Bridges, Alina G.

ImportanceDirect immunofluorescence (DIF) testing has been an important ancillary tool for the diagnosis of various inflammatory mucocutaneous conditions for more than 50 years. Current DIF test panels are based on historical clinical descriptions; few studies have rigorously addressed preanalytical, analytical, and/or postanalytical aspects, and even fewer have been replicated or validated. Recent unresolved key issues include whether DIF testing and test panels should be triaged or truncated based on clinical indication or histopathologic findings.ObjectiveTo assess levels of consensus regarding practical aspects of DIF testing among immunodermatology testing specialists in the US.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing modified Delphi methods with a priori characterized criteria, a survey containing 54 statements pertaining to DIF testing was created and distributed to assess consensus. Statements not initially reaching consensus were discussed in 2 live virtual sessions, which were supplemented by relevant literature review and free-text survey comments. These statements were then reassessed in a second survey. Immunodermatology testing specialists in US academic institution–based and independent laboratories were invited based on serving as immunodermatology laboratory medical directors, authoring pertinent literature, or delivering relevant talks at major conferences or by referral. The first survey was conducted from January to February 2024, and the second survey was conducted from March to April 2024.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary measured outcome was degree of consensus for various DIF testing practice, including DIF testing triage by histopathology/dermatopathology findings and DIF testing panel tailored truncations by clinical indication.ResultsA total of 23 respondents to the survey invitation had a mean (SD) of 18.5 (11.1) years and median (range) of 20.0 (1.5-46.0) years in immunodermatology laboratory practice. Consensus was achieved for 46 of 54 statements (85.2%) in the initial survey and for an additional 4 statements in the second survey (50 of 54 [92.6%]). Strong consensus was found against tailored truncation of DIF panel based on the clinical indication in the first survey round. The general acceptability of triaging specimens for DIF testing based on histopathology findings remained without consensus after both surveys.Conclusions and RelevanceOverall, participating US specialists in immunodermatology laboratory testing agreed on many practical aspects of DIF testing, including matters not queried previously. The findings also revealed areas of continued controversy and identified issues for prioritized future study.

Importance Scoring systems for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and epidermal necrolysis (EN) only estimate patient prognosis and are weighted toward comorbidities and systemic features; morphologic terminology for EN lesions is inconsistent. Objectives To establish consensus among expert dermatologists on EN terminology, morphologic progression, and most-affected sites, and to build a framework for developing a skin-directed scoring system for EN. Evidence Review A Delphi consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness criteria was initiated with a core group from the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists to establish agreement on the optimal design for an EN cutaneous scoring instrument, terminology, morphologic traits, and sites of involvement. Findings In round 1, the 54 participating dermatology hospitalists reached consensus on all 49 statements (30 appropriate, 3 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). In round 2, they agreed on another 15 statements (8 appropriate, 7 uncertain). There was consistent agreement on the need for a skin-specific instrument; on the most-often affected skin sites (head and neck, chest, upper back, ocular mucosa, oral mucosa); and that blanching erythema, dusky erythema, targetoid erythema, vesicles/bullae, desquamation, and erosions comprise the morphologic traits of EN and can be consistently differentiated. Conclusions and Relevance This consensus exercise confirmed the need for an EN skin-directed scoring system, nomenclature, and differentiation of specific morphologic traits, and identified the sites most affected. It also established a baseline consensus for a standardized EN instrument with consistent terminology.

AbstractBackgroundThe assessment of the sentinel lymph node is a cornerstone of melanoma staging. However, ~80% of sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) are negative and nontherapeutic, and patients are unnecessarily exposed to surgery‐related complications. Here, we gauged the potential of the Merlin assay to reduce SLNB‐associated complications. The Merlin assay uses clinicopathologic variables and tumor gene expression profiling to identify low‐risk patients who may forgo SLNB.MethodsWe utilized the Merlin test development cohort to determine SLNB complication rates for procedures performed between 2004 and 2018 at Mayo Clinic. Complications evaluated were lymphedema, seroma, infection/cellulitis, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. Patients who underwent a completion lymph node dissection were excluded.ResultsA total of 558 patients were included. The overall 90‐day complication rate specific to SLNB (1 year for lymphedema) was 17.4%. The most common complications were seroma (9.3%), infection/cellulitis (4.8%), and lymphedema (4.3%). All three were more common in patients with a lower extremity primary tumor location versus other locations. With Merlin test results applied, SLNB‐related complications would have decreased by 59%.ConclusionSLNB is a safe procedure but carries a significant complication rate. Merlin testing might reduce the need for SLNB and its associated complications.

Introduction Dermatologic complaints are a common reason for emergency department visits. Methods Retrospective chart review from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019. Patients in the Mayo Clinic Emergency Department receiving dermatology consultation were included. Results Dermatitis (24.7%, n = 113), infection (20.4%, n = 93), and drug reaction (10.3%, n = 47) accounted for the majority of diagnoses. Emergency department providers often provide no diagnosis (38%) or a differential diagnosis (22%), and dermatology consultation frequently alters diagnosis (46%) and treatment (83%). Patients receiving in-person consultations are admitted more frequently than those receiving teledermatology consultations (40% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). Primary diagnostic concordance with subsequent dermatology evaluation is high for in-person (94%) and teledermatology (88%) consultations. Discussion This is the largest study of emergency department dermatology consultations in the United States and the first to compare in-person and teledermatology emergency department consultation utilization in clinical practice. These modalities are utilized in a complementary fashion at our institution, with severe dermatologic diagnoses seen in-person. The valuable role of emergency department dermatologists is highlighted by frequent changes to diagnosis and treatment plans that result from dermatology consultation. Furthermore, our data suggest that teledermatology is an effective modality with the potential to expand access to dermatologic expertise in the emergency department setting.

AbstractBackgroundHospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies are medically complex and commonly affected by dermatologic conditions.MethodsRetrospective chart review from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, at Rochester Methodist Hospital (Rochester, Minnesota, USA). Patients hospitalized on hematology and BMT services receiving dermatology consultation were included.ResultsIn all, 578 consultations (63% male, median age 61 years) were reviewed. Drug reactions (22%), infection (17%), and malignant neoplasm (10%) accounted for nearly half of diagnoses. Exanthematous drug reaction (10%), graft‐versus‐host disease (7%), and lymphoma or leukemia cutis (6%) were the commonest individual diagnoses. There were significantly more drug reactions in severe neutropenia (33.2% vs. 15.0%), neutrophilic dermatoses in myeloid neoplasm (5.2% vs. 0.3%), and viral infection in lymphoid neoplasm (8.3% vs. 1.2%). Consultation frequently altered treatment (68%), diagnostic workup (63%), and the primary service’s initial diagnostic impression (53%). Biopsies were performed in 52% of consultations and helped secure a diagnosis 73% of the time. A total of 16.4% of consultations did not receive a definitive final diagnosis, and 18.5% were resolved in one visit.ConclusionThis is the largest study to date of hospital dermatology consultation in hematology patients. Biopsies are utilized frequently and are diagnostically useful. The complexity of this patient population is evidenced by the fact that a final diagnosis remains elusive in a number of cases despite the multiple visits required for the vast majority of consultations. Nevertheless, dermatology consultation alters diagnosis and treatment in the majority of patients, highlighting the critical role dermatologists have in the care of these patients.

AbstractInfection‐induced panniculitis has been described in association with a broad range of microorganisms. Among those, viral panniculitis represents a minor category, with only a few anecdotal reports in the literature documenting viral infection in the subcutaneous fat. Herein, we report a woman in her 30s with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis on rituximab and prednisone, who presented with a 6‐month history of progressive multisystem manifestations, including unintentional weight loss, fever, fatigue, myopathy, pancreatitis, and sensorineural hearing loss. She had indurated plaques on her thighs characterized by predominantly lobular panniculitis with chronic lymphohistiocytic inflammation. Molecular studies performed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified evidence of Enterovirus group with the highest identity of Coxsackievirus A9. Enterovirus RNA was also detected in the cerebrospinal fluid and muscle. Based on the findings, a diagnosis of disseminated enteroviral infection in the setting of B‐cell depletion was rendered. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first reported case of viral panniculitis with documentation of Coxsackievirus A9 in the skin. Since rituximab may be used for the treatment of autoimmune dermatological diseases, familiarity of the potential occurrence of severe enteroviral infections in the setting of immunosuppressive treatment is important for dermatopathologists.