab (Xolair) was approved for treating chronic idiopathic urticaria, which has helped patients control symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria without needing to take antihistamines. There was no indication that the studies reviewed by Xiao et al. compared cupping against this new effective treatment. Therefore, these studies comparing cupping to medical management are outdated.

[embed:render:related:node:251995]

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis

Soliman’s 2018 review of cupping in dermatology included a few studies on these common cutaneous conditions. For instance, a 2013 single-blind prospective study by Xu et al. reported on the results of patients with moderate acne who received wet cupping (in the form of prickling bloodletting) twice weekly for 6 weeks.⁷ They reported that patients demonstrated improvement in the global acne grading system (GAGS) score by the end of the trial.^1,7 Unfortunately, cupping was not compared with standard acne treatments (that is, benzoyl peroxide, topical and oral antibiotics, isotretinoin, topical retinoids, spironolactone).

In evaluating cupping for acute eczema, wet cupping was compared with oral loratadine and topical ointments in a 2007 study by Yao and Li. They divided 88 cases into treatment and control groups, with the former group (n = 46) receiving bloodletting puncturing and cupping and the control group (n = 42) receiving oral loratadine and topical Pairuisong (an herbal ointment used in Chinese medicine). The investigators observed no significant difference in total effective rates but a superior difference in the rates of responses that were considered “cured” and “markedly effective” in favor of the cupping treatment.^1,8 However, a case report by Hon et al. has indicated that cupping therapy may be associated with more harm than benefit when used as an eczema treatment.^1,9

In addition, it is important to note that the past 5 years have been gamechanging in the management of chronic eczema in terms of the array of novel and effective therapies (e.g., dupilumab and JAK inhibitors) and chronic moderate-to-severe eczema has become very treatable. Similarly, acute eczema is often successfully managed with topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and emollients. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider an unproven treatment such as cupping.

In 2020, Xing et al. reviewed 16 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of “moving cupping” for plaque psoriasis, with 1,164 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Moving cupping was found to be significantly more effective than “no-moving” cupping therapy, and moving cupping, combined with medications, performed better than medications alone.¹⁰ None of the trials evaluated in this study included randomized controlled trials that compared patients using any of the more modern psoriasis medications, specifically biologics. And, again, the studies evaluated were not of the highest quality.

The data that support cupping, as summarized above, are based mostly on case reports, and strong double-blind prospective studies are lacking. Additionally, most of the studies cited gauged the efficacy of cupping using qualitative endpoints, rather than standardized quantitative endpoints and scales. Moreover, spontaneous remission of various dermatoses can occur, or they can improve over time, including acute eczema, psoriasis, and, especially, urticaria.
 

Adverse effects of cupping

Often alternative therapies are seen as “benign” and without adverse effects. However, complications can result from cupping. Trauma can be induced from the cupping itself by damaging superficial blood vessels and causing bruising.^1,11 Blistering can also occur secondary to the suction effect, and the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin can be separated.^1,11 Further, burns and discoloration have also been noted secondary to heat, trauma, and post inflammatory pigmentary changes.^1,11 Another risk of cupping is the Koebner phenomenon, which occurs with psoriasis, with new lesions appearing in traumatized skin.¹² Other adverse outcomes that have been reported with cupping include reactivation of herpes simplex virus secondary to skin trauma, iron deficiency anemia (secondary to blood loss), panniculitis, infections, and residual marks mistaken for signs of child abuse.^1,11

Cupping in aesthetic dermatology

Facial cupping, a distinct practice from body cupping used to treat general dermatology conditions described previously, is also increasing in popularity. This practice is usually conducted in association with a facial or facial acupuncture by an aesthetician or other licensed professional. It can also be performed using at-home kits. The marketing claims for facial cupping cite improved tightening and contouring of facial skin, increased facial microcirculation and collagen synthesis, and enhanced lymphatic flow to aid with facial puffiness or swelling. One supposed mechanism for these benefits is that cupping increases blood flow. Interestingly, there was a 2020 animal study in which photoacoustic imaging of a mouse ear revealed increased temporary blood flow in the cupping microenvironment.¹³ Currently, however, there is no evidence in the English scientific literature that supports facial cupping. The benefits attributed to facial cupping for aesthetic purposes have emerged only in personal anecdotes. The temporary increase in blood flow may induce inflammation and swelling that adds volume to the face and temporarily diminishes wrinkles. However, this temporary plumpness may be associated with adverse effects, such as local trauma, irritation, bruising, postinflammatory pigmentary alteration, or even herpes reactivation. In my opinion, the possible adverse effects of cupping outweigh any potential benefit, especially given the insufficient evidence supporting the utility of cupping for cosmetic enhancement.

Summary

There is increasing interest among patients to incorporate complementary and alternative medicine – including the ancient tradition of cupping – in managing medical dermatologic conditions. However, current evidence supporting cupping as an effective therapeutic strategy is not strong, with most studies to date appearing to be of poor quality or not sufficiently convincing to displace standard therapies. Our medical strategies for managing chronic dermatologic conditions, particularly inflammatory disorders, continue to improve from both a safety and a proven efficacy standpoint. Therefore, I would not forgo medical management in favor of cupping. While cupping can be used as an adjunct therapy, I would caution patients about possible adverse side effects. In the aesthetic world, cupping is also gaining popularity, but this trend is also not supported by current evidence or studies, at least in the Western literature.

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instragram @DrChloeGoldman. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other disclosures.

References

1. Soliman Y et al. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Jun;27(2):103-7.

2. França K and Lotti T. Advances in Integrative Dermatology. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

3. Lowe DT. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;29:162-8.

4.Cao H et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):48-54.

5. Li L and Ding J. J Tradit Chin Med. 2001 Mar;21(1):37-8.

6. Xiao XJ et al. J Integr Med. 2020 Jul;18(4):303-12.

7. Xu J et al. J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Dec;33(6):752-6.

8. Yao J et al. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007; Jun;27(6):424-6.

9. Hon KL et al. Case Rep Pediatr. 2013;2013:605829.

10. Xing M et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22539.

11. Kim TH et al. Eur J Integr Med. 2014 Aug 1;6(4):434-40.

12. Vender R and Vender R. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015 May-Jun;19(3):320-2.

13. Zhou Y et al. Biomed Opt Express. 2020 Apr 6;11(5):2394-401.

This article was updated 4/25/22.

Photosensitivity due to doxycycline

As the patient’s rash presented in sun-exposed areas with both skin and nail changes, our patient was diagnosed with a phototoxic reaction to doxycycline, the oral antibiotic used to treat his acne.

Photosensitive cutaneous drug eruptions are reactions that occur after exposure to a medication and subsequent exposure to UV radiation or visible light. Reactions can be classified into two ways based on their mechanism of action: phototoxic or photoallergic.¹ Phototoxic reactions are more common and are a result of direct keratinocyte damage and cellular necrosis. Many classes of medications may cause this adverse effect, but the tetracycline class of antibiotics is a common culprit.² Photoallergic reactions are less common and are a result of a type IV immune reaction to the offending agent.¹

157366_photo1_web.jpg

Phototoxic reactions generally present shortly after sun or UV exposure with a photo-distributed eruption pattern.³ Commonly involved areas include the face, the neck, and the extensor surfaces of extremities, with sparing of relatively protected skin such as the upper eyelids and the skin folds.² Erythema may initially develop in the exposed skin areas, followed by appearance of edema, vesicles, or bullae.^1-3 The eruption may be painful and itchy, with some patients reporting severe pain.³

157366_photo2_web.jpg

Doxycycline phototoxicity may also cause onycholysis of the nails.² The reaction is dose dependent, with higher doses of medication leading to a higher likelihood of symptoms.^1,2 It is also more prevalent in patients with Fitzpatrick skin type I and II. The usual UVA wavelength required to induce this reaction appears to be in the 320-400 nm range of the UV spectrum.⁴ By contrast, photoallergic reactions are dose independent, and require a sensitization period prior to the eruption.¹ An eczematous eruption is most commonly seen with photoallergic reactions.³

Treatment of drug-induced photosensitivity reactions requires proper identification of the diagnosis and the offending agent, followed by cessation of the medication. If cessation is not possible, then lowering the dose can help to minimize worsening of the condition. However, for photoallergic reactions, the reaction is dose independent so switching to another tolerated agent is likely required. For persistent symptoms following medication withdrawal, topical or systemic steroids and oral antihistamine can help with symptom management.¹ For patients with photo-onycholysis, treatment involves stopping the medication and waiting for the intact nail plate to grow.

157366_photo3_web.jpg

Dermatomyositis

Dermatomyositis is an autoimmune condition that presents with skin lesions as well as systemic findings such as myositis. The cutaneous findings are variable, but pathognomonic findings include Gottron papules of the hands, Gottron’s sign on the elbows, knees, and ankles, and the heliotrope rash of the face. Eighty percent of patients have myopathy presenting as muscle weakness, and commonly have elevated creatine kinase, aspartate transaminase, and alanine transaminase values.⁵ Diagnosis may be confirmed through skin or muscle biopsy, though antibody studies can also play a helpful role in diagnosis. Treatment is generally with oral corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants as well as sun protection.⁶ The rash seen in our patient could have been seen in patients with dermatomyositis, though it was not in the typical location on the knuckles (Gottron papules) as it also affected the lateral sides of the fingers.

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune condition characterized by systemic and cutaneous manifestations. Systemic symptoms may include weight loss, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, or arthritis; patients are at risk of renal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and neurologic complications of SLE.⁷ The most common cutaneous finding is malar rash, though there are myriad dermatologic manifestations that can occur associated with photosensitivity. Diagnosis is made based on history, physical, and laboratory testing. Treatment options include NSAIDs, oral glucocorticoids, antimalarial drugs, and immunosuppressants.⁷ Though our patient exhibited photosensitivity, he had none of the systemic findings associated with SLE, making this diagnosis unlikely.

Matiz_Catalina_SanDiego.jpg

Allergic contact dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, and may present as acute, subacute, or chronic dermatitis. The clinical findings vary based on chronicity. Acute ACD presents as pruritic erythematous papules and vesicles or bullae, similar to how it occurred in our patient, though our patient’s lesions were more tender than pruritic. Chronic ACD presents with erythematous lesions with pruritis, lichenification, scaling, and/or fissuring. Observing shapes or sharp demarcation of lesions may help with diagnosis. Patch testing is also useful in the diagnosis of ACD.

Appiah_Margaret_CALIF_web.jpg

Treatment generally involves avoiding the offending agent with topical corticosteroids for symptom management.⁸

Polymorphous light eruption

Polymorphous light eruption (PLE) is a delayed, type IV hypersensitivity reaction to UV-induced antigens, though these antigens are unknown. PLE presents hours to days following solar or UV exposure and presents only in sun-exposed areas. Itching and burning are always present, but lesion morphology varies from erythema and papules to vesico-papules and blisters. Notably, PLE must be distinguished from drug photosensitivity through history. Treatment generally involves symptom management with topical steroids and sun protective measures for prevention.⁹ While PLE may present similarly to drug photosensitivity reactions, our patient’s use of a known phototoxic agent makes PLE a less likely diagnosis.

Ms. Appiah is a pediatric dermatology research associate and medical student at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Neither Dr. Matiz nor Ms. Appiah has any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Montgomery S et al. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40(1):57-63.

2. Blakely KM et al. Drug Saf. 2019;42(7):827-47.

3. Goetze S et al. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2017;30(2):76-80.

4. Odorici G et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34(4):e14978.

5. DeWane ME et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):267-81.

6. Waldman R et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):283-96.

7. Kiriakidou M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(11):ITC81-ITC96.

8. Nassau S et al. Med Clin North Am. 2020;104(1):61-76.

9. Guarrera M. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;996:61-70.

Photosensitivity due to doxycycline

As the patient’s rash presented in sun-exposed areas with both skin and nail changes, our patient was diagnosed with a phototoxic reaction to doxycycline, the oral antibiotic used to treat his acne.

Photosensitive cutaneous drug eruptions are reactions that occur after exposure to a medication and subsequent exposure to UV radiation or visible light. Reactions can be classified into two ways based on their mechanism of action: phototoxic or photoallergic.¹ Phototoxic reactions are more common and are a result of direct keratinocyte damage and cellular necrosis. Many classes of medications may cause this adverse effect, but the tetracycline class of antibiotics is a common culprit.² Photoallergic reactions are less common and are a result of a type IV immune reaction to the offending agent.¹

157366_photo1_web.jpg

Phototoxic reactions generally present shortly after sun or UV exposure with a photo-distributed eruption pattern.³ Commonly involved areas include the face, the neck, and the extensor surfaces of extremities, with sparing of relatively protected skin such as the upper eyelids and the skin folds.² Erythema may initially develop in the exposed skin areas, followed by appearance of edema, vesicles, or bullae.^1-3 The eruption may be painful and itchy, with some patients reporting severe pain.³

157366_photo2_web.jpg

Doxycycline phototoxicity may also cause onycholysis of the nails.² The reaction is dose dependent, with higher doses of medication leading to a higher likelihood of symptoms.^1,2 It is also more prevalent in patients with Fitzpatrick skin type I and II. The usual UVA wavelength required to induce this reaction appears to be in the 320-400 nm range of the UV spectrum.⁴ By contrast, photoallergic reactions are dose independent, and require a sensitization period prior to the eruption.¹ An eczematous eruption is most commonly seen with photoallergic reactions.³

Treatment of drug-induced photosensitivity reactions requires proper identification of the diagnosis and the offending agent, followed by cessation of the medication. If cessation is not possible, then lowering the dose can help to minimize worsening of the condition. However, for photoallergic reactions, the reaction is dose independent so switching to another tolerated agent is likely required. For persistent symptoms following medication withdrawal, topical or systemic steroids and oral antihistamine can help with symptom management.¹ For patients with photo-onycholysis, treatment involves stopping the medication and waiting for the intact nail plate to grow.

157366_photo3_web.jpg

Dermatomyositis

Dermatomyositis is an autoimmune condition that presents with skin lesions as well as systemic findings such as myositis. The cutaneous findings are variable, but pathognomonic findings include Gottron papules of the hands, Gottron’s sign on the elbows, knees, and ankles, and the heliotrope rash of the face. Eighty percent of patients have myopathy presenting as muscle weakness, and commonly have elevated creatine kinase, aspartate transaminase, and alanine transaminase values.⁵ Diagnosis may be confirmed through skin or muscle biopsy, though antibody studies can also play a helpful role in diagnosis. Treatment is generally with oral corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants as well as sun protection.⁶ The rash seen in our patient could have been seen in patients with dermatomyositis, though it was not in the typical location on the knuckles (Gottron papules) as it also affected the lateral sides of the fingers.

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune condition characterized by systemic and cutaneous manifestations. Systemic symptoms may include weight loss, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, or arthritis; patients are at risk of renal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and neurologic complications of SLE.⁷ The most common cutaneous finding is malar rash, though there are myriad dermatologic manifestations that can occur associated with photosensitivity. Diagnosis is made based on history, physical, and laboratory testing. Treatment options include NSAIDs, oral glucocorticoids, antimalarial drugs, and immunosuppressants.⁷ Though our patient exhibited photosensitivity, he had none of the systemic findings associated with SLE, making this diagnosis unlikely.

Matiz_Catalina_SanDiego.jpg

Allergic contact dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, and may present as acute, subacute, or chronic dermatitis. The clinical findings vary based on chronicity. Acute ACD presents as pruritic erythematous papules and vesicles or bullae, similar to how it occurred in our patient, though our patient’s lesions were more tender than pruritic. Chronic ACD presents with erythematous lesions with pruritis, lichenification, scaling, and/or fissuring. Observing shapes or sharp demarcation of lesions may help with diagnosis. Patch testing is also useful in the diagnosis of ACD.

Appiah_Margaret_CALIF_web.jpg

Treatment generally involves avoiding the offending agent with topical corticosteroids for symptom management.⁸

Polymorphous light eruption

Polymorphous light eruption (PLE) is a delayed, type IV hypersensitivity reaction to UV-induced antigens, though these antigens are unknown. PLE presents hours to days following solar or UV exposure and presents only in sun-exposed areas. Itching and burning are always present, but lesion morphology varies from erythema and papules to vesico-papules and blisters. Notably, PLE must be distinguished from drug photosensitivity through history. Treatment generally involves symptom management with topical steroids and sun protective measures for prevention.⁹ While PLE may present similarly to drug photosensitivity reactions, our patient’s use of a known phototoxic agent makes PLE a less likely diagnosis.

Ms. Appiah is a pediatric dermatology research associate and medical student at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Neither Dr. Matiz nor Ms. Appiah has any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Montgomery S et al. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40(1):57-63.

2. Blakely KM et al. Drug Saf. 2019;42(7):827-47.

3. Goetze S et al. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2017;30(2):76-80.

4. Odorici G et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34(4):e14978.

5. DeWane ME et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):267-81.

6. Waldman R et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):283-96.

7. Kiriakidou M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(11):ITC81-ITC96.

8. Nassau S et al. Med Clin North Am. 2020;104(1):61-76.

9. Guarrera M. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;996:61-70.

Photosensitivity due to doxycycline

As the patient’s rash presented in sun-exposed areas with both skin and nail changes, our patient was diagnosed with a phototoxic reaction to doxycycline, the oral antibiotic used to treat his acne.

Photosensitive cutaneous drug eruptions are reactions that occur after exposure to a medication and subsequent exposure to UV radiation or visible light. Reactions can be classified into two ways based on their mechanism of action: phototoxic or photoallergic.¹ Phototoxic reactions are more common and are a result of direct keratinocyte damage and cellular necrosis. Many classes of medications may cause this adverse effect, but the tetracycline class of antibiotics is a common culprit.² Photoallergic reactions are less common and are a result of a type IV immune reaction to the offending agent.¹

157366_photo1_web.jpg

Phototoxic reactions generally present shortly after sun or UV exposure with a photo-distributed eruption pattern.³ Commonly involved areas include the face, the neck, and the extensor surfaces of extremities, with sparing of relatively protected skin such as the upper eyelids and the skin folds.² Erythema may initially develop in the exposed skin areas, followed by appearance of edema, vesicles, or bullae.^1-3 The eruption may be painful and itchy, with some patients reporting severe pain.³

157366_photo2_web.jpg

Doxycycline phototoxicity may also cause onycholysis of the nails.² The reaction is dose dependent, with higher doses of medication leading to a higher likelihood of symptoms.^1,2 It is also more prevalent in patients with Fitzpatrick skin type I and II. The usual UVA wavelength required to induce this reaction appears to be in the 320-400 nm range of the UV spectrum.⁴ By contrast, photoallergic reactions are dose independent, and require a sensitization period prior to the eruption.¹ An eczematous eruption is most commonly seen with photoallergic reactions.³

Treatment of drug-induced photosensitivity reactions requires proper identification of the diagnosis and the offending agent, followed by cessation of the medication. If cessation is not possible, then lowering the dose can help to minimize worsening of the condition. However, for photoallergic reactions, the reaction is dose independent so switching to another tolerated agent is likely required. For persistent symptoms following medication withdrawal, topical or systemic steroids and oral antihistamine can help with symptom management.¹ For patients with photo-onycholysis, treatment involves stopping the medication and waiting for the intact nail plate to grow.

157366_photo3_web.jpg

Dermatomyositis

Dermatomyositis is an autoimmune condition that presents with skin lesions as well as systemic findings such as myositis. The cutaneous findings are variable, but pathognomonic findings include Gottron papules of the hands, Gottron’s sign on the elbows, knees, and ankles, and the heliotrope rash of the face. Eighty percent of patients have myopathy presenting as muscle weakness, and commonly have elevated creatine kinase, aspartate transaminase, and alanine transaminase values.⁵ Diagnosis may be confirmed through skin or muscle biopsy, though antibody studies can also play a helpful role in diagnosis. Treatment is generally with oral corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants as well as sun protection.⁶ The rash seen in our patient could have been seen in patients with dermatomyositis, though it was not in the typical location on the knuckles (Gottron papules) as it also affected the lateral sides of the fingers.

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune condition characterized by systemic and cutaneous manifestations. Systemic symptoms may include weight loss, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, or arthritis; patients are at risk of renal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and neurologic complications of SLE.⁷ The most common cutaneous finding is malar rash, though there are myriad dermatologic manifestations that can occur associated with photosensitivity. Diagnosis is made based on history, physical, and laboratory testing. Treatment options include NSAIDs, oral glucocorticoids, antimalarial drugs, and immunosuppressants.⁷ Though our patient exhibited photosensitivity, he had none of the systemic findings associated with SLE, making this diagnosis unlikely.

Matiz_Catalina_SanDiego.jpg

Allergic contact dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, and may present as acute, subacute, or chronic dermatitis. The clinical findings vary based on chronicity. Acute ACD presents as pruritic erythematous papules and vesicles or bullae, similar to how it occurred in our patient, though our patient’s lesions were more tender than pruritic. Chronic ACD presents with erythematous lesions with pruritis, lichenification, scaling, and/or fissuring. Observing shapes or sharp demarcation of lesions may help with diagnosis. Patch testing is also useful in the diagnosis of ACD.

Appiah_Margaret_CALIF_web.jpg

Treatment generally involves avoiding the offending agent with topical corticosteroids for symptom management.⁸

Polymorphous light eruption

Polymorphous light eruption (PLE) is a delayed, type IV hypersensitivity reaction to UV-induced antigens, though these antigens are unknown. PLE presents hours to days following solar or UV exposure and presents only in sun-exposed areas. Itching and burning are always present, but lesion morphology varies from erythema and papules to vesico-papules and blisters. Notably, PLE must be distinguished from drug photosensitivity through history. Treatment generally involves symptom management with topical steroids and sun protective measures for prevention.⁹ While PLE may present similarly to drug photosensitivity reactions, our patient’s use of a known phototoxic agent makes PLE a less likely diagnosis.

Ms. Appiah is a pediatric dermatology research associate and medical student at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Neither Dr. Matiz nor Ms. Appiah has any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Montgomery S et al. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40(1):57-63.

2. Blakely KM et al. Drug Saf. 2019;42(7):827-47.

3. Goetze S et al. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2017;30(2):76-80.

4. Odorici G et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34(4):e14978.

5. DeWane ME et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):267-81.

6. Waldman R et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):283-96.

7. Kiriakidou M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(11):ITC81-ITC96.

8. Nassau S et al. Med Clin North Am. 2020;104(1):61-76.

9. Guarrera M. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;996:61-70.

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) is a rare and aggressive lymphoma arising from follicular T-helper cells that predominantly affects older adults and carries a 5-year overall survival rate of 32%.¹ Notably, as many as 50% of AITL patients present with a skin rash in addition to the more common but nonspecific acute-onset generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and anemia.² At presentation, most AITL patients are already at an advanced (III/IV) stage of disease.

Formerly known as angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy with dysproteinemia, AITL was once considered a benign entity that carried a risk for malignant transformation. As more cases have been identified and explored, this entity has been recategorized as a frank lymphoma.³ Therefore, it is critical that AITL be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.

We present the case of a 65-year-old man with clinical features that resembled drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS syndrome). After extensive workup, he was found to have AITL. This atypical case highlights the importance of maintaining a flexible differential diagnosis in patients with a persistent rash that does not improve with appropriate drug withdrawal and therapy.

Case Report

A 65-year-old Filipino man whose medical history was notable for hepatitis B that had been treated with entecavir for years without issue was admitted to the internal medicine service with fever of unknown origin and malaise of approximately 6 weeks’ duration. Six days prior to admission and 5 days after completing courses of the antiviral oseltamivir phosphate and amoxicillin for an upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis, he developed worsening of an intermittently pruritic rash of approximately 1 month's duration. The dermatology department was consulted the day of hospital admission for evaluation of the rash. Chronic home medications included entecavir, lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, atorvastatin, metformin, salsalate, and over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as needed.

Physical examination was notable for mild erythema and scale distributed across the entire face; mild facial edema; and a blanchable, nonconfluent, macular erythema distributed across the trunk and upper and proximal lower extremities (Figure). In addition, the patient displayed conjunctival injection, pitting edema of the hands, and bilateral cervical and inguinal lymphadenopathy.

CT109003029_e_FigAB.JPG

Laboratory tests revealed mild leukocytosis (11.6×10⁹/L, [reference range, 4.0–10.5×10⁹/L]), anemia (hemoglobin, 125 g/L (reference range, 138–170 g/L); hematocrit, 36.9%, [reference range, 40.0%–50.0%)], eosinophilia (1.07×10⁹/L [reference range, 0.00–0.70×10⁹/L)], hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and a mildly elevated creatinine level. Computed tomography and full-body positron-emission tomography (PET) scans during admission demonstrated diffuse lymphadenopathy. A skin biopsy from the left chest and a left inguinal lymph node biopsy also were performed.

Despite the lack of a clear medication trigger within the usual timeline for severe cutaneous drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions, DRESS syndrome was high on the differential diagnosis at the time of the initial presentation given the diffuse morbilliform eruption with pruritus, facial edema, eosinophilia, and lymphadenopathy.

Home medications were discontinued except for amlodipine, atorvastatin, and entecavir. The patient was treated symptomatically with topical steroids because it was believed that, if the clinical presentation represented DRESS syndrome, it was a mild variant that could be treated topically.⁴ His case was considered mild because of a lack of confirmed organ dysfunction and a mild protracted course.

After discharge following a 3-day inpatient stay, the patient was followed in the clinic weekly for 3 weeks without considerable change in the skin or laboratory findings. Discontinuation of entecavir was discussed and approved by his hepatologist.

Posthospitalization analysis of the punch biopsy specimen from the chest performed during the patient’s hospital stay revealed a superficial and deep dermal lymphoid infiltrate comprising CD3-, CD5-, and programmed cell death protein 1–positive cells with cytologic atypia in a perivascular distribution. Analysis of the lymph node biopsy specimen performed during the hospitalization showed effacement of the nodal architecture, a polymorphous lymphoid cell population with irregular nuclear contour, and abundant clear cytoplasm associated with high endothelial venules (HEVs). Cells of interest were positive for CD3, CD4, CD2, CD5, and CD7, with a subset staining positive for programmed cell death protein 1, inducible costimulator, CD10, and chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand (CXCL) 13. CD21 demonstrated an expanded follicular dendritic cell meshwork in association with HEVs. Polymerase chain reaction revealed a clonal T-cell population. These findings of the skin and lymph node biopsies were consistent with AITL. Subsequent bone marrow biopsy with flow cytometry showed a normal CD4:CD8 ratio in T cells and no increase in natural killer cells.

Cyclophosphamide–hydroxydaunorubicin–Oncovin–prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy was initiated; the patient completed a total of 6 cycles. He has had near resolution of the skin findings and is considered in remission based on a PET scan performed approximately 7 months after the initial presentation.

Comment

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma is a rare peripheral T-cell lymphoma, part of a group of aggressive neoplasms that constitute approximately 15% of peripheral T-cell lymphomas and approximately 2% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in adults worldwide.⁵ Cutaneous involvement occurs in approximately half of AITL cases and can be the first manifestation of disease.² Skin findings are largely nonspecific, ranging from simple morbilliform rashes to erythroderma, at times manifesting with purpura.

Given this variability in the presentation of AITL, early diagnosis is challenging in the absence of more specific signs and symptoms.² It can conceivably be mistaken for common entities such as viral exanthems or drug eruptions, depending on the history and context. DRESS syndrome, a T cell-mediated, delayed type-IV hypersensitivity drug reaction can present in a manner highly similar to that of AITL, with cutaneous involvement (diffuse morbilliform rash, fever, facial edema, and generalized lymphadenopathy) and variable systemic involvement. Laboratory findings of eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes, and thrombocytopenia also might be seen in both entities.⁶ Furthermore, the AITL in our patient was accompanied by electrolyte disturbances that were concerning for syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, a rare complication of patients with DRESS syndrome complicated by encephalitis.^7,8

Our patient met 4 RegiSCAR criteria for DRESS syndrome, warranting high clinical suspicion for an offending drug.⁹ DRESS syndrome can be caused by numerous medications—most commonly anticonvulsants, sulfonamides, antibiotics, allopurinol, and NSAIDs. A review of our patient’s medication list identified NSAIDs (including salsalate), entecavir, and amoxicillin, as possible culpable medications. Notably, the only new addition to the patient’s regimen was amoxicillin, which did not fit the typical 2- to 8-week timeline for a DRESS syndrome nidus.¹⁰ Our patient’s fever began well before the antibiotic was initiated, and skin findings appeared within 1 week after the course of amoxicillin was completed. Although there is documented variability in the latency of onset of DRESS syndrome following administration of a culprit medication,¹¹ it is critical to maintain a broad differential diagnosis to allow for further diagnostic information to be obtained, especially when the medication timeline does not align with the clinical presentation.

DRESS syndrome is far more common than AITL. Similarities in their clinical presentation pose a substantial challenge and often cause a delay in the diagnosis of AITL, which is made by excisional tissue biopsy, most commonly of a lymph node, with assessment of morphology and immunophenotyping. Histologic assessment of tissue reveals a polymorphous infiltrate of variably sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent arborizing HEVs as well as expanded populations of follicular dendritic cells that can be detected by CD21 staining. Cells express CD3 and CD4, variably express BCL6 (B-cell lymphoma 6 antigen) and CD10, and also may have partial or complete loss of expression of a subset of pan T-cell antigens (CD2, CD3, CD5, and CD7).^12-18

The treatment approach to AITL mirrors that of other nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas, including chemotherapy and consideration of autologous stem-cell transplantation. Recent prospective trials of CHOP and CHOP-like chemotherapy have reported 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates of 50% and 68%, respectively.¹⁹ Novel chemotherapeutic targets and gene-expression profiling are being investigated as potential therapeutic avenues.²⁰

Conclusion

DRESS syndrome and AITL can have near-identical presentations. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for AITL in patients with presumed DRESS syndrome whose rash does not improve with appropriate drug withdrawal and steroid therapy or who lack a strong offending medication history. In such cases, skin and lymph node biopsies should be performed as early as possible to evaluate for AITL and so that appropriate therapy can be initiated.

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) is a rare and aggressive lymphoma arising from follicular T-helper cells that predominantly affects older adults and carries a 5-year overall survival rate of 32%.¹ Notably, as many as 50% of AITL patients present with a skin rash in addition to the more common but nonspecific acute-onset generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and anemia.² At presentation, most AITL patients are already at an advanced (III/IV) stage of disease.

Formerly known as angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy with dysproteinemia, AITL was once considered a benign entity that carried a risk for malignant transformation. As more cases have been identified and explored, this entity has been recategorized as a frank lymphoma.³ Therefore, it is critical that AITL be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.

We present the case of a 65-year-old man with clinical features that resembled drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS syndrome). After extensive workup, he was found to have AITL. This atypical case highlights the importance of maintaining a flexible differential diagnosis in patients with a persistent rash that does not improve with appropriate drug withdrawal and therapy.

Case Report

A 65-year-old Filipino man whose medical history was notable for hepatitis B that had been treated with entecavir for years without issue was admitted to the internal medicine service with fever of unknown origin and malaise of approximately 6 weeks’ duration. Six days prior to admission and 5 days after completing courses of the antiviral oseltamivir phosphate and amoxicillin for an upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis, he developed worsening of an intermittently pruritic rash of approximately 1 month's duration. The dermatology department was consulted the day of hospital admission for evaluation of the rash. Chronic home medications included entecavir, lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, atorvastatin, metformin, salsalate, and over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as needed.

Physical examination was notable for mild erythema and scale distributed across the entire face; mild facial edema; and a blanchable, nonconfluent, macular erythema distributed across the trunk and upper and proximal lower extremities (Figure). In addition, the patient displayed conjunctival injection, pitting edema of the hands, and bilateral cervical and inguinal lymphadenopathy.

CT109003029_e_FigAB.JPG

Laboratory tests revealed mild leukocytosis (11.6×10⁹/L, [reference range, 4.0–10.5×10⁹/L]), anemia (hemoglobin, 125 g/L (reference range, 138–170 g/L); hematocrit, 36.9%, [reference range, 40.0%–50.0%)], eosinophilia (1.07×10⁹/L [reference range, 0.00–0.70×10⁹/L)], hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and a mildly elevated creatinine level. Computed tomography and full-body positron-emission tomography (PET) scans during admission demonstrated diffuse lymphadenopathy. A skin biopsy from the left chest and a left inguinal lymph node biopsy also were performed.

Despite the lack of a clear medication trigger within the usual timeline for severe cutaneous drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions, DRESS syndrome was high on the differential diagnosis at the time of the initial presentation given the diffuse morbilliform eruption with pruritus, facial edema, eosinophilia, and lymphadenopathy.

Home medications were discontinued except for amlodipine, atorvastatin, and entecavir. The patient was treated symptomatically with topical steroids because it was believed that, if the clinical presentation represented DRESS syndrome, it was a mild variant that could be treated topically.⁴ His case was considered mild because of a lack of confirmed organ dysfunction and a mild protracted course.

After discharge following a 3-day inpatient stay, the patient was followed in the clinic weekly for 3 weeks without considerable change in the skin or laboratory findings. Discontinuation of entecavir was discussed and approved by his hepatologist.

Posthospitalization analysis of the punch biopsy specimen from the chest performed during the patient’s hospital stay revealed a superficial and deep dermal lymphoid infiltrate comprising CD3-, CD5-, and programmed cell death protein 1–positive cells with cytologic atypia in a perivascular distribution. Analysis of the lymph node biopsy specimen performed during the hospitalization showed effacement of the nodal architecture, a polymorphous lymphoid cell population with irregular nuclear contour, and abundant clear cytoplasm associated with high endothelial venules (HEVs). Cells of interest were positive for CD3, CD4, CD2, CD5, and CD7, with a subset staining positive for programmed cell death protein 1, inducible costimulator, CD10, and chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand (CXCL) 13. CD21 demonstrated an expanded follicular dendritic cell meshwork in association with HEVs. Polymerase chain reaction revealed a clonal T-cell population. These findings of the skin and lymph node biopsies were consistent with AITL. Subsequent bone marrow biopsy with flow cytometry showed a normal CD4:CD8 ratio in T cells and no increase in natural killer cells.

Cyclophosphamide–hydroxydaunorubicin–Oncovin–prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy was initiated; the patient completed a total of 6 cycles. He has had near resolution of the skin findings and is considered in remission based on a PET scan performed approximately 7 months after the initial presentation.

Comment

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma is a rare peripheral T-cell lymphoma, part of a group of aggressive neoplasms that constitute approximately 15% of peripheral T-cell lymphomas and approximately 2% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in adults worldwide.⁵ Cutaneous involvement occurs in approximately half of AITL cases and can be the first manifestation of disease.² Skin findings are largely nonspecific, ranging from simple morbilliform rashes to erythroderma, at times manifesting with purpura.

Given this variability in the presentation of AITL, early diagnosis is challenging in the absence of more specific signs and symptoms.² It can conceivably be mistaken for common entities such as viral exanthems or drug eruptions, depending on the history and context. DRESS syndrome, a T cell-mediated, delayed type-IV hypersensitivity drug reaction can present in a manner highly similar to that of AITL, with cutaneous involvement (diffuse morbilliform rash, fever, facial edema, and generalized lymphadenopathy) and variable systemic involvement. Laboratory findings of eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes, and thrombocytopenia also might be seen in both entities.⁶ Furthermore, the AITL in our patient was accompanied by electrolyte disturbances that were concerning for syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, a rare complication of patients with DRESS syndrome complicated by encephalitis.^7,8

Our patient met 4 RegiSCAR criteria for DRESS syndrome, warranting high clinical suspicion for an offending drug.⁹ DRESS syndrome can be caused by numerous medications—most commonly anticonvulsants, sulfonamides, antibiotics, allopurinol, and NSAIDs. A review of our patient’s medication list identified NSAIDs (including salsalate), entecavir, and amoxicillin, as possible culpable medications. Notably, the only new addition to the patient’s regimen was amoxicillin, which did not fit the typical 2- to 8-week timeline for a DRESS syndrome nidus.¹⁰ Our patient’s fever began well before the antibiotic was initiated, and skin findings appeared within 1 week after the course of amoxicillin was completed. Although there is documented variability in the latency of onset of DRESS syndrome following administration of a culprit medication,¹¹ it is critical to maintain a broad differential diagnosis to allow for further diagnostic information to be obtained, especially when the medication timeline does not align with the clinical presentation.

DRESS syndrome is far more common than AITL. Similarities in their clinical presentation pose a substantial challenge and often cause a delay in the diagnosis of AITL, which is made by excisional tissue biopsy, most commonly of a lymph node, with assessment of morphology and immunophenotyping. Histologic assessment of tissue reveals a polymorphous infiltrate of variably sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent arborizing HEVs as well as expanded populations of follicular dendritic cells that can be detected by CD21 staining. Cells express CD3 and CD4, variably express BCL6 (B-cell lymphoma 6 antigen) and CD10, and also may have partial or complete loss of expression of a subset of pan T-cell antigens (CD2, CD3, CD5, and CD7).^12-18

The treatment approach to AITL mirrors that of other nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas, including chemotherapy and consideration of autologous stem-cell transplantation. Recent prospective trials of CHOP and CHOP-like chemotherapy have reported 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates of 50% and 68%, respectively.¹⁹ Novel chemotherapeutic targets and gene-expression profiling are being investigated as potential therapeutic avenues.²⁰

Conclusion

DRESS syndrome and AITL can have near-identical presentations. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for AITL in patients with presumed DRESS syndrome whose rash does not improve with appropriate drug withdrawal and steroid therapy or who lack a strong offending medication history. In such cases, skin and lymph node biopsies should be performed as early as possible to evaluate for AITL and so that appropriate therapy can be initiated.

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) is a rare and aggressive lymphoma arising from follicular T-helper cells that predominantly affects older adults and carries a 5-year overall survival rate of 32%.¹ Notably, as many as 50% of AITL patients present with a skin rash in addition to the more common but nonspecific acute-onset generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and anemia.² At presentation, most AITL patients are already at an advanced (III/IV) stage of disease.

Formerly known as angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy with dysproteinemia, AITL was once considered a benign entity that carried a risk for malignant transformation. As more cases have been identified and explored, this entity has been recategorized as a frank lymphoma.³ Therefore, it is critical that AITL be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.

We present the case of a 65-year-old man with clinical features that resembled drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS syndrome). After extensive workup, he was found to have AITL. This atypical case highlights the importance of maintaining a flexible differential diagnosis in patients with a persistent rash that does not improve with appropriate drug withdrawal and therapy.

Case Report

A 65-year-old Filipino man whose medical history was notable for hepatitis B that had been treated with entecavir for years without issue was admitted to the internal medicine service with fever of unknown origin and malaise of approximately 6 weeks’ duration. Six days prior to admission and 5 days after completing courses of the antiviral oseltamivir phosphate and amoxicillin for an upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis, he developed worsening of an intermittently pruritic rash of approximately 1 month's duration. The dermatology department was consulted the day of hospital admission for evaluation of the rash. Chronic home medications included entecavir, lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, atorvastatin, metformin, salsalate, and over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as needed.

Physical examination was notable for mild erythema and scale distributed across the entire face; mild facial edema; and a blanchable, nonconfluent, macular erythema distributed across the trunk and upper and proximal lower extremities (Figure). In addition, the patient displayed conjunctival injection, pitting edema of the hands, and bilateral cervical and inguinal lymphadenopathy.

CT109003029_e_FigAB.JPG

Laboratory tests revealed mild leukocytosis (11.6×10⁹/L, [reference range, 4.0–10.5×10⁹/L]), anemia (hemoglobin, 125 g/L (reference range, 138–170 g/L); hematocrit, 36.9%, [reference range, 40.0%–50.0%)], eosinophilia (1.07×10⁹/L [reference range, 0.00–0.70×10⁹/L)], hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and a mildly elevated creatinine level. Computed tomography and full-body positron-emission tomography (PET) scans during admission demonstrated diffuse lymphadenopathy. A skin biopsy from the left chest and a left inguinal lymph node biopsy also were performed.

Despite the lack of a clear medication trigger within the usual timeline for severe cutaneous drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions, DRESS syndrome was high on the differential diagnosis at the time of the initial presentation given the diffuse morbilliform eruption with pruritus, facial edema, eosinophilia, and lymphadenopathy.

Home medications were discontinued except for amlodipine, atorvastatin, and entecavir. The patient was treated symptomatically with topical steroids because it was believed that, if the clinical presentation represented DRESS syndrome, it was a mild variant that could be treated topically.⁴ His case was considered mild because of a lack of confirmed organ dysfunction and a mild protracted course.

After discharge following a 3-day inpatient stay, the patient was followed in the clinic weekly for 3 weeks without considerable change in the skin or laboratory findings. Discontinuation of entecavir was discussed and approved by his hepatologist.

Posthospitalization analysis of the punch biopsy specimen from the chest performed during the patient’s hospital stay revealed a superficial and deep dermal lymphoid infiltrate comprising CD3-, CD5-, and programmed cell death protein 1–positive cells with cytologic atypia in a perivascular distribution. Analysis of the lymph node biopsy specimen performed during the hospitalization showed effacement of the nodal architecture, a polymorphous lymphoid cell population with irregular nuclear contour, and abundant clear cytoplasm associated with high endothelial venules (HEVs). Cells of interest were positive for CD3, CD4, CD2, CD5, and CD7, with a subset staining positive for programmed cell death protein 1, inducible costimulator, CD10, and chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand (CXCL) 13. CD21 demonstrated an expanded follicular dendritic cell meshwork in association with HEVs. Polymerase chain reaction revealed a clonal T-cell population. These findings of the skin and lymph node biopsies were consistent with AITL. Subsequent bone marrow biopsy with flow cytometry showed a normal CD4:CD8 ratio in T cells and no increase in natural killer cells.

Cyclophosphamide–hydroxydaunorubicin–Oncovin–prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy was initiated; the patient completed a total of 6 cycles. He has had near resolution of the skin findings and is considered in remission based on a PET scan performed approximately 7 months after the initial presentation.

Comment

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma is a rare peripheral T-cell lymphoma, part of a group of aggressive neoplasms that constitute approximately 15% of peripheral T-cell lymphomas and approximately 2% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in adults worldwide.⁵ Cutaneous involvement occurs in approximately half of AITL cases and can be the first manifestation of disease.² Skin findings are largely nonspecific, ranging from simple morbilliform rashes to erythroderma, at times manifesting with purpura.

Given this variability in the presentation of AITL, early diagnosis is challenging in the absence of more specific signs and symptoms.² It can conceivably be mistaken for common entities such as viral exanthems or drug eruptions, depending on the history and context. DRESS syndrome, a T cell-mediated, delayed type-IV hypersensitivity drug reaction can present in a manner highly similar to that of AITL, with cutaneous involvement (diffuse morbilliform rash, fever, facial edema, and generalized lymphadenopathy) and variable systemic involvement. Laboratory findings of eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes, and thrombocytopenia also might be seen in both entities.⁶ Furthermore, the AITL in our patient was accompanied by electrolyte disturbances that were concerning for syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, a rare complication of patients with DRESS syndrome complicated by encephalitis.^7,8

Our patient met 4 RegiSCAR criteria for DRESS syndrome, warranting high clinical suspicion for an offending drug.⁹ DRESS syndrome can be caused by numerous medications—most commonly anticonvulsants, sulfonamides, antibiotics, allopurinol, and NSAIDs. A review of our patient’s medication list identified NSAIDs (including salsalate), entecavir, and amoxicillin, as possible culpable medications. Notably, the only new addition to the patient’s regimen was amoxicillin, which did not fit the typical 2- to 8-week timeline for a DRESS syndrome nidus.¹⁰ Our patient’s fever began well before the antibiotic was initiated, and skin findings appeared within 1 week after the course of amoxicillin was completed. Although there is documented variability in the latency of onset of DRESS syndrome following administration of a culprit medication,¹¹ it is critical to maintain a broad differential diagnosis to allow for further diagnostic information to be obtained, especially when the medication timeline does not align with the clinical presentation.

DRESS syndrome is far more common than AITL. Similarities in their clinical presentation pose a substantial challenge and often cause a delay in the diagnosis of AITL, which is made by excisional tissue biopsy, most commonly of a lymph node, with assessment of morphology and immunophenotyping. Histologic assessment of tissue reveals a polymorphous infiltrate of variably sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent arborizing HEVs as well as expanded populations of follicular dendritic cells that can be detected by CD21 staining. Cells express CD3 and CD4, variably express BCL6 (B-cell lymphoma 6 antigen) and CD10, and also may have partial or complete loss of expression of a subset of pan T-cell antigens (CD2, CD3, CD5, and CD7).^12-18

The treatment approach to AITL mirrors that of other nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas, including chemotherapy and consideration of autologous stem-cell transplantation. Recent prospective trials of CHOP and CHOP-like chemotherapy have reported 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates of 50% and 68%, respectively.¹⁹ Novel chemotherapeutic targets and gene-expression profiling are being investigated as potential therapeutic avenues.²⁰

Conclusion

DRESS syndrome and AITL can have near-identical presentations. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for AITL in patients with presumed DRESS syndrome whose rash does not improve with appropriate drug withdrawal and steroid therapy or who lack a strong offending medication history. In such cases, skin and lymph node biopsies should be performed as early as possible to evaluate for AITL and so that appropriate therapy can be initiated.

Incidence and Characteristics

Mosquitoes are insects categorized into the order of Diptera and family of Culicidae, and more than 3500 different species have been identified.¹ In the United States, the most common genus of mosquitoes is Aedes, with other common genera including Culex, Anopheles, Culiseta, and Coquillettidia. Most bites are performed by female rather than male mosquitoes, as it serves to complete their life cycle (Figure 1).¹

Andrews_1.JPG

There are a variety of possible reactions to mosquito bites. Severe local reactions that are large (papules >30 mm in diameter) or are accompanied by systemic manifestations are referred to as hypersensitivity to mosquito bites (HMB).² These hypersensitivity reactions vary according to multiple factors, including comorbid conditions, genetic predisposition, and geographic location. The majority of the world’s population will exhibit local reactions to mosquito bites at some point during life, with the median age of onset of the first bite at 2 years of age.³ In a study by Arias-Cruz et al,⁴ the incidence of patient-reported large local reactions was 2.5%. Hypersensitivity to mosquito bites, perhaps the most rare reaction, is more common among Asian and Central American children.⁵ The median age of diagnosis for HMB is 7 years, and most reactions occur during the first 2 decades of life.^6,7

Clinical Presentation

Mosquitoes bite vertebrates in an attempt to feed and thus must locate the host’s blood vessels through a process known as probing, which often necessitates changing the bite site several times. Once the vessel is located and lacerated, the mosquito feeds either from the vessel directly or the hematoma around it. Not only does the bite cause trauma to the skin, but a cutaneous reaction also may occur in response to salivary gland secretions that concurrently are deposited in the host tissue.⁸ Mosquitoes’ salivary gland components are the primary cause of cutaneous reactions, as one study showed that bites from mosquitoes lacking salivary gland ducts were not associated with these reactions.⁹ Mosquito saliva contains a large number of compounds with biologic activities, including lysozymes, antibacterial glucosidases, anticoagulants, antiplatelet aggregating factors, and vasodilators, as well as a potentially large number of unknown allergenic proteins. As of 2016, 70 mosquito-derived allergens have been identified, but this number continues to grow.² After a bite from a mosquito, these compounds may result in host sensitization over time, though interestingly, sensitization to mosquito bites from a species different from the original offender does not occur due to lack of cross-reactivity between species.¹ 

Because mosquitoes reproduce by laying their eggs directly on or near water, people who live near bodies of water or wetlands are at the highest risk for mosquito bites. Patient factors that have been found to lead to increased rates of mosquito bites include lower microbial diversity on the skin, the presence of sweat or body odor, pregnancy, increased body temperature, type O blood, dark clothing, and perfumes.² Exaggerated bite reactions are associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and hematologic malignancies.¹⁰ 

Immediate hypersensitivity is mediated by a specific IgE antibody and is characterized by erythema and a wheal at the bite site that peaks within minutes of the bite. In contrast, delayed hypersensitivity is lymphocyte mediated; occurs 24 hours after the bite; and causes an indurated, pruritic, and erythematous 2- to 10-mm papule that may blister.¹¹ Although the evidence of immediate hypersensitivity disappears within hours, symptoms of delayed hypersensitivity may last days to weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include local swelling, pain, and warmth. The itch that often is experienced in conjunction with erythema and papule formation is elicited in 3 main ways: direct induction utilizing classic pruritic pathways, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to salivary components, and IgE-independent host immune response to salivary antigens. Papular urticaria is a common additional finding in children with mosquito bites.¹ As an individual is repeatedly bitten, they may undergo 5 stages of sensitization: stage I (neither immediate nor delayed reaction), stage II (delayed reaction), stage III (immediate and delayed reaction), stage IV (immediate reaction), and stage V (neither immediate or delayed reaction).¹¹

Although most mosquito bites cause common local reactions, patients rarely demonstrate systemic reactions that can be much more severe. Skeeter syndrome is a milder systemic response characterized by large local reactions (papules >30 mm in diameter) developing hours after a bite with accompanying fever.¹² The reaction typically peaks over days to weeks.² Although the reaction may resemble cellulitis clinically, a history of a preceding mosquito bite can help make the distinction.¹³ 

A more severe systemic reaction is HMB, which is characterized by intense local skin findings as well as generalized systemic symptoms. Initially, indurated, clear, or hemorrhagic bullae appear at the bite site (Figure 2). Later, there is progression to swelling, necrosis, and ulceration.¹⁰ Biopsies from the skin lesions associated with HMB reveal necrosis, interstitial and perivascular eosinophilic and lymphocytic infiltrates, and small vessels with fibrinoid necrosis.⁷ Systemically, high fever, general malaise, liver dysfunction, proteinuria, hematuria, hepatosplenomegaly, and lymph node enlargement may occur. Patients typically experience these severe symptoms each time they are bitten.¹⁰

CT109003126_Fig2_AB.JPG

The mechanism of the HMB reaction is complex but has a close association with natural killer (NK) cell lymphoproliferative disorder and EBV infection (Figure 3). In fact, it is not uncommon for HMB patients to develop malignant lymphomas during their clinical course, even those unrelated to EBV.¹⁴ Epstein-Barr virus, one of the human herpesviruses, produces latent infection in NK cells. It is hypothesized that after a mosquito bite, EBV may be reactivated within these cells by induced expression of the viral lytic-cycle transactivator gene BamHI Z fragment leftward open reading frame 1, BZLF1.⁶ In response to mosquito salivary gland components, CD4⁺ T cells proliferate and induce expression of the EBV oncogene latent membrane protein 1, LMP1, on NK cells, which then infiltrate the bite site.¹⁵ These EBV-infected NK cells also overexpress the Fas ligand, thus contributing to organ and tissue damage.⁶ In addition to activating oncogene expression on NK cells, T cells also activate the basophils and mast cells carrying mosquito-specific IgE, both of which also add to the severe skin reaction of HMB.¹⁵ The particular triad of HMB, chronic active EBV infection, and NK cell lymphoproliferative disorder commonly is known as HMB-EBV-NK or HEN disease.¹ Patients with HMB should be monitored for malignancy. The mortality of HMB is increased in patients in whom onset occurs when they are older than 9 years and with BZLF1 messenger RNA in skin lesions.⁶ 

Andrews_3.JPG

Other rare reactions to mosquito bites include Wells syndrome, anaphylaxis, and superficial lymphangitis. Wells syndrome (also known as eosinophilic cellulitis) is characterized by erythematous or violaceous plaques and pruritic blisters. Although its etiology has not been defined, it is thought to be evoked or exacerbated by insect bites, with CD4⁺ T cells playing a primary role.¹ Anaphylaxis (angioedema, urticaria, and wheezing) rarely may occur due to mosquito salivary gland components but typically is caused by other stinging insects. Superficial lymphangitis, often misdiagnosed as an infection of the lymphatic system, presents within minutes as nontender pink streaks originating from the bite site. A biopsy with eosinophil and mast cell infiltrates consistent with an allergic-type reaction confirms the absence of infection. Patients respond well to glucocorticoid treatment.

Mosquitoes are vectors for many blood-borne diseases, including dengue hemorrhagic fever, malaria, Chikungunya virus, La Crosse encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis, West Nile virus, and yellow fever.¹⁶ Additionally, scratching the bites may lead to superinfection and scarring.¹

Prevention and Treatment

Patients with known mosquito sensitivity should avoid areas of stagnant water and utilize preventative measures such as wearing protective clothing and using mosquito repellent containing DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate), picaridin, or 2-undecanone (methyl nonyl ketone or IBI-246) when outdoors. Essential oils such as lemon, eucalyptus, citronella, and garlic are somewhat effective.¹ Additionally, prophylactic dosing of antihistamines may prevent milder reactions.

Although often supportive, treatment and management of mosquito bites depends on the extent of the reaction. For common local reactions, symptomatic management with topical anesthetics, calamine lotion, or corticosteroid creams is appropriate. If superinfection from scratching is a concern, antibiotics may be appropriate.

Management of more severe and systemic reactions such as HMB also is supportive, and the addition of oral corticosteroids to decrease inflammation is required.⁷ Severe HMB also has been treated with immunosuppressive and anticancer drugs, though the efficacy is limited. Venom immunotherapy is a preventative option for patients with mosquito-specific IgE antibodies, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant may be required in patients with HMB.^14,16

Conclusion

Mosquito allergens can cause a variety of reactions, ranging from those limited to the skin to those characterized by severe systemic effects. Although common local reactions can be symptomatically treated with topical medication, more severe reactions such as HMB require more involved clinical management. Hypersensitivity to mosquito bites is an important condition to recognize, as it is related to multiple organ impairment as well as later development of malignancy. Patients should be closely monitored during the entire clinical course and in the years following.

Incidence and Characteristics

Mosquitoes are insects categorized into the order of Diptera and family of Culicidae, and more than 3500 different species have been identified.¹ In the United States, the most common genus of mosquitoes is Aedes, with other common genera including Culex, Anopheles, Culiseta, and Coquillettidia. Most bites are performed by female rather than male mosquitoes, as it serves to complete their life cycle (Figure 1).¹

Andrews_1.JPG

There are a variety of possible reactions to mosquito bites. Severe local reactions that are large (papules >30 mm in diameter) or are accompanied by systemic manifestations are referred to as hypersensitivity to mosquito bites (HMB).² These hypersensitivity reactions vary according to multiple factors, including comorbid conditions, genetic predisposition, and geographic location. The majority of the world’s population will exhibit local reactions to mosquito bites at some point during life, with the median age of onset of the first bite at 2 years of age.³ In a study by Arias-Cruz et al,⁴ the incidence of patient-reported large local reactions was 2.5%. Hypersensitivity to mosquito bites, perhaps the most rare reaction, is more common among Asian and Central American children.⁵ The median age of diagnosis for HMB is 7 years, and most reactions occur during the first 2 decades of life.^6,7

Clinical Presentation

Mosquitoes bite vertebrates in an attempt to feed and thus must locate the host’s blood vessels through a process known as probing, which often necessitates changing the bite site several times. Once the vessel is located and lacerated, the mosquito feeds either from the vessel directly or the hematoma around it. Not only does the bite cause trauma to the skin, but a cutaneous reaction also may occur in response to salivary gland secretions that concurrently are deposited in the host tissue.⁸ Mosquitoes’ salivary gland components are the primary cause of cutaneous reactions, as one study showed that bites from mosquitoes lacking salivary gland ducts were not associated with these reactions.⁹ Mosquito saliva contains a large number of compounds with biologic activities, including lysozymes, antibacterial glucosidases, anticoagulants, antiplatelet aggregating factors, and vasodilators, as well as a potentially large number of unknown allergenic proteins. As of 2016, 70 mosquito-derived allergens have been identified, but this number continues to grow.² After a bite from a mosquito, these compounds may result in host sensitization over time, though interestingly, sensitization to mosquito bites from a species different from the original offender does not occur due to lack of cross-reactivity between species.¹ 

Because mosquitoes reproduce by laying their eggs directly on or near water, people who live near bodies of water or wetlands are at the highest risk for mosquito bites. Patient factors that have been found to lead to increased rates of mosquito bites include lower microbial diversity on the skin, the presence of sweat or body odor, pregnancy, increased body temperature, type O blood, dark clothing, and perfumes.² Exaggerated bite reactions are associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and hematologic malignancies.¹⁰ 

Immediate hypersensitivity is mediated by a specific IgE antibody and is characterized by erythema and a wheal at the bite site that peaks within minutes of the bite. In contrast, delayed hypersensitivity is lymphocyte mediated; occurs 24 hours after the bite; and causes an indurated, pruritic, and erythematous 2- to 10-mm papule that may blister.¹¹ Although the evidence of immediate hypersensitivity disappears within hours, symptoms of delayed hypersensitivity may last days to weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include local swelling, pain, and warmth. The itch that often is experienced in conjunction with erythema and papule formation is elicited in 3 main ways: direct induction utilizing classic pruritic pathways, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to salivary components, and IgE-independent host immune response to salivary antigens. Papular urticaria is a common additional finding in children with mosquito bites.¹ As an individual is repeatedly bitten, they may undergo 5 stages of sensitization: stage I (neither immediate nor delayed reaction), stage II (delayed reaction), stage III (immediate and delayed reaction), stage IV (immediate reaction), and stage V (neither immediate or delayed reaction).¹¹

Although most mosquito bites cause common local reactions, patients rarely demonstrate systemic reactions that can be much more severe. Skeeter syndrome is a milder systemic response characterized by large local reactions (papules >30 mm in diameter) developing hours after a bite with accompanying fever.¹² The reaction typically peaks over days to weeks.² Although the reaction may resemble cellulitis clinically, a history of a preceding mosquito bite can help make the distinction.¹³ 

A more severe systemic reaction is HMB, which is characterized by intense local skin findings as well as generalized systemic symptoms. Initially, indurated, clear, or hemorrhagic bullae appear at the bite site (Figure 2). Later, there is progression to swelling, necrosis, and ulceration.¹⁰ Biopsies from the skin lesions associated with HMB reveal necrosis, interstitial and perivascular eosinophilic and lymphocytic infiltrates, and small vessels with fibrinoid necrosis.⁷ Systemically, high fever, general malaise, liver dysfunction, proteinuria, hematuria, hepatosplenomegaly, and lymph node enlargement may occur. Patients typically experience these severe symptoms each time they are bitten.¹⁰

CT109003126_Fig2_AB.JPG

The mechanism of the HMB reaction is complex but has a close association with natural killer (NK) cell lymphoproliferative disorder and EBV infection (Figure 3). In fact, it is not uncommon for HMB patients to develop malignant lymphomas during their clinical course, even those unrelated to EBV.¹⁴ Epstein-Barr virus, one of the human herpesviruses, produces latent infection in NK cells. It is hypothesized that after a mosquito bite, EBV may be reactivated within these cells by induced expression of the viral lytic-cycle transactivator gene BamHI Z fragment leftward open reading frame 1, BZLF1.⁶ In response to mosquito salivary gland components, CD4⁺ T cells proliferate and induce expression of the EBV oncogene latent membrane protein 1, LMP1, on NK cells, which then infiltrate the bite site.¹⁵ These EBV-infected NK cells also overexpress the Fas ligand, thus contributing to organ and tissue damage.⁶ In addition to activating oncogene expression on NK cells, T cells also activate the basophils and mast cells carrying mosquito-specific IgE, both of which also add to the severe skin reaction of HMB.¹⁵ The particular triad of HMB, chronic active EBV infection, and NK cell lymphoproliferative disorder commonly is known as HMB-EBV-NK or HEN disease.¹ Patients with HMB should be monitored for malignancy. The mortality of HMB is increased in patients in whom onset occurs when they are older than 9 years and with BZLF1 messenger RNA in skin lesions.⁶ 

Andrews_3.JPG

Other rare reactions to mosquito bites include Wells syndrome, anaphylaxis, and superficial lymphangitis. Wells syndrome (also known as eosinophilic cellulitis) is characterized by erythematous or violaceous plaques and pruritic blisters. Although its etiology has not been defined, it is thought to be evoked or exacerbated by insect bites, with CD4⁺ T cells playing a primary role.¹ Anaphylaxis (angioedema, urticaria, and wheezing) rarely may occur due to mosquito salivary gland components but typically is caused by other stinging insects. Superficial lymphangitis, often misdiagnosed as an infection of the lymphatic system, presents within minutes as nontender pink streaks originating from the bite site. A biopsy with eosinophil and mast cell infiltrates consistent with an allergic-type reaction confirms the absence of infection. Patients respond well to glucocorticoid treatment.

Mosquitoes are vectors for many blood-borne diseases, including dengue hemorrhagic fever, malaria, Chikungunya virus, La Crosse encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis, West Nile virus, and yellow fever.¹⁶ Additionally, scratching the bites may lead to superinfection and scarring.¹

Prevention and Treatment

Patients with known mosquito sensitivity should avoid areas of stagnant water and utilize preventative measures such as wearing protective clothing and using mosquito repellent containing DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate), picaridin, or 2-undecanone (methyl nonyl ketone or IBI-246) when outdoors. Essential oils such as lemon, eucalyptus, citronella, and garlic are somewhat effective.¹ Additionally, prophylactic dosing of antihistamines may prevent milder reactions.

Although often supportive, treatment and management of mosquito bites depends on the extent of the reaction. For common local reactions, symptomatic management with topical anesthetics, calamine lotion, or corticosteroid creams is appropriate. If superinfection from scratching is a concern, antibiotics may be appropriate.

Management of more severe and systemic reactions such as HMB also is supportive, and the addition of oral corticosteroids to decrease inflammation is required.⁷ Severe HMB also has been treated with immunosuppressive and anticancer drugs, though the efficacy is limited. Venom immunotherapy is a preventative option for patients with mosquito-specific IgE antibodies, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant may be required in patients with HMB.^14,16

Conclusion

Mosquito allergens can cause a variety of reactions, ranging from those limited to the skin to those characterized by severe systemic effects. Although common local reactions can be symptomatically treated with topical medication, more severe reactions such as HMB require more involved clinical management. Hypersensitivity to mosquito bites is an important condition to recognize, as it is related to multiple organ impairment as well as later development of malignancy. Patients should be closely monitored during the entire clinical course and in the years following.

Incidence and Characteristics

Mosquitoes are insects categorized into the order of Diptera and family of Culicidae, and more than 3500 different species have been identified.¹ In the United States, the most common genus of mosquitoes is Aedes, with other common genera including Culex, Anopheles, Culiseta, and Coquillettidia. Most bites are performed by female rather than male mosquitoes, as it serves to complete their life cycle (Figure 1).¹

Andrews_1.JPG

There are a variety of possible reactions to mosquito bites. Severe local reactions that are large (papules >30 mm in diameter) or are accompanied by systemic manifestations are referred to as hypersensitivity to mosquito bites (HMB).² These hypersensitivity reactions vary according to multiple factors, including comorbid conditions, genetic predisposition, and geographic location. The majority of the world’s population will exhibit local reactions to mosquito bites at some point during life, with the median age of onset of the first bite at 2 years of age.³ In a study by Arias-Cruz et al,⁴ the incidence of patient-reported large local reactions was 2.5%. Hypersensitivity to mosquito bites, perhaps the most rare reaction, is more common among Asian and Central American children.⁵ The median age of diagnosis for HMB is 7 years, and most reactions occur during the first 2 decades of life.^6,7

Clinical Presentation

Mosquitoes bite vertebrates in an attempt to feed and thus must locate the host’s blood vessels through a process known as probing, which often necessitates changing the bite site several times. Once the vessel is located and lacerated, the mosquito feeds either from the vessel directly or the hematoma around it. Not only does the bite cause trauma to the skin, but a cutaneous reaction also may occur in response to salivary gland secretions that concurrently are deposited in the host tissue.⁸ Mosquitoes’ salivary gland components are the primary cause of cutaneous reactions, as one study showed that bites from mosquitoes lacking salivary gland ducts were not associated with these reactions.⁹ Mosquito saliva contains a large number of compounds with biologic activities, including lysozymes, antibacterial glucosidases, anticoagulants, antiplatelet aggregating factors, and vasodilators, as well as a potentially large number of unknown allergenic proteins. As of 2016, 70 mosquito-derived allergens have been identified, but this number continues to grow.² After a bite from a mosquito, these compounds may result in host sensitization over time, though interestingly, sensitization to mosquito bites from a species different from the original offender does not occur due to lack of cross-reactivity between species.¹ 

Because mosquitoes reproduce by laying their eggs directly on or near water, people who live near bodies of water or wetlands are at the highest risk for mosquito bites. Patient factors that have been found to lead to increased rates of mosquito bites include lower microbial diversity on the skin, the presence of sweat or body odor, pregnancy, increased body temperature, type O blood, dark clothing, and perfumes.² Exaggerated bite reactions are associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and hematologic malignancies.¹⁰ 

Immediate hypersensitivity is mediated by a specific IgE antibody and is characterized by erythema and a wheal at the bite site that peaks within minutes of the bite. In contrast, delayed hypersensitivity is lymphocyte mediated; occurs 24 hours after the bite; and causes an indurated, pruritic, and erythematous 2- to 10-mm papule that may blister.¹¹ Although the evidence of immediate hypersensitivity disappears within hours, symptoms of delayed hypersensitivity may last days to weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include local swelling, pain, and warmth. The itch that often is experienced in conjunction with erythema and papule formation is elicited in 3 main ways: direct induction utilizing classic pruritic pathways, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to salivary components, and IgE-independent host immune response to salivary antigens. Papular urticaria is a common additional finding in children with mosquito bites.¹ As an individual is repeatedly bitten, they may undergo 5 stages of sensitization: stage I (neither immediate nor delayed reaction), stage II (delayed reaction), stage III (immediate and delayed reaction), stage IV (immediate reaction), and stage V (neither immediate or delayed reaction).¹¹

Although most mosquito bites cause common local reactions, patients rarely demonstrate systemic reactions that can be much more severe. Skeeter syndrome is a milder systemic response characterized by large local reactions (papules >30 mm in diameter) developing hours after a bite with accompanying fever.¹² The reaction typically peaks over days to weeks.² Although the reaction may resemble cellulitis clinically, a history of a preceding mosquito bite can help make the distinction.¹³ 

A more severe systemic reaction is HMB, which is characterized by intense local skin findings as well as generalized systemic symptoms. Initially, indurated, clear, or hemorrhagic bullae appear at the bite site (Figure 2). Later, there is progression to swelling, necrosis, and ulceration.¹⁰ Biopsies from the skin lesions associated with HMB reveal necrosis, interstitial and perivascular eosinophilic and lymphocytic infiltrates, and small vessels with fibrinoid necrosis.⁷ Systemically, high fever, general malaise, liver dysfunction, proteinuria, hematuria, hepatosplenomegaly, and lymph node enlargement may occur. Patients typically experience these severe symptoms each time they are bitten.¹⁰

CT109003126_Fig2_AB.JPG

The mechanism of the HMB reaction is complex but has a close association with natural killer (NK) cell lymphoproliferative disorder and EBV infection (Figure 3). In fact, it is not uncommon for HMB patients to develop malignant lymphomas during their clinical course, even those unrelated to EBV.¹⁴ Epstein-Barr virus, one of the human herpesviruses, produces latent infection in NK cells. It is hypothesized that after a mosquito bite, EBV may be reactivated within these cells by induced expression of the viral lytic-cycle transactivator gene BamHI Z fragment leftward open reading frame 1, BZLF1.⁶ In response to mosquito salivary gland components, CD4⁺ T cells proliferate and induce expression of the EBV oncogene latent membrane protein 1, LMP1, on NK cells, which then infiltrate the bite site.¹⁵ These EBV-infected NK cells also overexpress the Fas ligand, thus contributing to organ and tissue damage.⁶ In addition to activating oncogene expression on NK cells, T cells also activate the basophils and mast cells carrying mosquito-specific IgE, both of which also add to the severe skin reaction of HMB.¹⁵ The particular triad of HMB, chronic active EBV infection, and NK cell lymphoproliferative disorder commonly is known as HMB-EBV-NK or HEN disease.¹ Patients with HMB should be monitored for malignancy. The mortality of HMB is increased in patients in whom onset occurs when they are older than 9 years and with BZLF1 messenger RNA in skin lesions.⁶ 

Andrews_3.JPG

Other rare reactions to mosquito bites include Wells syndrome, anaphylaxis, and superficial lymphangitis. Wells syndrome (also known as eosinophilic cellulitis) is characterized by erythematous or violaceous plaques and pruritic blisters. Although its etiology has not been defined, it is thought to be evoked or exacerbated by insect bites, with CD4⁺ T cells playing a primary role.¹ Anaphylaxis (angioedema, urticaria, and wheezing) rarely may occur due to mosquito salivary gland components but typically is caused by other stinging insects. Superficial lymphangitis, often misdiagnosed as an infection of the lymphatic system, presents within minutes as nontender pink streaks originating from the bite site. A biopsy with eosinophil and mast cell infiltrates consistent with an allergic-type reaction confirms the absence of infection. Patients respond well to glucocorticoid treatment.

Mosquitoes are vectors for many blood-borne diseases, including dengue hemorrhagic fever, malaria, Chikungunya virus, La Crosse encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis, West Nile virus, and yellow fever.¹⁶ Additionally, scratching the bites may lead to superinfection and scarring.¹

Prevention and Treatment

Patients with known mosquito sensitivity should avoid areas of stagnant water and utilize preventative measures such as wearing protective clothing and using mosquito repellent containing DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate), picaridin, or 2-undecanone (methyl nonyl ketone or IBI-246) when outdoors. Essential oils such as lemon, eucalyptus, citronella, and garlic are somewhat effective.¹ Additionally, prophylactic dosing of antihistamines may prevent milder reactions.

Although often supportive, treatment and management of mosquito bites depends on the extent of the reaction. For common local reactions, symptomatic management with topical anesthetics, calamine lotion, or corticosteroid creams is appropriate. If superinfection from scratching is a concern, antibiotics may be appropriate.

Management of more severe and systemic reactions such as HMB also is supportive, and the addition of oral corticosteroids to decrease inflammation is required.⁷ Severe HMB also has been treated with immunosuppressive and anticancer drugs, though the efficacy is limited. Venom immunotherapy is a preventative option for patients with mosquito-specific IgE antibodies, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant may be required in patients with HMB.^14,16

Conclusion

Mosquito allergens can cause a variety of reactions, ranging from those limited to the skin to those characterized by severe systemic effects. Although common local reactions can be symptomatically treated with topical medication, more severe reactions such as HMB require more involved clinical management. Hypersensitivity to mosquito bites is an important condition to recognize, as it is related to multiple organ impairment as well as later development of malignancy. Patients should be closely monitored during the entire clinical course and in the years following.