Cutis

Click here to view the articles published in June 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in June 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in June 2018.

Clothes moths are common pests found inside buildings such as homes, stores, and museums. The most common species of importance include the webbing clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella)(Figure) and the casemaking clothes moth (Tineola pellionella). Both species target textiles such as wool, rugs, feathers, felts, hair, furs, and even grains.^1,2 They avoid synthetics and plant materials such as cottons.¹

Characteristics

Adult clothes moths extend 7 to 8 mm and are a golden (T bisselliella) to brown (T pellionella) color with fringed wings and a tuft on their heads.^1,3 Adults do not eat; females die within a few days of laying eggs, while males live approximately 1 month. Once laid, eggs hatch within 4 to 10 days.^1,3 The larvae (caterpillars) incur damage to clothes and other household goods. Fully mature larvae are 12- to 13-mm long, and the Tineola species have white- to cream-colored bodies with brown heads. The webbing clothes moth larva lacks ocelli (eyes), while the casemaking moth larva has a singular ocellus.¹

Transmission

An infestation is evidenced by woolen items that have furrows or holes in them. Pheromone traps also can expose an active infestation.³ The webbing moth larvae can be found beneath a self-spun silken mat on the food source that offers the insect protection and camouflage while it eats; the mat collects frass (feces) and clothes particles.^1,3,4 The casemaking moth larvae drag around a portable silken bag that takes on the color of the fabric being eaten and serves as a refuge when disturbed.^1,3,4 Both adult and larval stages prefer low light conditions. The total time of development from caterpillar to adult varies depending on the temperature and humidity of the environment, but most clothes moths complete their life cycle within 1 to 3 months.¹

Management of an Infestation

Multiple infestation treatment options exist should a patient present with a clothes moth infestation. Infested clothing articles or small blankets and rugs can be dry-cleaned or laundered. Any items not in use should be laundered before being sealed in airtight storage containers. Mothball vapor at appropriate concentrations is lethal to the moths, and when possible, clothing should be stored with mothballs or flakes at the concentration recommended by the manufacturer.⁴ Individuals should avoid application of household insecticides to clothing or bedding, which may be poisonous to people.^1,4 Freezing, heating, and dry ice fumigation techniques also can be used to treat infested products.³ Cedarwood usually is insufficient to deter an infestation, as the oil vapor rarely reaches an effective concentration to repel or harm the insects.^3,4 Strict housekeeping with attention to vacuuming carpets, baseboards, closets, and laundering all linens and furniture covers can further reduce an infestation.⁴ Clothes items can be set in the sunlight and brushed to help loosen the pests, as they dislike direct light and may fall from the garments.³ Dust insecticides also can be used per the manufacturer label to treat crevices and baseboards in an active area of infestation that may otherwise be difficult to clean.³ If an extensive infestation exists or larger items are infested, then a professional pest control agency should be employed for proper eradication.

Conclusion

Understanding the life cycle and basic biology of clothes moths and other common household pests will help the clinician identify an infestation and counsel patients if an insect is a true ectoparasite. Clothes moth larvae are not parasites but can be found on clothing and can be confused with myiasis or true parasites.

Clothes moths are common pests found inside buildings such as homes, stores, and museums. The most common species of importance include the webbing clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella)(Figure) and the casemaking clothes moth (Tineola pellionella). Both species target textiles such as wool, rugs, feathers, felts, hair, furs, and even grains.^1,2 They avoid synthetics and plant materials such as cottons.¹

Characteristics

Adult clothes moths extend 7 to 8 mm and are a golden (T bisselliella) to brown (T pellionella) color with fringed wings and a tuft on their heads.^1,3 Adults do not eat; females die within a few days of laying eggs, while males live approximately 1 month. Once laid, eggs hatch within 4 to 10 days.^1,3 The larvae (caterpillars) incur damage to clothes and other household goods. Fully mature larvae are 12- to 13-mm long, and the Tineola species have white- to cream-colored bodies with brown heads. The webbing clothes moth larva lacks ocelli (eyes), while the casemaking moth larva has a singular ocellus.¹

Transmission

An infestation is evidenced by woolen items that have furrows or holes in them. Pheromone traps also can expose an active infestation.³ The webbing moth larvae can be found beneath a self-spun silken mat on the food source that offers the insect protection and camouflage while it eats; the mat collects frass (feces) and clothes particles.^1,3,4 The casemaking moth larvae drag around a portable silken bag that takes on the color of the fabric being eaten and serves as a refuge when disturbed.^1,3,4 Both adult and larval stages prefer low light conditions. The total time of development from caterpillar to adult varies depending on the temperature and humidity of the environment, but most clothes moths complete their life cycle within 1 to 3 months.¹

Management of an Infestation

Multiple infestation treatment options exist should a patient present with a clothes moth infestation. Infested clothing articles or small blankets and rugs can be dry-cleaned or laundered. Any items not in use should be laundered before being sealed in airtight storage containers. Mothball vapor at appropriate concentrations is lethal to the moths, and when possible, clothing should be stored with mothballs or flakes at the concentration recommended by the manufacturer.⁴ Individuals should avoid application of household insecticides to clothing or bedding, which may be poisonous to people.^1,4 Freezing, heating, and dry ice fumigation techniques also can be used to treat infested products.³ Cedarwood usually is insufficient to deter an infestation, as the oil vapor rarely reaches an effective concentration to repel or harm the insects.^3,4 Strict housekeeping with attention to vacuuming carpets, baseboards, closets, and laundering all linens and furniture covers can further reduce an infestation.⁴ Clothes items can be set in the sunlight and brushed to help loosen the pests, as they dislike direct light and may fall from the garments.³ Dust insecticides also can be used per the manufacturer label to treat crevices and baseboards in an active area of infestation that may otherwise be difficult to clean.³ If an extensive infestation exists or larger items are infested, then a professional pest control agency should be employed for proper eradication.

Conclusion

Understanding the life cycle and basic biology of clothes moths and other common household pests will help the clinician identify an infestation and counsel patients if an insect is a true ectoparasite. Clothes moth larvae are not parasites but can be found on clothing and can be confused with myiasis or true parasites.

Clothes moths are common pests found inside buildings such as homes, stores, and museums. The most common species of importance include the webbing clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella)(Figure) and the casemaking clothes moth (Tineola pellionella). Both species target textiles such as wool, rugs, feathers, felts, hair, furs, and even grains.^1,2 They avoid synthetics and plant materials such as cottons.¹

Characteristics

Adult clothes moths extend 7 to 8 mm and are a golden (T bisselliella) to brown (T pellionella) color with fringed wings and a tuft on their heads.^1,3 Adults do not eat; females die within a few days of laying eggs, while males live approximately 1 month. Once laid, eggs hatch within 4 to 10 days.^1,3 The larvae (caterpillars) incur damage to clothes and other household goods. Fully mature larvae are 12- to 13-mm long, and the Tineola species have white- to cream-colored bodies with brown heads. The webbing clothes moth larva lacks ocelli (eyes), while the casemaking moth larva has a singular ocellus.¹

Transmission

An infestation is evidenced by woolen items that have furrows or holes in them. Pheromone traps also can expose an active infestation.³ The webbing moth larvae can be found beneath a self-spun silken mat on the food source that offers the insect protection and camouflage while it eats; the mat collects frass (feces) and clothes particles.^1,3,4 The casemaking moth larvae drag around a portable silken bag that takes on the color of the fabric being eaten and serves as a refuge when disturbed.^1,3,4 Both adult and larval stages prefer low light conditions. The total time of development from caterpillar to adult varies depending on the temperature and humidity of the environment, but most clothes moths complete their life cycle within 1 to 3 months.¹

Management of an Infestation

Multiple infestation treatment options exist should a patient present with a clothes moth infestation. Infested clothing articles or small blankets and rugs can be dry-cleaned or laundered. Any items not in use should be laundered before being sealed in airtight storage containers. Mothball vapor at appropriate concentrations is lethal to the moths, and when possible, clothing should be stored with mothballs or flakes at the concentration recommended by the manufacturer.⁴ Individuals should avoid application of household insecticides to clothing or bedding, which may be poisonous to people.^1,4 Freezing, heating, and dry ice fumigation techniques also can be used to treat infested products.³ Cedarwood usually is insufficient to deter an infestation, as the oil vapor rarely reaches an effective concentration to repel or harm the insects.^3,4 Strict housekeeping with attention to vacuuming carpets, baseboards, closets, and laundering all linens and furniture covers can further reduce an infestation.⁴ Clothes items can be set in the sunlight and brushed to help loosen the pests, as they dislike direct light and may fall from the garments.³ Dust insecticides also can be used per the manufacturer label to treat crevices and baseboards in an active area of infestation that may otherwise be difficult to clean.³ If an extensive infestation exists or larger items are infested, then a professional pest control agency should be employed for proper eradication.

Conclusion

Understanding the life cycle and basic biology of clothes moths and other common household pests will help the clinician identify an infestation and counsel patients if an insect is a true ectoparasite. Clothes moth larvae are not parasites but can be found on clothing and can be confused with myiasis or true parasites.

On February 23, 2018, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc, announced the reversal of its proposed policy to reduce reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services billed using modifier -25.¹ This win for physicians was the result of a broad-based, multipronged advocacy campaign, and the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) was critical to this victory.

Dermatology Took the Lead in Opposing Policy That Would Reduce Reimbursement

Dermatology was the first to trumpet the dangers of modifier -25 reduction policies and explain why other specialty societies should care. The AADA took the lead in assembling a coalition of physician groups to oppose the proposed policy by sharing language for opposition letters and meeting talking points with many societies outside of dermatology as well as producing the first draft for the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates’ resolution that spurred action against Anthem’s proposed policy.² Members of the AADA attended numerous conference calls and in-person meetings with health insurance officials to urge them to reverse the policy and helped coordinate opposition from state and national specialty societies. The influence and advocacy of the AMA was critical in reversing the proposed policy, but dermatology started the opposition and organized the players to bring the fight against Anthem.

AADA Continues to Fight

Despite the victory against Anthem, challenges to fair reimbursement of modifier -25 claims are ongoing. Two insurers recently announced implementation of new modifier -25 reduction policies.^3,4 Moreover, 4 other insurers have existing modifier -25 reduction policies in place.^5-8 The AADA has engaged, and will continue engaging, each of these insurers with the message that the ability to perform procedures and distinct E/M services on the same day is integral to efficient, patient-centered care of dermatologic diseases. The AADA argues that insurers’ rationale (overlapping indirect practice expenses) for payment reduction is improper and that appropriately documented modifier -25 claims should be reimbursed at 100% of allowable charges.

In addition to the existing insurer policies affecting modifier -25, Anthem has announced that it plans to conduct audits of modifier -25 claims with recoupments of inappropriate charges.¹ Some Medicare Administrative Contractors also have cited modifier -25 as an area of concern and issued guidelines for reporting modifier -25, which frequently precede audits.⁹ The AADA is concerned that if Anthem follows through with its aggressive audits to recoup money, which can result in substantial take-backs, and finds a high error rate in modifier -25 claims, it also may consider revisiting its reduction policy. Moreover, it is likely that other insurers will use failed modifier -25 audits as an excuse to continue, expand, or adopt modifier -25 reduction policies. It is clear that blanket reduction in payment is much easier and less expensive for insurers than auditing medical records and not paying those who abuse modifier -25. As long as insurers are under financial pressure, modifier -25 will be a tempting target for reducing health care costs.

How to Use Modifier -25 Correctly

In addition to opposing inappropriate reimbursement of modifier -25, the AADA is committed to educating its members and insurers on the correct use and documentation of modifier -25. In December 2017, Mollie A. MacCormack, MD (Nashua, New Hampshire), and I led an educational webinar on modifier -25 for more than 1100 attendees.¹⁰ We discussed the performance standards and documentation requirements of modifier -25. It was clear that dermatologists were interested not only in the correct coding of modifier -25 claims but also avoiding the consequences of audits.

My peers frequently ask, “What can we [dermatologists] do to prepare for potential modifier -25 audits?” My advice is always, “Physician audit thyself.” I recommend self-auditing to make sure you and your practice are in compliance with modifier -25 documentation requirements. In a March 2017 Cutis column on modifier -25, I discussed what constitutes separate and distinct E/M services and what is included in a procedure’s global surgical package.¹¹ A self-audit is as simple as pulling 10 to 20 medical records in which a same-day procedure and E/M service were billed. Cross out any information in the note included in the procedure’s global surgical package including history associated with establishing the diagnosis, physical examination of the procedure area(s), and discussion of treatment options. If complete documentation for an E/M is still present after removing the procedure and associated evaluation, you have passed the self-audit. If not, consider changing your coding to better reflect the documentation in your records. In my experience, insurance auditors are not physicians and often are not even medical professionals. Clear documentation and clear existence of a separate, distinct, and medically necessary E/M service is needed to succeed in a modifier -25 audit.

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists should rejoice that Anthem decided to rescind its modifier -25 policy. If this policy had gone into effect, the modifier -25 reduction would likely have spread to most other insurers as industry standard. This victory certainly shows what can be accomplished when organized medicine works together. Your state dermatology and medical societies, national societies, and the AMA collaborated on a critical existential threat to cost-effective and efficient patient care and won. These organizations deserve your membership and support as well as your thanks; however, our celebration must be short-lived, as there still are other insurers with modifier -25 reductions in place, and audits have been promised. We must continue to focus on proper use and documentation of modifier -25. This effort will not only help dermatologists decrease the risk of large recoupments from audits but also help the AADA continue to oppose inappropriate payment policies.

On February 23, 2018, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc, announced the reversal of its proposed policy to reduce reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services billed using modifier -25.¹ This win for physicians was the result of a broad-based, multipronged advocacy campaign, and the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) was critical to this victory.

Dermatology Took the Lead in Opposing Policy That Would Reduce Reimbursement

Dermatology was the first to trumpet the dangers of modifier -25 reduction policies and explain why other specialty societies should care. The AADA took the lead in assembling a coalition of physician groups to oppose the proposed policy by sharing language for opposition letters and meeting talking points with many societies outside of dermatology as well as producing the first draft for the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates’ resolution that spurred action against Anthem’s proposed policy.² Members of the AADA attended numerous conference calls and in-person meetings with health insurance officials to urge them to reverse the policy and helped coordinate opposition from state and national specialty societies. The influence and advocacy of the AMA was critical in reversing the proposed policy, but dermatology started the opposition and organized the players to bring the fight against Anthem.

AADA Continues to Fight

Despite the victory against Anthem, challenges to fair reimbursement of modifier -25 claims are ongoing. Two insurers recently announced implementation of new modifier -25 reduction policies.^3,4 Moreover, 4 other insurers have existing modifier -25 reduction policies in place.^5-8 The AADA has engaged, and will continue engaging, each of these insurers with the message that the ability to perform procedures and distinct E/M services on the same day is integral to efficient, patient-centered care of dermatologic diseases. The AADA argues that insurers’ rationale (overlapping indirect practice expenses) for payment reduction is improper and that appropriately documented modifier -25 claims should be reimbursed at 100% of allowable charges.

In addition to the existing insurer policies affecting modifier -25, Anthem has announced that it plans to conduct audits of modifier -25 claims with recoupments of inappropriate charges.¹ Some Medicare Administrative Contractors also have cited modifier -25 as an area of concern and issued guidelines for reporting modifier -25, which frequently precede audits.⁹ The AADA is concerned that if Anthem follows through with its aggressive audits to recoup money, which can result in substantial take-backs, and finds a high error rate in modifier -25 claims, it also may consider revisiting its reduction policy. Moreover, it is likely that other insurers will use failed modifier -25 audits as an excuse to continue, expand, or adopt modifier -25 reduction policies. It is clear that blanket reduction in payment is much easier and less expensive for insurers than auditing medical records and not paying those who abuse modifier -25. As long as insurers are under financial pressure, modifier -25 will be a tempting target for reducing health care costs.

How to Use Modifier -25 Correctly

In addition to opposing inappropriate reimbursement of modifier -25, the AADA is committed to educating its members and insurers on the correct use and documentation of modifier -25. In December 2017, Mollie A. MacCormack, MD (Nashua, New Hampshire), and I led an educational webinar on modifier -25 for more than 1100 attendees.¹⁰ We discussed the performance standards and documentation requirements of modifier -25. It was clear that dermatologists were interested not only in the correct coding of modifier -25 claims but also avoiding the consequences of audits.

My peers frequently ask, “What can we [dermatologists] do to prepare for potential modifier -25 audits?” My advice is always, “Physician audit thyself.” I recommend self-auditing to make sure you and your practice are in compliance with modifier -25 documentation requirements. In a March 2017 Cutis column on modifier -25, I discussed what constitutes separate and distinct E/M services and what is included in a procedure’s global surgical package.¹¹ A self-audit is as simple as pulling 10 to 20 medical records in which a same-day procedure and E/M service were billed. Cross out any information in the note included in the procedure’s global surgical package including history associated with establishing the diagnosis, physical examination of the procedure area(s), and discussion of treatment options. If complete documentation for an E/M is still present after removing the procedure and associated evaluation, you have passed the self-audit. If not, consider changing your coding to better reflect the documentation in your records. In my experience, insurance auditors are not physicians and often are not even medical professionals. Clear documentation and clear existence of a separate, distinct, and medically necessary E/M service is needed to succeed in a modifier -25 audit.

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists should rejoice that Anthem decided to rescind its modifier -25 policy. If this policy had gone into effect, the modifier -25 reduction would likely have spread to most other insurers as industry standard. This victory certainly shows what can be accomplished when organized medicine works together. Your state dermatology and medical societies, national societies, and the AMA collaborated on a critical existential threat to cost-effective and efficient patient care and won. These organizations deserve your membership and support as well as your thanks; however, our celebration must be short-lived, as there still are other insurers with modifier -25 reductions in place, and audits have been promised. We must continue to focus on proper use and documentation of modifier -25. This effort will not only help dermatologists decrease the risk of large recoupments from audits but also help the AADA continue to oppose inappropriate payment policies.

On February 23, 2018, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc, announced the reversal of its proposed policy to reduce reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services billed using modifier -25.¹ This win for physicians was the result of a broad-based, multipronged advocacy campaign, and the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) was critical to this victory.

Dermatology Took the Lead in Opposing Policy That Would Reduce Reimbursement

Dermatology was the first to trumpet the dangers of modifier -25 reduction policies and explain why other specialty societies should care. The AADA took the lead in assembling a coalition of physician groups to oppose the proposed policy by sharing language for opposition letters and meeting talking points with many societies outside of dermatology as well as producing the first draft for the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates’ resolution that spurred action against Anthem’s proposed policy.² Members of the AADA attended numerous conference calls and in-person meetings with health insurance officials to urge them to reverse the policy and helped coordinate opposition from state and national specialty societies. The influence and advocacy of the AMA was critical in reversing the proposed policy, but dermatology started the opposition and organized the players to bring the fight against Anthem.

AADA Continues to Fight

Despite the victory against Anthem, challenges to fair reimbursement of modifier -25 claims are ongoing. Two insurers recently announced implementation of new modifier -25 reduction policies.^3,4 Moreover, 4 other insurers have existing modifier -25 reduction policies in place.^5-8 The AADA has engaged, and will continue engaging, each of these insurers with the message that the ability to perform procedures and distinct E/M services on the same day is integral to efficient, patient-centered care of dermatologic diseases. The AADA argues that insurers’ rationale (overlapping indirect practice expenses) for payment reduction is improper and that appropriately documented modifier -25 claims should be reimbursed at 100% of allowable charges.

In addition to the existing insurer policies affecting modifier -25, Anthem has announced that it plans to conduct audits of modifier -25 claims with recoupments of inappropriate charges.¹ Some Medicare Administrative Contractors also have cited modifier -25 as an area of concern and issued guidelines for reporting modifier -25, which frequently precede audits.⁹ The AADA is concerned that if Anthem follows through with its aggressive audits to recoup money, which can result in substantial take-backs, and finds a high error rate in modifier -25 claims, it also may consider revisiting its reduction policy. Moreover, it is likely that other insurers will use failed modifier -25 audits as an excuse to continue, expand, or adopt modifier -25 reduction policies. It is clear that blanket reduction in payment is much easier and less expensive for insurers than auditing medical records and not paying those who abuse modifier -25. As long as insurers are under financial pressure, modifier -25 will be a tempting target for reducing health care costs.

How to Use Modifier -25 Correctly

In addition to opposing inappropriate reimbursement of modifier -25, the AADA is committed to educating its members and insurers on the correct use and documentation of modifier -25. In December 2017, Mollie A. MacCormack, MD (Nashua, New Hampshire), and I led an educational webinar on modifier -25 for more than 1100 attendees.¹⁰ We discussed the performance standards and documentation requirements of modifier -25. It was clear that dermatologists were interested not only in the correct coding of modifier -25 claims but also avoiding the consequences of audits.

My peers frequently ask, “What can we [dermatologists] do to prepare for potential modifier -25 audits?” My advice is always, “Physician audit thyself.” I recommend self-auditing to make sure you and your practice are in compliance with modifier -25 documentation requirements. In a March 2017 Cutis column on modifier -25, I discussed what constitutes separate and distinct E/M services and what is included in a procedure’s global surgical package.¹¹ A self-audit is as simple as pulling 10 to 20 medical records in which a same-day procedure and E/M service were billed. Cross out any information in the note included in the procedure’s global surgical package including history associated with establishing the diagnosis, physical examination of the procedure area(s), and discussion of treatment options. If complete documentation for an E/M is still present after removing the procedure and associated evaluation, you have passed the self-audit. If not, consider changing your coding to better reflect the documentation in your records. In my experience, insurance auditors are not physicians and often are not even medical professionals. Clear documentation and clear existence of a separate, distinct, and medically necessary E/M service is needed to succeed in a modifier -25 audit.

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists should rejoice that Anthem decided to rescind its modifier -25 policy. If this policy had gone into effect, the modifier -25 reduction would likely have spread to most other insurers as industry standard. This victory certainly shows what can be accomplished when organized medicine works together. Your state dermatology and medical societies, national societies, and the AMA collaborated on a critical existential threat to cost-effective and efficient patient care and won. These organizations deserve your membership and support as well as your thanks; however, our celebration must be short-lived, as there still are other insurers with modifier -25 reductions in place, and audits have been promised. We must continue to focus on proper use and documentation of modifier -25. This effort will not only help dermatologists decrease the risk of large recoupments from audits but also help the AADA continue to oppose inappropriate payment policies.

It has been said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”¹ In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to follow a similar standard, with an emphasis on waiting for multiple studies with good-quality data and high levels of agreement before changing any aspect of our clinical practice. The ostensible purpose is that studies can be flawed, conclusions can be incorrect, or biases can be overlooked. In such cases, acting on questionable results could imperil patients. It is for this reason that so many review articles sometimes frustratingly seem to conclude that further evidence is needed.²

Based on this standard, recently published addendum guidelines from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for prevention of peanut allergy in the United States³ are somewhat striking in that they make fairly bold recommendations based on results from the 2015 Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,⁴ a randomized trial evaluating early peanut introduction as a preventive strategy for peanut allergy. Of note, this study was not placebo controlled, was conducted at only 1 site in the United Kingdom, and only included 640 children, though the number of participants was admittedly large for this type of study.⁴ Arguably, the LEAP study alone does not provide enough evidence upon which to base what essentially amounts to an about-face in the official recommendations for prevention of peanut and other food allergies, which emphasized delayed introduction of high-risk foods, especially in high-risk individuals.^5-7 To better understand this shift, we need to briefly explore the context of the addendum guidelines.

As many as one-third of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have food allergies, thus diet often is invoked by patients and providers alike as an underlying cause of the disease.⁸ Many patients in my practice are so focused on potential food allergies that actual treatment of the affected skin is marginalized and often dismissed as a stopgap that does not address the root of the problem. A 2004 study of 100 children with AD found that diet was manipulated by the parents in 75% of patients in an attempt to manage the disease.⁹

Patients are not the only ones who consider food allergies to be a driving force in AD. The medical literature indicates that this theory has existed for centuries; for instance, with regard to the relationship between diet and AD, the author of an article from 1830 quipped, “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held . . . than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter . . .”¹⁰ More apropos perhaps is a statement from the 2010 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guidelines on food allergy management, which noted that while the expert group “does not mean to imply that AD results from [food allergies], the role of [food allergies] in the pathogenesis and severity of this condition remains controversial.”¹¹

Prior to the LEAP study, food allergy recommendations for clinical practice in the United Kingdom in 1998¹² and the United States in 2000¹³ recommended excluding allergenic foods (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs) from the diet in infants with a family history of atopy until 3 years of age. However, those recommendations did not seem to be working, when in fact just the opposite was happening. From 1997 until the LEAP study was conducted in 2015, the prevalence of peanut allergy more than quadrupled and became the leading cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy.¹⁴ Additionally, study after study concluded that elimination diets did not seem to help most patients with AD.¹⁵ As is required in good scientific thinking, when a hypothesis is proven false, other approaches must be considered.

The idea arose that perhaps delaying introduction of allergenic foods was the opposite of the answer.⁴ The LEAP study tested the notion that peanut allergies are rare in countries where peanuts are introduced early and if telling families to delay introduction of peanuts in infants might actually be causing development of a peanut allergy, and the tests bore fruit. It was found that giving infants peanut-containing foods resulted in a more than 80% reduction in peanut allergy at 5 years of age (P<.001).⁴ What was perhaps even more interesting was the connection between AD and peanut allergy. An important idea articulated in the LEAP study is in some ways revolutionary: Rather than foods causing AD, it could be that “early environmental exposure (through the skin) to peanut may account for early sensitization, whereas early oral exposure may lead to immune tolerance.”⁴ This concept—that impaired eczematous skin may actually lead to the development of food allergies—turns the whole thing upside down.

What do these updated guidelines actually suggest? The first guideline focuses on infants with severe AD, egg allergy, or both, who therefore are thought to be at the highest risk for developing peanut allergy.³ Because of the higher baseline risk in this subgroup, measurement of the peanut-specific IgE (peanut sIgE) level, skin prick testing (SPT), or both is strongly recommended before introducing peanut protein into the diet. This testing can be performed by qualified providers as a screening measure, but if positive (≥0.35 kU_A/L for peanut sIgE or >2 mm on the peanut SPT), referral to an allergy specialist is warranted. If these studies are negative, it is thought the likelihood of peanut allergy is low, and it is recommended that caregivers introduce age-appropriate peanut-containing foods (eg, peanut butter snack puffs, diluted peanut butter) as early as 4 to 6 months of age. The second guideline recommends that peanut-containing foods should be introduced into the diets of infants with mild or moderate AD at approximately 6 months of age without the need for prior screening via peanut sIgE or SPT. Lastly, the third guideline recommends that caregivers freely introduce peanut-containing foods together with other solid foods in infants without AD or food allergies in accordance with family preference.³

The results of the LEAP study are certainly exciting, and although the theoretical basis makes good scientific sense and the updated guidelines truly address an important and growing problem, there are several issues with this update that are worth considering. Given the constraints of the LEAP study, it certainly seems possible that the results will not be applicable to all populations or foods. More research is needed to ensure that this robust finding applies to other children and to explore the introduction of other allergenic foods, which the LEAP study investigators also emphasized.⁴

In fairness, the updated guidelines clearly state the quality of evidence of their recommendations and make it clear that expert opinion is playing a large role.³ For the first guideline regarding recommendations for those with severe AD and/or egg allergy, the quality of evidence is deemed moderate, while the contribution of expert opinion is listed as significant. For the second and third guidelines regarding recommendations for mild to moderate AD and those without AD, respectively, the quality of evidence is low and expert opinion is again listed as significant.³

Importantly, delineating severe AD from moderate disease—which is necessary because only severe AD warrants evaluation with peanut sIgE and/or SPT—can be difficult, as the distinction relies on a degree of subjectivity that may vary between specialists. Indeed, 2 publications suggest extending the definition of severe AD to include infants with early-onset AD (<3 months of age) and those with moderate AD not responding to treatment.^16,17

Despite these reservations, the updated guidelines represent a breakthrough in understanding in an area truly in need of advancement. Although the evidence may not be exactly extraordinary, the context for these developments and our deeper understanding suggest that we do indeed live in extraordinary times. 

It has been said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”¹ In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to follow a similar standard, with an emphasis on waiting for multiple studies with good-quality data and high levels of agreement before changing any aspect of our clinical practice. The ostensible purpose is that studies can be flawed, conclusions can be incorrect, or biases can be overlooked. In such cases, acting on questionable results could imperil patients. It is for this reason that so many review articles sometimes frustratingly seem to conclude that further evidence is needed.²

Based on this standard, recently published addendum guidelines from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for prevention of peanut allergy in the United States³ are somewhat striking in that they make fairly bold recommendations based on results from the 2015 Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,⁴ a randomized trial evaluating early peanut introduction as a preventive strategy for peanut allergy. Of note, this study was not placebo controlled, was conducted at only 1 site in the United Kingdom, and only included 640 children, though the number of participants was admittedly large for this type of study.⁴ Arguably, the LEAP study alone does not provide enough evidence upon which to base what essentially amounts to an about-face in the official recommendations for prevention of peanut and other food allergies, which emphasized delayed introduction of high-risk foods, especially in high-risk individuals.^5-7 To better understand this shift, we need to briefly explore the context of the addendum guidelines.

As many as one-third of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have food allergies, thus diet often is invoked by patients and providers alike as an underlying cause of the disease.⁸ Many patients in my practice are so focused on potential food allergies that actual treatment of the affected skin is marginalized and often dismissed as a stopgap that does not address the root of the problem. A 2004 study of 100 children with AD found that diet was manipulated by the parents in 75% of patients in an attempt to manage the disease.⁹

Patients are not the only ones who consider food allergies to be a driving force in AD. The medical literature indicates that this theory has existed for centuries; for instance, with regard to the relationship between diet and AD, the author of an article from 1830 quipped, “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held . . . than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter . . .”¹⁰ More apropos perhaps is a statement from the 2010 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guidelines on food allergy management, which noted that while the expert group “does not mean to imply that AD results from [food allergies], the role of [food allergies] in the pathogenesis and severity of this condition remains controversial.”¹¹

Prior to the LEAP study, food allergy recommendations for clinical practice in the United Kingdom in 1998¹² and the United States in 2000¹³ recommended excluding allergenic foods (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs) from the diet in infants with a family history of atopy until 3 years of age. However, those recommendations did not seem to be working, when in fact just the opposite was happening. From 1997 until the LEAP study was conducted in 2015, the prevalence of peanut allergy more than quadrupled and became the leading cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy.¹⁴ Additionally, study after study concluded that elimination diets did not seem to help most patients with AD.¹⁵ As is required in good scientific thinking, when a hypothesis is proven false, other approaches must be considered.

The idea arose that perhaps delaying introduction of allergenic foods was the opposite of the answer.⁴ The LEAP study tested the notion that peanut allergies are rare in countries where peanuts are introduced early and if telling families to delay introduction of peanuts in infants might actually be causing development of a peanut allergy, and the tests bore fruit. It was found that giving infants peanut-containing foods resulted in a more than 80% reduction in peanut allergy at 5 years of age (P<.001).⁴ What was perhaps even more interesting was the connection between AD and peanut allergy. An important idea articulated in the LEAP study is in some ways revolutionary: Rather than foods causing AD, it could be that “early environmental exposure (through the skin) to peanut may account for early sensitization, whereas early oral exposure may lead to immune tolerance.”⁴ This concept—that impaired eczematous skin may actually lead to the development of food allergies—turns the whole thing upside down.

What do these updated guidelines actually suggest? The first guideline focuses on infants with severe AD, egg allergy, or both, who therefore are thought to be at the highest risk for developing peanut allergy.³ Because of the higher baseline risk in this subgroup, measurement of the peanut-specific IgE (peanut sIgE) level, skin prick testing (SPT), or both is strongly recommended before introducing peanut protein into the diet. This testing can be performed by qualified providers as a screening measure, but if positive (≥0.35 kU_A/L for peanut sIgE or >2 mm on the peanut SPT), referral to an allergy specialist is warranted. If these studies are negative, it is thought the likelihood of peanut allergy is low, and it is recommended that caregivers introduce age-appropriate peanut-containing foods (eg, peanut butter snack puffs, diluted peanut butter) as early as 4 to 6 months of age. The second guideline recommends that peanut-containing foods should be introduced into the diets of infants with mild or moderate AD at approximately 6 months of age without the need for prior screening via peanut sIgE or SPT. Lastly, the third guideline recommends that caregivers freely introduce peanut-containing foods together with other solid foods in infants without AD or food allergies in accordance with family preference.³

The results of the LEAP study are certainly exciting, and although the theoretical basis makes good scientific sense and the updated guidelines truly address an important and growing problem, there are several issues with this update that are worth considering. Given the constraints of the LEAP study, it certainly seems possible that the results will not be applicable to all populations or foods. More research is needed to ensure that this robust finding applies to other children and to explore the introduction of other allergenic foods, which the LEAP study investigators also emphasized.⁴

In fairness, the updated guidelines clearly state the quality of evidence of their recommendations and make it clear that expert opinion is playing a large role.³ For the first guideline regarding recommendations for those with severe AD and/or egg allergy, the quality of evidence is deemed moderate, while the contribution of expert opinion is listed as significant. For the second and third guidelines regarding recommendations for mild to moderate AD and those without AD, respectively, the quality of evidence is low and expert opinion is again listed as significant.³

Importantly, delineating severe AD from moderate disease—which is necessary because only severe AD warrants evaluation with peanut sIgE and/or SPT—can be difficult, as the distinction relies on a degree of subjectivity that may vary between specialists. Indeed, 2 publications suggest extending the definition of severe AD to include infants with early-onset AD (<3 months of age) and those with moderate AD not responding to treatment.^16,17

Despite these reservations, the updated guidelines represent a breakthrough in understanding in an area truly in need of advancement. Although the evidence may not be exactly extraordinary, the context for these developments and our deeper understanding suggest that we do indeed live in extraordinary times. 

It has been said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”¹ In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to follow a similar standard, with an emphasis on waiting for multiple studies with good-quality data and high levels of agreement before changing any aspect of our clinical practice. The ostensible purpose is that studies can be flawed, conclusions can be incorrect, or biases can be overlooked. In such cases, acting on questionable results could imperil patients. It is for this reason that so many review articles sometimes frustratingly seem to conclude that further evidence is needed.²

Based on this standard, recently published addendum guidelines from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for prevention of peanut allergy in the United States³ are somewhat striking in that they make fairly bold recommendations based on results from the 2015 Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,⁴ a randomized trial evaluating early peanut introduction as a preventive strategy for peanut allergy. Of note, this study was not placebo controlled, was conducted at only 1 site in the United Kingdom, and only included 640 children, though the number of participants was admittedly large for this type of study.⁴ Arguably, the LEAP study alone does not provide enough evidence upon which to base what essentially amounts to an about-face in the official recommendations for prevention of peanut and other food allergies, which emphasized delayed introduction of high-risk foods, especially in high-risk individuals.^5-7 To better understand this shift, we need to briefly explore the context of the addendum guidelines.

As many as one-third of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have food allergies, thus diet often is invoked by patients and providers alike as an underlying cause of the disease.⁸ Many patients in my practice are so focused on potential food allergies that actual treatment of the affected skin is marginalized and often dismissed as a stopgap that does not address the root of the problem. A 2004 study of 100 children with AD found that diet was manipulated by the parents in 75% of patients in an attempt to manage the disease.⁹

Patients are not the only ones who consider food allergies to be a driving force in AD. The medical literature indicates that this theory has existed for centuries; for instance, with regard to the relationship between diet and AD, the author of an article from 1830 quipped, “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held . . . than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter . . .”¹⁰ More apropos perhaps is a statement from the 2010 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guidelines on food allergy management, which noted that while the expert group “does not mean to imply that AD results from [food allergies], the role of [food allergies] in the pathogenesis and severity of this condition remains controversial.”¹¹

Prior to the LEAP study, food allergy recommendations for clinical practice in the United Kingdom in 1998¹² and the United States in 2000¹³ recommended excluding allergenic foods (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs) from the diet in infants with a family history of atopy until 3 years of age. However, those recommendations did not seem to be working, when in fact just the opposite was happening. From 1997 until the LEAP study was conducted in 2015, the prevalence of peanut allergy more than quadrupled and became the leading cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy.¹⁴ Additionally, study after study concluded that elimination diets did not seem to help most patients with AD.¹⁵ As is required in good scientific thinking, when a hypothesis is proven false, other approaches must be considered.

The idea arose that perhaps delaying introduction of allergenic foods was the opposite of the answer.⁴ The LEAP study tested the notion that peanut allergies are rare in countries where peanuts are introduced early and if telling families to delay introduction of peanuts in infants might actually be causing development of a peanut allergy, and the tests bore fruit. It was found that giving infants peanut-containing foods resulted in a more than 80% reduction in peanut allergy at 5 years of age (P<.001).⁴ What was perhaps even more interesting was the connection between AD and peanut allergy. An important idea articulated in the LEAP study is in some ways revolutionary: Rather than foods causing AD, it could be that “early environmental exposure (through the skin) to peanut may account for early sensitization, whereas early oral exposure may lead to immune tolerance.”⁴ This concept—that impaired eczematous skin may actually lead to the development of food allergies—turns the whole thing upside down.

What do these updated guidelines actually suggest? The first guideline focuses on infants with severe AD, egg allergy, or both, who therefore are thought to be at the highest risk for developing peanut allergy.³ Because of the higher baseline risk in this subgroup, measurement of the peanut-specific IgE (peanut sIgE) level, skin prick testing (SPT), or both is strongly recommended before introducing peanut protein into the diet. This testing can be performed by qualified providers as a screening measure, but if positive (≥0.35 kU_A/L for peanut sIgE or >2 mm on the peanut SPT), referral to an allergy specialist is warranted. If these studies are negative, it is thought the likelihood of peanut allergy is low, and it is recommended that caregivers introduce age-appropriate peanut-containing foods (eg, peanut butter snack puffs, diluted peanut butter) as early as 4 to 6 months of age. The second guideline recommends that peanut-containing foods should be introduced into the diets of infants with mild or moderate AD at approximately 6 months of age without the need for prior screening via peanut sIgE or SPT. Lastly, the third guideline recommends that caregivers freely introduce peanut-containing foods together with other solid foods in infants without AD or food allergies in accordance with family preference.³

The results of the LEAP study are certainly exciting, and although the theoretical basis makes good scientific sense and the updated guidelines truly address an important and growing problem, there are several issues with this update that are worth considering. Given the constraints of the LEAP study, it certainly seems possible that the results will not be applicable to all populations or foods. More research is needed to ensure that this robust finding applies to other children and to explore the introduction of other allergenic foods, which the LEAP study investigators also emphasized.⁴

In fairness, the updated guidelines clearly state the quality of evidence of their recommendations and make it clear that expert opinion is playing a large role.³ For the first guideline regarding recommendations for those with severe AD and/or egg allergy, the quality of evidence is deemed moderate, while the contribution of expert opinion is listed as significant. For the second and third guidelines regarding recommendations for mild to moderate AD and those without AD, respectively, the quality of evidence is low and expert opinion is again listed as significant.³

Importantly, delineating severe AD from moderate disease—which is necessary because only severe AD warrants evaluation with peanut sIgE and/or SPT—can be difficult, as the distinction relies on a degree of subjectivity that may vary between specialists. Indeed, 2 publications suggest extending the definition of severe AD to include infants with early-onset AD (<3 months of age) and those with moderate AD not responding to treatment.^16,17

Despite these reservations, the updated guidelines represent a breakthrough in understanding in an area truly in need of advancement. Although the evidence may not be exactly extraordinary, the context for these developments and our deeper understanding suggest that we do indeed live in extraordinary times. 

To the Editor:

A 68-year-old man presented with slightly itchy macules on the waist and abdomen of approximately 2 years’ duration. He reported that the initial lesions were dark red and subsequently coalesced to form a beltlike pigmentation on the abdomen. He denied any prior treatment, and the lesions did not spontaneously resolve. The patient was taking escitalopram oxalate, telmisartan, and aspirin for depression and cardiovascular disease that was diagnosed 3 years prior. He reported no exposure to UV radiation or a heat source. He denied use of any cosmetics on the body as well as a family history of similar symptoms.

Physical examination showed reticulate brown-purple macules with slight scale on the surface that had become confluent, forming a beltlike pigmentation on the waist and abdomen (Figure 1). Wickham striae were not seen. The oral mucosa and nails were not affected. Microscopic examination for fungal infections was negative.

Systematic physical and laboratory examinations revealed no abnormalities. A skin biopsy from a macule on the abdomen showed hyperkeratosis, thinned out stratum spinosum with flattening of rete ridges, hypergranulosis with vacuolar alteration of the basal cell layer, and bandlike infiltration of lymphocytes and melanophages with incontinence of pigment (Figure 2). Focalized purplish homogeneous deposits were observed in the upper dermis (Figure 3), of which positive crystal violet staining indicated amyloidosis (Figure 4). Congo red stain revealed amyloid deposition (Figure 5). Thus, the diagnosis of lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP) complicated with focal amyloidosis was made. The patient was treated with topical corticosteroids and tretinoin, and no notable therapeutic effects were observed at 3-month follow-up.

Lichen planus pigmentosus, a variant of lichen planus, is a condition of unknown etiology exhibiting dark brown macules and/or papules and a long clinical course. The face, neck, trunk, arms, and legs are the most common areas of presentation, whereas involvement of the scalp, nails, or oral mucosa is relatively rare.

The first clinicohistopathological study with a large sample size was documented by Bhutani et al¹ in 1974 who termed the currently recognized entity lichen planus pigmentosus. Lichen planus pigmentosus is a frequently encountered hyperpigmentation disorder in Indians, whereas sporadic cases also are reported in other regions and ethnicities.² In cases of LPP, the pigmentation is symmetrical, and its pattern most often is diffuse, then reticular, blotchy, and perifollicular.³ Two unique patterns of LPP have been documented, including linear/blaschkoid LPP and zosteriform LPP.^4,5 Our patient showed a unique beltlike distribution pattern.

The pathogenesis of LPP still is unclear, and several inciting factors such as mustard oil, gold therapy,⁶ and hepatitis C virus infection have been cited.⁷ Mancuso and Berdondini⁸ reported a case of LPP flaring immediately after relapse of nephrotic syndrome. It also has been considered as a paraneoplastic phenomen.⁹ No exact cause was found in our patient after a series of relative examinations.

The histopathologic changes associated with LPP consist of atrophic epidermis; bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer in the epidermis; and prominent melanin incontinence in the upper dermis, which can be diverse depending on different sites of skin biopsy and the phase of LPP. Histopathologic findings in our patient were consistent with LPP. The differential diagnosis for the reticulate pattern of pigmentation seen in our patient included confluent and reticulated papillomatosis and poikilodermalike cutaneous amyloidosis, both easily excluded with histopathologic confirmation.

Local amyloidosis also was confirmed by crystal violet staining in our case and its etiology was uncertain. Generalized and local amyloidosis has been reported in association with lichen planus. The diagnosis of lichen planus was followed by the diagnosis of amyloidosis, and the typical skin lesions of these 2 conditions were able to be differentiated in these reported cases.^10,11 However, beltlike pigmentation was the only manifestation for our patient and we could not separate the 2 conditions with the naked eye.

Chronic irritation to the skin resulting in excessive production of degenerate keratins and their subsequent conversion into amyloid deposits has been proposed to be an etiologic factor of amyloidosis.¹¹ Because of the distribution pattern in our case, we believe focal amyloidosis could be attributed to chronic friction and scratching.

To the Editor:

A 68-year-old man presented with slightly itchy macules on the waist and abdomen of approximately 2 years’ duration. He reported that the initial lesions were dark red and subsequently coalesced to form a beltlike pigmentation on the abdomen. He denied any prior treatment, and the lesions did not spontaneously resolve. The patient was taking escitalopram oxalate, telmisartan, and aspirin for depression and cardiovascular disease that was diagnosed 3 years prior. He reported no exposure to UV radiation or a heat source. He denied use of any cosmetics on the body as well as a family history of similar symptoms.

Physical examination showed reticulate brown-purple macules with slight scale on the surface that had become confluent, forming a beltlike pigmentation on the waist and abdomen (Figure 1). Wickham striae were not seen. The oral mucosa and nails were not affected. Microscopic examination for fungal infections was negative.

Systematic physical and laboratory examinations revealed no abnormalities. A skin biopsy from a macule on the abdomen showed hyperkeratosis, thinned out stratum spinosum with flattening of rete ridges, hypergranulosis with vacuolar alteration of the basal cell layer, and bandlike infiltration of lymphocytes and melanophages with incontinence of pigment (Figure 2). Focalized purplish homogeneous deposits were observed in the upper dermis (Figure 3), of which positive crystal violet staining indicated amyloidosis (Figure 4). Congo red stain revealed amyloid deposition (Figure 5). Thus, the diagnosis of lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP) complicated with focal amyloidosis was made. The patient was treated with topical corticosteroids and tretinoin, and no notable therapeutic effects were observed at 3-month follow-up.

Lichen planus pigmentosus, a variant of lichen planus, is a condition of unknown etiology exhibiting dark brown macules and/or papules and a long clinical course. The face, neck, trunk, arms, and legs are the most common areas of presentation, whereas involvement of the scalp, nails, or oral mucosa is relatively rare.

The first clinicohistopathological study with a large sample size was documented by Bhutani et al¹ in 1974 who termed the currently recognized entity lichen planus pigmentosus. Lichen planus pigmentosus is a frequently encountered hyperpigmentation disorder in Indians, whereas sporadic cases also are reported in other regions and ethnicities.² In cases of LPP, the pigmentation is symmetrical, and its pattern most often is diffuse, then reticular, blotchy, and perifollicular.³ Two unique patterns of LPP have been documented, including linear/blaschkoid LPP and zosteriform LPP.^4,5 Our patient showed a unique beltlike distribution pattern.

The pathogenesis of LPP still is unclear, and several inciting factors such as mustard oil, gold therapy,⁶ and hepatitis C virus infection have been cited.⁷ Mancuso and Berdondini⁸ reported a case of LPP flaring immediately after relapse of nephrotic syndrome. It also has been considered as a paraneoplastic phenomen.⁹ No exact cause was found in our patient after a series of relative examinations.

The histopathologic changes associated with LPP consist of atrophic epidermis; bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer in the epidermis; and prominent melanin incontinence in the upper dermis, which can be diverse depending on different sites of skin biopsy and the phase of LPP. Histopathologic findings in our patient were consistent with LPP. The differential diagnosis for the reticulate pattern of pigmentation seen in our patient included confluent and reticulated papillomatosis and poikilodermalike cutaneous amyloidosis, both easily excluded with histopathologic confirmation.

Local amyloidosis also was confirmed by crystal violet staining in our case and its etiology was uncertain. Generalized and local amyloidosis has been reported in association with lichen planus. The diagnosis of lichen planus was followed by the diagnosis of amyloidosis, and the typical skin lesions of these 2 conditions were able to be differentiated in these reported cases.^10,11 However, beltlike pigmentation was the only manifestation for our patient and we could not separate the 2 conditions with the naked eye.

Chronic irritation to the skin resulting in excessive production of degenerate keratins and their subsequent conversion into amyloid deposits has been proposed to be an etiologic factor of amyloidosis.¹¹ Because of the distribution pattern in our case, we believe focal amyloidosis could be attributed to chronic friction and scratching.

To the Editor:

A 68-year-old man presented with slightly itchy macules on the waist and abdomen of approximately 2 years’ duration. He reported that the initial lesions were dark red and subsequently coalesced to form a beltlike pigmentation on the abdomen. He denied any prior treatment, and the lesions did not spontaneously resolve. The patient was taking escitalopram oxalate, telmisartan, and aspirin for depression and cardiovascular disease that was diagnosed 3 years prior. He reported no exposure to UV radiation or a heat source. He denied use of any cosmetics on the body as well as a family history of similar symptoms.

Physical examination showed reticulate brown-purple macules with slight scale on the surface that had become confluent, forming a beltlike pigmentation on the waist and abdomen (Figure 1). Wickham striae were not seen. The oral mucosa and nails were not affected. Microscopic examination for fungal infections was negative.

Systematic physical and laboratory examinations revealed no abnormalities. A skin biopsy from a macule on the abdomen showed hyperkeratosis, thinned out stratum spinosum with flattening of rete ridges, hypergranulosis with vacuolar alteration of the basal cell layer, and bandlike infiltration of lymphocytes and melanophages with incontinence of pigment (Figure 2). Focalized purplish homogeneous deposits were observed in the upper dermis (Figure 3), of which positive crystal violet staining indicated amyloidosis (Figure 4). Congo red stain revealed amyloid deposition (Figure 5). Thus, the diagnosis of lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP) complicated with focal amyloidosis was made. The patient was treated with topical corticosteroids and tretinoin, and no notable therapeutic effects were observed at 3-month follow-up.

Lichen planus pigmentosus, a variant of lichen planus, is a condition of unknown etiology exhibiting dark brown macules and/or papules and a long clinical course. The face, neck, trunk, arms, and legs are the most common areas of presentation, whereas involvement of the scalp, nails, or oral mucosa is relatively rare.

The first clinicohistopathological study with a large sample size was documented by Bhutani et al¹ in 1974 who termed the currently recognized entity lichen planus pigmentosus. Lichen planus pigmentosus is a frequently encountered hyperpigmentation disorder in Indians, whereas sporadic cases also are reported in other regions and ethnicities.² In cases of LPP, the pigmentation is symmetrical, and its pattern most often is diffuse, then reticular, blotchy, and perifollicular.³ Two unique patterns of LPP have been documented, including linear/blaschkoid LPP and zosteriform LPP.^4,5 Our patient showed a unique beltlike distribution pattern.

The pathogenesis of LPP still is unclear, and several inciting factors such as mustard oil, gold therapy,⁶ and hepatitis C virus infection have been cited.⁷ Mancuso and Berdondini⁸ reported a case of LPP flaring immediately after relapse of nephrotic syndrome. It also has been considered as a paraneoplastic phenomen.⁹ No exact cause was found in our patient after a series of relative examinations.

The histopathologic changes associated with LPP consist of atrophic epidermis; bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer in the epidermis; and prominent melanin incontinence in the upper dermis, which can be diverse depending on different sites of skin biopsy and the phase of LPP. Histopathologic findings in our patient were consistent with LPP. The differential diagnosis for the reticulate pattern of pigmentation seen in our patient included confluent and reticulated papillomatosis and poikilodermalike cutaneous amyloidosis, both easily excluded with histopathologic confirmation.

Local amyloidosis also was confirmed by crystal violet staining in our case and its etiology was uncertain. Generalized and local amyloidosis has been reported in association with lichen planus. The diagnosis of lichen planus was followed by the diagnosis of amyloidosis, and the typical skin lesions of these 2 conditions were able to be differentiated in these reported cases.^10,11 However, beltlike pigmentation was the only manifestation for our patient and we could not separate the 2 conditions with the naked eye.

Chronic irritation to the skin resulting in excessive production of degenerate keratins and their subsequent conversion into amyloid deposits has been proposed to be an etiologic factor of amyloidosis.¹¹ Because of the distribution pattern in our case, we believe focal amyloidosis could be attributed to chronic friction and scratching.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old woman presented with a generalized pustular eruption with subjective fevers, chills, night sweats, and light-headedness. Ten days prior to admission she developed a generalized erythematous and pruritic rash; she had started pantoprazole for reflux 4 days prior to the rash. On admission, skin examination revealed facial edema and diffuse erythema covering 80% of the total body surface area with multiple 1- to 4-mm pustules coalescing into lakes of pus on the trunk as well as bilateral upper and lower arms and legs sparing the palms and soles. Desquamation and serous drainage with crust were observed on the skin of the head, upper trunk, and thighs (Figure 1). Vital signs were notable for hypotension. Laboratory tests on admission were remarkable for leukocytosis (white blood cell count: 22.5×10³/μL [reference range, 4.5–11×10³/μL]) with absolute eosinophilia but no neutrophilia. C-reactive protein (CRP) was elevated (237.9 mg/L [reference range, 5.0–9.9 mg/L]). Renal and hepatic functions were normal. Blood cultures grew methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). Further infectious disease workup for viral and fungal pathogens was negative.

Skin biopsy from the left thigh revealed subcorneal, pustular, acute spongiotic dermatitis with marked intraepidermal spongiosis and papillary edema; exocytosis of eosinophils; and single cell necrosis of keratinocytes (Figure 2). These findings were consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Pantoprazole was discontinued, and cardiovascular support and antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteremia were initiated. Respiratory, kidney, and liver functions remained normal throughout the 11-day hospitalization, and the pustular dermatitis, MSSA bacteremia, and cardiovascular symptoms resolved within 10 days.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is an uncommon, self-limited, generalized sterile pustular eruption notable for the usual absence of systemic symptoms and extracutaneous organ involvement. Hotz et al¹ found that mean peripheral neutrophil counts (mean, 21.5×10³/μL) and CRP levels (mean, 241.6 mg/L) were notably elevated in patients with systemic (ie, hepatic, pulmonary, renal, bone marrow) involvement. In our patient, only the CRP approached the elevated value reported by Hotz et al.¹ However, the patient exhibited only cardiovascular instability in the context of secondary bacteremia and no other systemic symptoms. The combination of highly elevated neutrophilia and CRP may be a better marker for AGEP-precipitated extracutaneous organ involvement.

Although infectious pathogens such as Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus have been implicated, the majority of AGEP cases are adverse reactions (ARs) to medications, such as β-lactam antibiotics. In our patient, the widely prescribed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pantoprazole was the most likely cause. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis was reported in a patient taking another PPI, omeprazole.² However, PPIs are recognized to cause many cutaneous and other organ ARs, though prevalence of ARs is still low. In Thailand, Chularojanamontri et al³ reported 13.8 per 100,000 individuals developed a cutaneous AR to PPIs, and the ARs most frequently were attributed to omeprazole. They found that drug exanthems were the most common cutaneous ARs.³ However, more severe hypersensitivity reactions have been reported, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and autoimmune eruptions such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus.^3,4 Other systemic reactions to PPIs include increased risks for urticaria, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infections, and acute interstitial nephritis.^4,5

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old woman presented with a generalized pustular eruption with subjective fevers, chills, night sweats, and light-headedness. Ten days prior to admission she developed a generalized erythematous and pruritic rash; she had started pantoprazole for reflux 4 days prior to the rash. On admission, skin examination revealed facial edema and diffuse erythema covering 80% of the total body surface area with multiple 1- to 4-mm pustules coalescing into lakes of pus on the trunk as well as bilateral upper and lower arms and legs sparing the palms and soles. Desquamation and serous drainage with crust were observed on the skin of the head, upper trunk, and thighs (Figure 1). Vital signs were notable for hypotension. Laboratory tests on admission were remarkable for leukocytosis (white blood cell count: 22.5×10³/μL [reference range, 4.5–11×10³/μL]) with absolute eosinophilia but no neutrophilia. C-reactive protein (CRP) was elevated (237.9 mg/L [reference range, 5.0–9.9 mg/L]). Renal and hepatic functions were normal. Blood cultures grew methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). Further infectious disease workup for viral and fungal pathogens was negative.

Skin biopsy from the left thigh revealed subcorneal, pustular, acute spongiotic dermatitis with marked intraepidermal spongiosis and papillary edema; exocytosis of eosinophils; and single cell necrosis of keratinocytes (Figure 2). These findings were consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Pantoprazole was discontinued, and cardiovascular support and antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteremia were initiated. Respiratory, kidney, and liver functions remained normal throughout the 11-day hospitalization, and the pustular dermatitis, MSSA bacteremia, and cardiovascular symptoms resolved within 10 days.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is an uncommon, self-limited, generalized sterile pustular eruption notable for the usual absence of systemic symptoms and extracutaneous organ involvement. Hotz et al¹ found that mean peripheral neutrophil counts (mean, 21.5×10³/μL) and CRP levels (mean, 241.6 mg/L) were notably elevated in patients with systemic (ie, hepatic, pulmonary, renal, bone marrow) involvement. In our patient, only the CRP approached the elevated value reported by Hotz et al.¹ However, the patient exhibited only cardiovascular instability in the context of secondary bacteremia and no other systemic symptoms. The combination of highly elevated neutrophilia and CRP may be a better marker for AGEP-precipitated extracutaneous organ involvement.

Although infectious pathogens such as Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus have been implicated, the majority of AGEP cases are adverse reactions (ARs) to medications, such as β-lactam antibiotics. In our patient, the widely prescribed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pantoprazole was the most likely cause. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis was reported in a patient taking another PPI, omeprazole.² However, PPIs are recognized to cause many cutaneous and other organ ARs, though prevalence of ARs is still low. In Thailand, Chularojanamontri et al³ reported 13.8 per 100,000 individuals developed a cutaneous AR to PPIs, and the ARs most frequently were attributed to omeprazole. They found that drug exanthems were the most common cutaneous ARs.³ However, more severe hypersensitivity reactions have been reported, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and autoimmune eruptions such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus.^3,4 Other systemic reactions to PPIs include increased risks for urticaria, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infections, and acute interstitial nephritis.^4,5

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old woman presented with a generalized pustular eruption with subjective fevers, chills, night sweats, and light-headedness. Ten days prior to admission she developed a generalized erythematous and pruritic rash; she had started pantoprazole for reflux 4 days prior to the rash. On admission, skin examination revealed facial edema and diffuse erythema covering 80% of the total body surface area with multiple 1- to 4-mm pustules coalescing into lakes of pus on the trunk as well as bilateral upper and lower arms and legs sparing the palms and soles. Desquamation and serous drainage with crust were observed on the skin of the head, upper trunk, and thighs (Figure 1). Vital signs were notable for hypotension. Laboratory tests on admission were remarkable for leukocytosis (white blood cell count: 22.5×10³/μL [reference range, 4.5–11×10³/μL]) with absolute eosinophilia but no neutrophilia. C-reactive protein (CRP) was elevated (237.9 mg/L [reference range, 5.0–9.9 mg/L]). Renal and hepatic functions were normal. Blood cultures grew methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). Further infectious disease workup for viral and fungal pathogens was negative.

Skin biopsy from the left thigh revealed subcorneal, pustular, acute spongiotic dermatitis with marked intraepidermal spongiosis and papillary edema; exocytosis of eosinophils; and single cell necrosis of keratinocytes (Figure 2). These findings were consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Pantoprazole was discontinued, and cardiovascular support and antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteremia were initiated. Respiratory, kidney, and liver functions remained normal throughout the 11-day hospitalization, and the pustular dermatitis, MSSA bacteremia, and cardiovascular symptoms resolved within 10 days.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is an uncommon, self-limited, generalized sterile pustular eruption notable for the usual absence of systemic symptoms and extracutaneous organ involvement. Hotz et al¹ found that mean peripheral neutrophil counts (mean, 21.5×10³/μL) and CRP levels (mean, 241.6 mg/L) were notably elevated in patients with systemic (ie, hepatic, pulmonary, renal, bone marrow) involvement. In our patient, only the CRP approached the elevated value reported by Hotz et al.¹ However, the patient exhibited only cardiovascular instability in the context of secondary bacteremia and no other systemic symptoms. The combination of highly elevated neutrophilia and CRP may be a better marker for AGEP-precipitated extracutaneous organ involvement.

Although infectious pathogens such as Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus have been implicated, the majority of AGEP cases are adverse reactions (ARs) to medications, such as β-lactam antibiotics. In our patient, the widely prescribed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pantoprazole was the most likely cause. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis was reported in a patient taking another PPI, omeprazole.² However, PPIs are recognized to cause many cutaneous and other organ ARs, though prevalence of ARs is still low. In Thailand, Chularojanamontri et al³ reported 13.8 per 100,000 individuals developed a cutaneous AR to PPIs, and the ARs most frequently were attributed to omeprazole. They found that drug exanthems were the most common cutaneous ARs.³ However, more severe hypersensitivity reactions have been reported, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and autoimmune eruptions such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus.^3,4 Other systemic reactions to PPIs include increased risks for urticaria, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infections, and acute interstitial nephritis.^4,5

To the Editor:

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD) is a rare disorder that often is associated with systemic disease. It has been shown to manifest in the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis; Wegener granulomatosis; and other diseases, mainly autoimmune conditions. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) associated with arthritis was first described by Ackerman et al¹ in 1993. In 1994, IGD was placed among the spectrum of PNGD by Chu et al.² The disease entities included in the spectrum of PNGD of the immune complex disease are Churg-Strauss granuloma, cutaneous extravascular necrotizing granuloma, rheumatoid papules, superficial ulcerating rheumatoid necrobiosis, and IGD with arthritis.² It has been suggested that IGD has a distinct clinical presentation with associated histopathology, while others suggest it still is part of the PNGD spectrum.^2,3 We present 2 cases of granulomatous dermatitis and their findings related to IGD and PNGD.

A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent painful lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs of 2 years’ duration. The lesions spontaneously resolved without scarring or hyperpigmentation but would recur in different areas on the trunk. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis following a recent autoimmune workup. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender erythematous edematous plaques on the bilateral upper back (Figure 1) and erythematous nodules on the bilateral upper arms. The patient previously had an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 with a speckled pattern. A repeat antinuclear antibody titer taken 1 year later was negative. Her rheumatoid factor initially was positive and remained positive upon repeat testing. Punch biopsies were performed for histologic evaluation of the lesions and immunofluorescence. Biopsies examined with hematoxylin and eosin stain revealed perivascular and interstitial mixed (lymphocytic, neutrophilic, eosinophilic) bottom-heavy inflammation with nuclear dust and basophilic degeneration of collagen (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence studies were negative. The patient deferred treatment.

A 74-year-old man presented with a rash on the flank and back with associated pruritus and occasional pain of 2 months’ duration. His primary care physician prescribed a course of cephalexin, but the rash did not improve. Review of systems was positive for intermittent swelling of the hands, feet, and lips, and negative for arthritis. His medical history included 2 episodes of rheumatic fever, one complicated by pneumonia. His medications included finasteride, simvastatin, bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, tiotropium, vitamin D, and fish oil. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender violaceous plaques with induration and central clearing distributed on the left side of the back, left side of the flank, and left axilla. The lesion on the axilla measured 30.0×3.5 cm and the lesions on the left side of the back measured 30.0×9.0 cm. The rims of the lesions were elevated and consistent with the rope sign (Figure 3). A punch biopsy of the lesion on the left axilla showed perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There was no evidence of fibrin deposition in the blood vessels. Small areas of necrobiotic collagen surrounded by multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes were noted (Figure 4). The rash improved spontaneously at the time of suture removal. No treatment was initiated.

Granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder can present as IGD or PNGD. Both forms of granulomatous dermatitis are rare conditions and considered to be part of the same clinicopathological spectrum. These conditions can be difficult to distinguish clinically but are histologically unique.

Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and PNGD can have a variable clinical expression. Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis generally presents as flesh-colored to erythematous papules or plaques, most commonly located on the upper arms. The lesions may have a central umbilication with perforation and ulceration.⁴ Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis most commonly presents as erythematous plaques and papules. The lesions are symmetric and asymptomatic. They most commonly appear on the trunk, axillae, buttocks, thighs, and groin. Subcutaneous linear cords (the rope sign) is a characteristic associated with IGD.^3,5 However, the rope sign also has been reported in a patient with PNGD with systemic lupus,⁶ which further demonstrates the overlapping spectrum of clinical expression seen in these 2 forms of granulomatous dermatitis. Therefore, a diagnosis cannot be made by clinical expression alone; histologic findings are needed for confirmation.

When differentiating IGD and PNGD histologically, it is important to keep in mind that these features exist on a spectrum and depend on the age of the lesion. Deposition of the immune complex around the dermal blood vessel initiates the pathogenesis. Early lesions of PNGD show a neutrophilic infiltrate, focal leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and dense nuclear dust. Developed lesions show zones of basophilic degenerated collagen surrounded by palisades of histiocytes, neutrophils, and nuclear debris.² The histologic pattern of IGD features smaller areas of palisading histiocytes surrounding foci of degenerated collagen. Neutrophils and eosinophils are seen among the degenerated collagen. There is no evidence of vasculitis and dermal mucin usually is absent.⁷

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis has been reported to improve with systemic steroids and dapsone.⁸ The lesions may resolve spontaneously and with treatment of the underlying systemic disease. Similarly, IGD has been reported to resolve with systemic or topical steroids.^3,5 The rash in our patient with IGD (patient 2) spontaneously resolved. Our patient with PNGD (patient 1) reported that her lesions would spontaneously resolve, then recur. She had deferred all other treatment.

Some authors have disputed the spectrum that Chu et al² had determined in their study and proposed IGD is a separate entity from the PNGD spectrum. Verneuil et al⁹ stated that the clinical presentations in Chu et al’s² study (symmetric papules of the extremities) had not been reported in a patient with IGD. However, in a study of IGD by Peroni et al,³ 7 of 12 patients presented with symmetrical papules of the extremities. We believe that the spectrum proposed by Chu et al² still holds true.

These 2 reports demonstrate the diverse presentation of IGD and PNGD. It is important for dermatologists to keep in mind the PNGD spectrum when a patient presents with granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder.

To the Editor:

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD) is a rare disorder that often is associated with systemic disease. It has been shown to manifest in the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis; Wegener granulomatosis; and other diseases, mainly autoimmune conditions. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) associated with arthritis was first described by Ackerman et al¹ in 1993. In 1994, IGD was placed among the spectrum of PNGD by Chu et al.² The disease entities included in the spectrum of PNGD of the immune complex disease are Churg-Strauss granuloma, cutaneous extravascular necrotizing granuloma, rheumatoid papules, superficial ulcerating rheumatoid necrobiosis, and IGD with arthritis.² It has been suggested that IGD has a distinct clinical presentation with associated histopathology, while others suggest it still is part of the PNGD spectrum.^2,3 We present 2 cases of granulomatous dermatitis and their findings related to IGD and PNGD.

A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent painful lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs of 2 years’ duration. The lesions spontaneously resolved without scarring or hyperpigmentation but would recur in different areas on the trunk. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis following a recent autoimmune workup. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender erythematous edematous plaques on the bilateral upper back (Figure 1) and erythematous nodules on the bilateral upper arms. The patient previously had an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 with a speckled pattern. A repeat antinuclear antibody titer taken 1 year later was negative. Her rheumatoid factor initially was positive and remained positive upon repeat testing. Punch biopsies were performed for histologic evaluation of the lesions and immunofluorescence. Biopsies examined with hematoxylin and eosin stain revealed perivascular and interstitial mixed (lymphocytic, neutrophilic, eosinophilic) bottom-heavy inflammation with nuclear dust and basophilic degeneration of collagen (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence studies were negative. The patient deferred treatment.

A 74-year-old man presented with a rash on the flank and back with associated pruritus and occasional pain of 2 months’ duration. His primary care physician prescribed a course of cephalexin, but the rash did not improve. Review of systems was positive for intermittent swelling of the hands, feet, and lips, and negative for arthritis. His medical history included 2 episodes of rheumatic fever, one complicated by pneumonia. His medications included finasteride, simvastatin, bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, tiotropium, vitamin D, and fish oil. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender violaceous plaques with induration and central clearing distributed on the left side of the back, left side of the flank, and left axilla. The lesion on the axilla measured 30.0×3.5 cm and the lesions on the left side of the back measured 30.0×9.0 cm. The rims of the lesions were elevated and consistent with the rope sign (Figure 3). A punch biopsy of the lesion on the left axilla showed perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There was no evidence of fibrin deposition in the blood vessels. Small areas of necrobiotic collagen surrounded by multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes were noted (Figure 4). The rash improved spontaneously at the time of suture removal. No treatment was initiated.

Granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder can present as IGD or PNGD. Both forms of granulomatous dermatitis are rare conditions and considered to be part of the same clinicopathological spectrum. These conditions can be difficult to distinguish clinically but are histologically unique.

Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and PNGD can have a variable clinical expression. Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis generally presents as flesh-colored to erythematous papules or plaques, most commonly located on the upper arms. The lesions may have a central umbilication with perforation and ulceration.⁴ Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis most commonly presents as erythematous plaques and papules. The lesions are symmetric and asymptomatic. They most commonly appear on the trunk, axillae, buttocks, thighs, and groin. Subcutaneous linear cords (the rope sign) is a characteristic associated with IGD.^3,5 However, the rope sign also has been reported in a patient with PNGD with systemic lupus,⁶ which further demonstrates the overlapping spectrum of clinical expression seen in these 2 forms of granulomatous dermatitis. Therefore, a diagnosis cannot be made by clinical expression alone; histologic findings are needed for confirmation.

When differentiating IGD and PNGD histologically, it is important to keep in mind that these features exist on a spectrum and depend on the age of the lesion. Deposition of the immune complex around the dermal blood vessel initiates the pathogenesis. Early lesions of PNGD show a neutrophilic infiltrate, focal leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and dense nuclear dust. Developed lesions show zones of basophilic degenerated collagen surrounded by palisades of histiocytes, neutrophils, and nuclear debris.² The histologic pattern of IGD features smaller areas of palisading histiocytes surrounding foci of degenerated collagen. Neutrophils and eosinophils are seen among the degenerated collagen. There is no evidence of vasculitis and dermal mucin usually is absent.⁷

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis has been reported to improve with systemic steroids and dapsone.⁸ The lesions may resolve spontaneously and with treatment of the underlying systemic disease. Similarly, IGD has been reported to resolve with systemic or topical steroids.^3,5 The rash in our patient with IGD (patient 2) spontaneously resolved. Our patient with PNGD (patient 1) reported that her lesions would spontaneously resolve, then recur. She had deferred all other treatment.

Some authors have disputed the spectrum that Chu et al² had determined in their study and proposed IGD is a separate entity from the PNGD spectrum. Verneuil et al⁹ stated that the clinical presentations in Chu et al’s² study (symmetric papules of the extremities) had not been reported in a patient with IGD. However, in a study of IGD by Peroni et al,³ 7 of 12 patients presented with symmetrical papules of the extremities. We believe that the spectrum proposed by Chu et al² still holds true.

These 2 reports demonstrate the diverse presentation of IGD and PNGD. It is important for dermatologists to keep in mind the PNGD spectrum when a patient presents with granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder.

To the Editor:

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD) is a rare disorder that often is associated with systemic disease. It has been shown to manifest in the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis; Wegener granulomatosis; and other diseases, mainly autoimmune conditions. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) associated with arthritis was first described by Ackerman et al¹ in 1993. In 1994, IGD was placed among the spectrum of PNGD by Chu et al.² The disease entities included in the spectrum of PNGD of the immune complex disease are Churg-Strauss granuloma, cutaneous extravascular necrotizing granuloma, rheumatoid papules, superficial ulcerating rheumatoid necrobiosis, and IGD with arthritis.² It has been suggested that IGD has a distinct clinical presentation with associated histopathology, while others suggest it still is part of the PNGD spectrum.^2,3 We present 2 cases of granulomatous dermatitis and their findings related to IGD and PNGD.

A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent painful lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs of 2 years’ duration. The lesions spontaneously resolved without scarring or hyperpigmentation but would recur in different areas on the trunk. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis following a recent autoimmune workup. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender erythematous edematous plaques on the bilateral upper back (Figure 1) and erythematous nodules on the bilateral upper arms. The patient previously had an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 with a speckled pattern. A repeat antinuclear antibody titer taken 1 year later was negative. Her rheumatoid factor initially was positive and remained positive upon repeat testing. Punch biopsies were performed for histologic evaluation of the lesions and immunofluorescence. Biopsies examined with hematoxylin and eosin stain revealed perivascular and interstitial mixed (lymphocytic, neutrophilic, eosinophilic) bottom-heavy inflammation with nuclear dust and basophilic degeneration of collagen (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence studies were negative. The patient deferred treatment.

A 74-year-old man presented with a rash on the flank and back with associated pruritus and occasional pain of 2 months’ duration. His primary care physician prescribed a course of cephalexin, but the rash did not improve. Review of systems was positive for intermittent swelling of the hands, feet, and lips, and negative for arthritis. His medical history included 2 episodes of rheumatic fever, one complicated by pneumonia. His medications included finasteride, simvastatin, bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, tiotropium, vitamin D, and fish oil. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender violaceous plaques with induration and central clearing distributed on the left side of the back, left side of the flank, and left axilla. The lesion on the axilla measured 30.0×3.5 cm and the lesions on the left side of the back measured 30.0×9.0 cm. The rims of the lesions were elevated and consistent with the rope sign (Figure 3). A punch biopsy of the lesion on the left axilla showed perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There was no evidence of fibrin deposition in the blood vessels. Small areas of necrobiotic collagen surrounded by multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes were noted (Figure 4). The rash improved spontaneously at the time of suture removal. No treatment was initiated.

Granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder can present as IGD or PNGD. Both forms of granulomatous dermatitis are rare conditions and considered to be part of the same clinicopathological spectrum. These conditions can be difficult to distinguish clinically but are histologically unique.

Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and PNGD can have a variable clinical expression. Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis generally presents as flesh-colored to erythematous papules or plaques, most commonly located on the upper arms. The lesions may have a central umbilication with perforation and ulceration.⁴ Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis most commonly presents as erythematous plaques and papules. The lesions are symmetric and asymptomatic. They most commonly appear on the trunk, axillae, buttocks, thighs, and groin. Subcutaneous linear cords (the rope sign) is a characteristic associated with IGD.^3,5 However, the rope sign also has been reported in a patient with PNGD with systemic lupus,⁶ which further demonstrates the overlapping spectrum of clinical expression seen in these 2 forms of granulomatous dermatitis. Therefore, a diagnosis cannot be made by clinical expression alone; histologic findings are needed for confirmation.

When differentiating IGD and PNGD histologically, it is important to keep in mind that these features exist on a spectrum and depend on the age of the lesion. Deposition of the immune complex around the dermal blood vessel initiates the pathogenesis. Early lesions of PNGD show a neutrophilic infiltrate, focal leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and dense nuclear dust. Developed lesions show zones of basophilic degenerated collagen surrounded by palisades of histiocytes, neutrophils, and nuclear debris.² The histologic pattern of IGD features smaller areas of palisading histiocytes surrounding foci of degenerated collagen. Neutrophils and eosinophils are seen among the degenerated collagen. There is no evidence of vasculitis and dermal mucin usually is absent.⁷

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis has been reported to improve with systemic steroids and dapsone.⁸ The lesions may resolve spontaneously and with treatment of the underlying systemic disease. Similarly, IGD has been reported to resolve with systemic or topical steroids.^3,5 The rash in our patient with IGD (patient 2) spontaneously resolved. Our patient with PNGD (patient 1) reported that her lesions would spontaneously resolve, then recur. She had deferred all other treatment.

Some authors have disputed the spectrum that Chu et al² had determined in their study and proposed IGD is a separate entity from the PNGD spectrum. Verneuil et al⁹ stated that the clinical presentations in Chu et al’s² study (symmetric papules of the extremities) had not been reported in a patient with IGD. However, in a study of IGD by Peroni et al,³ 7 of 12 patients presented with symmetrical papules of the extremities. We believe that the spectrum proposed by Chu et al² still holds true.

These 2 reports demonstrate the diverse presentation of IGD and PNGD. It is important for dermatologists to keep in mind the PNGD spectrum when a patient presents with granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder.

To the Editor:

Tinea incognito occurs when superficial fungal infections fail to demonstrate typical clinical features in the setting of immune suppression caused by topical or systemic steroids.^1,2 A case of tinea corporis obscured by an allergic tattoo reaction is presented.

A 52-year-old man presented for evaluation of a rash overlying a tattoo on the right calf of 3 weeks’ duration (Figure, A). The tattoo was placed 4 years prior to presentation. Within 6 months of the tattoo’s placement, pruritus, scaling, and edema developed in a 2-mm rim around the outer border and in the eyes of the elephant tattoo but not in the lettering portion of the tattoo, which was added by a different tattoo artist with a different red dye. A diagnosis of red dye tattoo allergic reaction was made. Daily treatment with tacrolimus ointment 0.1% and halobetasol propionate cream 0.05% under occlusion for 18 months provided only partial relief of incessant pruritus. Three months prior to presentation the tattoo reaction appeared to become worse with more pruritus and extension outside the bounds of the original tattoo.

Physical examination revealed the red rim of the tattoo was erythematous, edematous, and crusted. In addition, a 5×4-cm well-demarcated, erythematous, scaling patch was present overlying the elephant tattoo on the right calf and extending superiorly and laterally away from the tattoo. Scaling and maceration also were present in the web spaces between the fourth and fifth toes, and the toenails were yellowed, thickened, and dystrophic with signs of distal onycholysis. A potassium hydroxide preparation performed from the plaque on the right calf demonstrated septate fungal hyphae.

The diagnosis of tinea corporis secondary to tinea pedis overlying a red dye tattoo allergic reaction was made. Tacrolimus and halobetasol propionate were discontinued and treatment with ketoconazole cream 2% twice daily and oral terbinafine 250 mg once daily was started. The erythematous patch beyond the borders of the tattoo cleared within weeks, but the patient reported worsening of cracking, itching, and swelling overlying the red dye in the rim of the tattoo following discontinuation of topical anti-inflammatory drugs (Figure, B).

A potassium hydroxide preparation demonstrated that the expansible rash was tinea corporis disguised in its character by the coloration of the tattoo; the erythematous, edematous, pruritic tattoo allergic reaction at its rim; and suppression of the normal inflammatory response by daily use of a topical steroid and a calcineurin inhibitor. The latter effect (an immunocompromised district) impacts the classic exaggerated scaling, inflamed rim, and central clearing of tinea corporis present in individuals with a normal inflammatory response.² Although tinea incognito is classically described on the ankles and lower legs of patients with stasis dermatitis chronically treated with topical steroids, it could occur anywhere in the setting of immunosuppression.³

An analysis of this case using Occam’s razor suggests that the association of this tattoo and tinea was not a coincidence. This guiding principle (heuristic) suggests that economy and succinctness in the logic of science is most likely to produce a correct medical diagnosis (eg, associated findings can be explained by identifying one underlying cause).⁴ The topical anti-inflammatory drugs increase the likelihood that the patient’s interdigital tinea would spread to this precise location symmetrically expanding in the outline of the tattoo.²

To the Editor:

Tinea incognito occurs when superficial fungal infections fail to demonstrate typical clinical features in the setting of immune suppression caused by topical or systemic steroids.^1,2 A case of tinea corporis obscured by an allergic tattoo reaction is presented.

A 52-year-old man presented for evaluation of a rash overlying a tattoo on the right calf of 3 weeks’ duration (Figure, A). The tattoo was placed 4 years prior to presentation. Within 6 months of the tattoo’s placement, pruritus, scaling, and edema developed in a 2-mm rim around the outer border and in the eyes of the elephant tattoo but not in the lettering portion of the tattoo, which was added by a different tattoo artist with a different red dye. A diagnosis of red dye tattoo allergic reaction was made. Daily treatment with tacrolimus ointment 0.1% and halobetasol propionate cream 0.05% under occlusion for 18 months provided only partial relief of incessant pruritus. Three months prior to presentation the tattoo reaction appeared to become worse with more pruritus and extension outside the bounds of the original tattoo.

Physical examination revealed the red rim of the tattoo was erythematous, edematous, and crusted. In addition, a 5×4-cm well-demarcated, erythematous, scaling patch was present overlying the elephant tattoo on the right calf and extending superiorly and laterally away from the tattoo. Scaling and maceration also were present in the web spaces between the fourth and fifth toes, and the toenails were yellowed, thickened, and dystrophic with signs of distal onycholysis. A potassium hydroxide preparation performed from the plaque on the right calf demonstrated septate fungal hyphae.

The diagnosis of tinea corporis secondary to tinea pedis overlying a red dye tattoo allergic reaction was made. Tacrolimus and halobetasol propionate were discontinued and treatment with ketoconazole cream 2% twice daily and oral terbinafine 250 mg once daily was started. The erythematous patch beyond the borders of the tattoo cleared within weeks, but the patient reported worsening of cracking, itching, and swelling overlying the red dye in the rim of the tattoo following discontinuation of topical anti-inflammatory drugs (Figure, B).

A potassium hydroxide preparation demonstrated that the expansible rash was tinea corporis disguised in its character by the coloration of the tattoo; the erythematous, edematous, pruritic tattoo allergic reaction at its rim; and suppression of the normal inflammatory response by daily use of a topical steroid and a calcineurin inhibitor. The latter effect (an immunocompromised district) impacts the classic exaggerated scaling, inflamed rim, and central clearing of tinea corporis present in individuals with a normal inflammatory response.² Although tinea incognito is classically described on the ankles and lower legs of patients with stasis dermatitis chronically treated with topical steroids, it could occur anywhere in the setting of immunosuppression.³

An analysis of this case using Occam’s razor suggests that the association of this tattoo and tinea was not a coincidence. This guiding principle (heuristic) suggests that economy and succinctness in the logic of science is most likely to produce a correct medical diagnosis (eg, associated findings can be explained by identifying one underlying cause).⁴ The topical anti-inflammatory drugs increase the likelihood that the patient’s interdigital tinea would spread to this precise location symmetrically expanding in the outline of the tattoo.²

To the Editor:

Tinea incognito occurs when superficial fungal infections fail to demonstrate typical clinical features in the setting of immune suppression caused by topical or systemic steroids.^1,2 A case of tinea corporis obscured by an allergic tattoo reaction is presented.

A 52-year-old man presented for evaluation of a rash overlying a tattoo on the right calf of 3 weeks’ duration (Figure, A). The tattoo was placed 4 years prior to presentation. Within 6 months of the tattoo’s placement, pruritus, scaling, and edema developed in a 2-mm rim around the outer border and in the eyes of the elephant tattoo but not in the lettering portion of the tattoo, which was added by a different tattoo artist with a different red dye. A diagnosis of red dye tattoo allergic reaction was made. Daily treatment with tacrolimus ointment 0.1% and halobetasol propionate cream 0.05% under occlusion for 18 months provided only partial relief of incessant pruritus. Three months prior to presentation the tattoo reaction appeared to become worse with more pruritus and extension outside the bounds of the original tattoo.

Physical examination revealed the red rim of the tattoo was erythematous, edematous, and crusted. In addition, a 5×4-cm well-demarcated, erythematous, scaling patch was present overlying the elephant tattoo on the right calf and extending superiorly and laterally away from the tattoo. Scaling and maceration also were present in the web spaces between the fourth and fifth toes, and the toenails were yellowed, thickened, and dystrophic with signs of distal onycholysis. A potassium hydroxide preparation performed from the plaque on the right calf demonstrated septate fungal hyphae.

The diagnosis of tinea corporis secondary to tinea pedis overlying a red dye tattoo allergic reaction was made. Tacrolimus and halobetasol propionate were discontinued and treatment with ketoconazole cream 2% twice daily and oral terbinafine 250 mg once daily was started. The erythematous patch beyond the borders of the tattoo cleared within weeks, but the patient reported worsening of cracking, itching, and swelling overlying the red dye in the rim of the tattoo following discontinuation of topical anti-inflammatory drugs (Figure, B).

A potassium hydroxide preparation demonstrated that the expansible rash was tinea corporis disguised in its character by the coloration of the tattoo; the erythematous, edematous, pruritic tattoo allergic reaction at its rim; and suppression of the normal inflammatory response by daily use of a topical steroid and a calcineurin inhibitor. The latter effect (an immunocompromised district) impacts the classic exaggerated scaling, inflamed rim, and central clearing of tinea corporis present in individuals with a normal inflammatory response.² Although tinea incognito is classically described on the ankles and lower legs of patients with stasis dermatitis chronically treated with topical steroids, it could occur anywhere in the setting of immunosuppression.³

An analysis of this case using Occam’s razor suggests that the association of this tattoo and tinea was not a coincidence. This guiding principle (heuristic) suggests that economy and succinctness in the logic of science is most likely to produce a correct medical diagnosis (eg, associated findings can be explained by identifying one underlying cause).⁴ The topical anti-inflammatory drugs increase the likelihood that the patient’s interdigital tinea would spread to this precise location symmetrically expanding in the outline of the tattoo.²

As dermatologists, we possess a vast knowledge of the epidermis. Some patients may choose to use the epidermis as a canvas for their art in the form of tattoos; however, tattoos can complicate dermatology visits in a myriad of ways. From patients seeking tattoo removal (a complicated task even with the most advanced laser treatments) to those whose native skin is obscured by a tattoo during melanoma screening, it is no wonder that many dermatologists become frustrated at the very mention of the word tattoo.

Tattoos have a long and complicated history entrenched in class divisions, gender identity, and culture. Although its origins are not well documented, many researchers believe that tattooing began in Egypt as early as 4000 BCE.¹ From there, the practice spread east into South Asia and west to the British Isles and Scotland. The Iberians in the British Isles, the Picts in Scotland, the Gauls in Western Europe, and the Teutons in Germany all practiced tattooing, and the Romans were known to use tattooing to mark convicts and slaves.¹ By 787 AD, tattooing was prevalent enough to warrant an official ban by Pope Hadrian I at the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.² The growing power of Christianity most likely contributed to the elimination of tattooing in the West, although many soldiers who fought in the Crusades received tattoos during their travels.³

Despite the long history of tattoos in both the East and West, Captain James Cook often is credited with discovering tattooing in the eighteenth century during his explorations in the Pacific.⁴ In Tahiti in 1769 and Hawaii in 1778, Cook encountered heavily tattooed populations who deposited dye into the skin by tapping sharpened instruments.³ These Polynesian tattoos, which were associated with healing and protective powers, often depicted genealogies and were composed of images of lines, stars, geometric designs, animals, and humans. Explorers in Polynesia who came after Cook noted that tattoo designs began to include rifles, cannons, and dates of chief’s deaths—an indication of the cultural exchange that occurred between Cook’s crew and the natives.³ The first tattooed peoples were displayed in the United States at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1876.² Later, at the 1901 World’s Fair in Buffalo, New York, the first full “freak show” emerged, and tattooed “natives” were displayed.⁵ Since they were introduced in the West, tattoos have been associated with an element of the exotic in the United States.

Acknowledged by many to be the first professional tattooist in the United States, Martin Hildebrandt opened his shop in New York City, New York, in 1846.² Initially, only sailors and soldiers were tattooed, which contributed to the concept of the so-called “tattooed serviceman.”⁵ However, after the Spanish-American War, tattoos became a fad among the high society in Europe. Tattooing at this time was still performed through the ancient Polynesian tapping method, making it both time-consuming and expensive. Tattoos generally were always placed in a private location, leading to popular speculation at the time about whom in the aristocracy possessed a tattoo, with some even speculating that Queen Victoria may have had a tattoo.¹ However, this brief trend among the aristocracy came to an end when Samuel O’Reilly, an American tattoo artist, patented the first electric tattooing machine in 1891.⁶ His invention made tattooing faster, cheaper, and less painful, thereby making tattooing available to a much wider audience. In the United States, men in the military often were tattooed, especially during World Wars I and II, when patriotic themes and tattoos of important women in their lives (eg, the word Mom, the name of a sweetheart) became popular.

It is a popular belief that a tattoo renaissance occurred in the United States in the 1970s, sparked by an influx of Indonesian and Asian artistic styles. Today, tattoos are ubiquitous. A 2012 poll showed that 21% of adults in the United States have a tattoo.⁷ There are now 4 main types of tattoos: cosmetic (eg, permanent makeup), traumatic (eg, injury on asphalt), medical (eg, to mark radiation sites), and decorative—either amateur (often done by hand) or professional (done in tattoo parlors with electric tattooing needles).⁸

Laser Tattoo Removal

Today tattoos are easy and relatively cheap to get, and for most people they are not regarded as an important cultural milestone like they were in early Polynesian culture. As a result, dermatologists often may encounter patients seeking to have these permanent designs removed from their skin. Previously, tattoo removal was attempted using destructive processes such as scarification and cryotherapy and generally resulted in poor cosmetics outcomes. Today, lasers are at the forefront of tattoo removal. Traditional lasers use pulse durations in the nanosecond range, with newer generation lasers in the picosecond range delivering much shorter pulse durations, effectively delivering the same level of energy over less time. It is important to select the correct laser for optimal destruction of various tattoo ink colors (Table).^8,9

Controversy persists as to whether tattoo pigment destruction by lasers is caused by thermal or acoustic damage.¹⁰ It may be a combination of both, with rapid heating of the particles leading to a local shockwave as the energy collapses.¹¹ The goal of tattoo removal is to create smaller granules of pigment that can be taken up by the patient’s lymphatic system. The largest granule that can be taken up by the lymphatic system is 0.4 μm.¹⁰

In laser treatment of any skin condition, the laser energy is delivered in a pulse duration that should be less than the thermal relaxation time of the chromophores (water, melanin, hemoglobin, or tattoo pigment are the main targets within the skin).¹² Most tattoo chromophores are 30 nm to 300 nm, with a thermal relaxation time of less than 10 nanoseconds.^10,12 As the number of treatments progresses, laser settings should be adjusted for smaller ink particles. Patients should be warned about pain, side effects, and the need for multiple treatments. Common side effects of laser tattoo removal include purpura, pinpoint bleeding, erythema, edema, crusting, and blistering.⁸

After laser treatment, cytoplasmic water in the cell is converted into steam leading to cavitation of the lysosome, which presents as whitening of the skin. The whitening causes optical scatter, thereby preventing immediate retreatment of the area.¹¹ The R20 laser tattoo removal method discussed by Kossida et al,¹³ advises practitioners to wait 20 minutes between treatments to allow the air bubbles from the conversion of water to steam to disappear. Kossida et al¹³ demonstrated more effective removal in tattoos that were treated with this method compared to standard treatment. The recognition that trapped air bubbles delay multiple treatment cycles has led to the experimental use of perfluorodecalin, a fluorocarbon liquid capable of dissolving the air bubbles, for immediate retreatment.¹⁴ By dissolving the trapped air and eliminating the white color, multiple treatments can be completed during 1 session.

Risks of Laser Tattoo Removal

It is important to emphasize that there are potential risks associated with laser treatment for tattoo removal, many of which we are only just beginning to understand. Common side effects of laser treatment for tattoo removal include blisters, pain, bleeding, hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation; however, there also are rare potential risks. Tattoo ink can paradoxically darken when it contains metals such as titanium or zinc, as often is found in tan or white inks.¹⁵ The laser energy causes a shift of the metal from an oxidized to a reduced state, leading to a darker rather than lighter tattoo upon application of the laser. There also have been documented cases of intraprocedural anaphylaxis, delayed urticaria, as well as generalized eczematous reactions.^16-18 In these cases, the patients had never experienced any allergic symptoms prior to the laser tattoo removal procedure.

Additionally, patients with active allergy to the pigments used in tattoo ink provide a therapeutic dilemma, as laser treatment may potentially systematize the tattoo ink, leading to a more widespread allergic reaction. A case of a generalized eczematous reaction after carbon dioxide laser therapy in a patient with documented tattoo allergy has been reported.¹⁹ More research is needed to fully understand the nature of immediate as well as delayed hypersensitivity reactions associated with laser tattoo removal.

Final Thoughts

With thousands of years of established traditions, it is unlikely that tattooing will go away anytime soon. Fortunately, lasers are providing us with an effective and safe method of removal.

As dermatologists, we possess a vast knowledge of the epidermis. Some patients may choose to use the epidermis as a canvas for their art in the form of tattoos; however, tattoos can complicate dermatology visits in a myriad of ways. From patients seeking tattoo removal (a complicated task even with the most advanced laser treatments) to those whose native skin is obscured by a tattoo during melanoma screening, it is no wonder that many dermatologists become frustrated at the very mention of the word tattoo.

Tattoos have a long and complicated history entrenched in class divisions, gender identity, and culture. Although its origins are not well documented, many researchers believe that tattooing began in Egypt as early as 4000 BCE.¹ From there, the practice spread east into South Asia and west to the British Isles and Scotland. The Iberians in the British Isles, the Picts in Scotland, the Gauls in Western Europe, and the Teutons in Germany all practiced tattooing, and the Romans were known to use tattooing to mark convicts and slaves.¹ By 787 AD, tattooing was prevalent enough to warrant an official ban by Pope Hadrian I at the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.² The growing power of Christianity most likely contributed to the elimination of tattooing in the West, although many soldiers who fought in the Crusades received tattoos during their travels.³

Despite the long history of tattoos in both the East and West, Captain James Cook often is credited with discovering tattooing in the eighteenth century during his explorations in the Pacific.⁴ In Tahiti in 1769 and Hawaii in 1778, Cook encountered heavily tattooed populations who deposited dye into the skin by tapping sharpened instruments.³ These Polynesian tattoos, which were associated with healing and protective powers, often depicted genealogies and were composed of images of lines, stars, geometric designs, animals, and humans. Explorers in Polynesia who came after Cook noted that tattoo designs began to include rifles, cannons, and dates of chief’s deaths—an indication of the cultural exchange that occurred between Cook’s crew and the natives.³ The first tattooed peoples were displayed in the United States at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1876.² Later, at the 1901 World’s Fair in Buffalo, New York, the first full “freak show” emerged, and tattooed “natives” were displayed.⁵ Since they were introduced in the West, tattoos have been associated with an element of the exotic in the United States.

Acknowledged by many to be the first professional tattooist in the United States, Martin Hildebrandt opened his shop in New York City, New York, in 1846.² Initially, only sailors and soldiers were tattooed, which contributed to the concept of the so-called “tattooed serviceman.”⁵ However, after the Spanish-American War, tattoos became a fad among the high society in Europe. Tattooing at this time was still performed through the ancient Polynesian tapping method, making it both time-consuming and expensive. Tattoos generally were always placed in a private location, leading to popular speculation at the time about whom in the aristocracy possessed a tattoo, with some even speculating that Queen Victoria may have had a tattoo.¹ However, this brief trend among the aristocracy came to an end when Samuel O’Reilly, an American tattoo artist, patented the first electric tattooing machine in 1891.⁶ His invention made tattooing faster, cheaper, and less painful, thereby making tattooing available to a much wider audience. In the United States, men in the military often were tattooed, especially during World Wars I and II, when patriotic themes and tattoos of important women in their lives (eg, the word Mom, the name of a sweetheart) became popular.

It is a popular belief that a tattoo renaissance occurred in the United States in the 1970s, sparked by an influx of Indonesian and Asian artistic styles. Today, tattoos are ubiquitous. A 2012 poll showed that 21% of adults in the United States have a tattoo.⁷ There are now 4 main types of tattoos: cosmetic (eg, permanent makeup), traumatic (eg, injury on asphalt), medical (eg, to mark radiation sites), and decorative—either amateur (often done by hand) or professional (done in tattoo parlors with electric tattooing needles).⁸

Laser Tattoo Removal

Today tattoos are easy and relatively cheap to get, and for most people they are not regarded as an important cultural milestone like they were in early Polynesian culture. As a result, dermatologists often may encounter patients seeking to have these permanent designs removed from their skin. Previously, tattoo removal was attempted using destructive processes such as scarification and cryotherapy and generally resulted in poor cosmetics outcomes. Today, lasers are at the forefront of tattoo removal. Traditional lasers use pulse durations in the nanosecond range, with newer generation lasers in the picosecond range delivering much shorter pulse durations, effectively delivering the same level of energy over less time. It is important to select the correct laser for optimal destruction of various tattoo ink colors (Table).^8,9

Controversy persists as to whether tattoo pigment destruction by lasers is caused by thermal or acoustic damage.¹⁰ It may be a combination of both, with rapid heating of the particles leading to a local shockwave as the energy collapses.¹¹ The goal of tattoo removal is to create smaller granules of pigment that can be taken up by the patient’s lymphatic system. The largest granule that can be taken up by the lymphatic system is 0.4 μm.¹⁰

In laser treatment of any skin condition, the laser energy is delivered in a pulse duration that should be less than the thermal relaxation time of the chromophores (water, melanin, hemoglobin, or tattoo pigment are the main targets within the skin).¹² Most tattoo chromophores are 30 nm to 300 nm, with a thermal relaxation time of less than 10 nanoseconds.^10,12 As the number of treatments progresses, laser settings should be adjusted for smaller ink particles. Patients should be warned about pain, side effects, and the need for multiple treatments. Common side effects of laser tattoo removal include purpura, pinpoint bleeding, erythema, edema, crusting, and blistering.⁸

After laser treatment, cytoplasmic water in the cell is converted into steam leading to cavitation of the lysosome, which presents as whitening of the skin. The whitening causes optical scatter, thereby preventing immediate retreatment of the area.¹¹ The R20 laser tattoo removal method discussed by Kossida et al,¹³ advises practitioners to wait 20 minutes between treatments to allow the air bubbles from the conversion of water to steam to disappear. Kossida et al¹³ demonstrated more effective removal in tattoos that were treated with this method compared to standard treatment. The recognition that trapped air bubbles delay multiple treatment cycles has led to the experimental use of perfluorodecalin, a fluorocarbon liquid capable of dissolving the air bubbles, for immediate retreatment.¹⁴ By dissolving the trapped air and eliminating the white color, multiple treatments can be completed during 1 session.

Risks of Laser Tattoo Removal

It is important to emphasize that there are potential risks associated with laser treatment for tattoo removal, many of which we are only just beginning to understand. Common side effects of laser treatment for tattoo removal include blisters, pain, bleeding, hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation; however, there also are rare potential risks. Tattoo ink can paradoxically darken when it contains metals such as titanium or zinc, as often is found in tan or white inks.¹⁵ The laser energy causes a shift of the metal from an oxidized to a reduced state, leading to a darker rather than lighter tattoo upon application of the laser. There also have been documented cases of intraprocedural anaphylaxis, delayed urticaria, as well as generalized eczematous reactions.^16-18 In these cases, the patients had never experienced any allergic symptoms prior to the laser tattoo removal procedure.

Additionally, patients with active allergy to the pigments used in tattoo ink provide a therapeutic dilemma, as laser treatment may potentially systematize the tattoo ink, leading to a more widespread allergic reaction. A case of a generalized eczematous reaction after carbon dioxide laser therapy in a patient with documented tattoo allergy has been reported.¹⁹ More research is needed to fully understand the nature of immediate as well as delayed hypersensitivity reactions associated with laser tattoo removal.

Final Thoughts

With thousands of years of established traditions, it is unlikely that tattooing will go away anytime soon. Fortunately, lasers are providing us with an effective and safe method of removal.

As dermatologists, we possess a vast knowledge of the epidermis. Some patients may choose to use the epidermis as a canvas for their art in the form of tattoos; however, tattoos can complicate dermatology visits in a myriad of ways. From patients seeking tattoo removal (a complicated task even with the most advanced laser treatments) to those whose native skin is obscured by a tattoo during melanoma screening, it is no wonder that many dermatologists become frustrated at the very mention of the word tattoo.

Tattoos have a long and complicated history entrenched in class divisions, gender identity, and culture. Although its origins are not well documented, many researchers believe that tattooing began in Egypt as early as 4000 BCE.¹ From there, the practice spread east into South Asia and west to the British Isles and Scotland. The Iberians in the British Isles, the Picts in Scotland, the Gauls in Western Europe, and the Teutons in Germany all practiced tattooing, and the Romans were known to use tattooing to mark convicts and slaves.¹ By 787 AD, tattooing was prevalent enough to warrant an official ban by Pope Hadrian I at the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.² The growing power of Christianity most likely contributed to the elimination of tattooing in the West, although many soldiers who fought in the Crusades received tattoos during their travels.³

Despite the long history of tattoos in both the East and West, Captain James Cook often is credited with discovering tattooing in the eighteenth century during his explorations in the Pacific.⁴ In Tahiti in 1769 and Hawaii in 1778, Cook encountered heavily tattooed populations who deposited dye into the skin by tapping sharpened instruments.³ These Polynesian tattoos, which were associated with healing and protective powers, often depicted genealogies and were composed of images of lines, stars, geometric designs, animals, and humans. Explorers in Polynesia who came after Cook noted that tattoo designs began to include rifles, cannons, and dates of chief’s deaths—an indication of the cultural exchange that occurred between Cook’s crew and the natives.³ The first tattooed peoples were displayed in the United States at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1876.² Later, at the 1901 World’s Fair in Buffalo, New York, the first full “freak show” emerged, and tattooed “natives” were displayed.⁵ Since they were introduced in the West, tattoos have been associated with an element of the exotic in the United States.

Acknowledged by many to be the first professional tattooist in the United States, Martin Hildebrandt opened his shop in New York City, New York, in 1846.² Initially, only sailors and soldiers were tattooed, which contributed to the concept of the so-called “tattooed serviceman.”⁵ However, after the Spanish-American War, tattoos became a fad among the high society in Europe. Tattooing at this time was still performed through the ancient Polynesian tapping method, making it both time-consuming and expensive. Tattoos generally were always placed in a private location, leading to popular speculation at the time about whom in the aristocracy possessed a tattoo, with some even speculating that Queen Victoria may have had a tattoo.¹ However, this brief trend among the aristocracy came to an end when Samuel O’Reilly, an American tattoo artist, patented the first electric tattooing machine in 1891.⁶ His invention made tattooing faster, cheaper, and less painful, thereby making tattooing available to a much wider audience. In the United States, men in the military often were tattooed, especially during World Wars I and II, when patriotic themes and tattoos of important women in their lives (eg, the word Mom, the name of a sweetheart) became popular.

It is a popular belief that a tattoo renaissance occurred in the United States in the 1970s, sparked by an influx of Indonesian and Asian artistic styles. Today, tattoos are ubiquitous. A 2012 poll showed that 21% of adults in the United States have a tattoo.⁷ There are now 4 main types of tattoos: cosmetic (eg, permanent makeup), traumatic (eg, injury on asphalt), medical (eg, to mark radiation sites), and decorative—either amateur (often done by hand) or professional (done in tattoo parlors with electric tattooing needles).⁸

Laser Tattoo Removal

Today tattoos are easy and relatively cheap to get, and for most people they are not regarded as an important cultural milestone like they were in early Polynesian culture. As a result, dermatologists often may encounter patients seeking to have these permanent designs removed from their skin. Previously, tattoo removal was attempted using destructive processes such as scarification and cryotherapy and generally resulted in poor cosmetics outcomes. Today, lasers are at the forefront of tattoo removal. Traditional lasers use pulse durations in the nanosecond range, with newer generation lasers in the picosecond range delivering much shorter pulse durations, effectively delivering the same level of energy over less time. It is important to select the correct laser for optimal destruction of various tattoo ink colors (Table).^8,9

Controversy persists as to whether tattoo pigment destruction by lasers is caused by thermal or acoustic damage.¹⁰ It may be a combination of both, with rapid heating of the particles leading to a local shockwave as the energy collapses.¹¹ The goal of tattoo removal is to create smaller granules of pigment that can be taken up by the patient’s lymphatic system. The largest granule that can be taken up by the lymphatic system is 0.4 μm.¹⁰

In laser treatment of any skin condition, the laser energy is delivered in a pulse duration that should be less than the thermal relaxation time of the chromophores (water, melanin, hemoglobin, or tattoo pigment are the main targets within the skin).¹² Most tattoo chromophores are 30 nm to 300 nm, with a thermal relaxation time of less than 10 nanoseconds.^10,12 As the number of treatments progresses, laser settings should be adjusted for smaller ink particles. Patients should be warned about pain, side effects, and the need for multiple treatments. Common side effects of laser tattoo removal include purpura, pinpoint bleeding, erythema, edema, crusting, and blistering.⁸

After laser treatment, cytoplasmic water in the cell is converted into steam leading to cavitation of the lysosome, which presents as whitening of the skin. The whitening causes optical scatter, thereby preventing immediate retreatment of the area.¹¹ The R20 laser tattoo removal method discussed by Kossida et al,¹³ advises practitioners to wait 20 minutes between treatments to allow the air bubbles from the conversion of water to steam to disappear. Kossida et al¹³ demonstrated more effective removal in tattoos that were treated with this method compared to standard treatment. The recognition that trapped air bubbles delay multiple treatment cycles has led to the experimental use of perfluorodecalin, a fluorocarbon liquid capable of dissolving the air bubbles, for immediate retreatment.¹⁴ By dissolving the trapped air and eliminating the white color, multiple treatments can be completed during 1 session.

Risks of Laser Tattoo Removal

It is important to emphasize that there are potential risks associated with laser treatment for tattoo removal, many of which we are only just beginning to understand. Common side effects of laser treatment for tattoo removal include blisters, pain, bleeding, hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation; however, there also are rare potential risks. Tattoo ink can paradoxically darken when it contains metals such as titanium or zinc, as often is found in tan or white inks.¹⁵ The laser energy causes a shift of the metal from an oxidized to a reduced state, leading to a darker rather than lighter tattoo upon application of the laser. There also have been documented cases of intraprocedural anaphylaxis, delayed urticaria, as well as generalized eczematous reactions.^16-18 In these cases, the patients had never experienced any allergic symptoms prior to the laser tattoo removal procedure.

Additionally, patients with active allergy to the pigments used in tattoo ink provide a therapeutic dilemma, as laser treatment may potentially systematize the tattoo ink, leading to a more widespread allergic reaction. A case of a generalized eczematous reaction after carbon dioxide laser therapy in a patient with documented tattoo allergy has been reported.¹⁹ More research is needed to fully understand the nature of immediate as well as delayed hypersensitivity reactions associated with laser tattoo removal.

Final Thoughts

With thousands of years of established traditions, it is unlikely that tattooing will go away anytime soon. Fortunately, lasers are providing us with an effective and safe method of removal.