Holland, Kristen E.

ImportanceTumor necrosis factor α (TNF) inhibitor–induced psoriasiform eruption is well recognized in adults, but few reports document this paradoxical effect in children.ObjectiveTo characterize the clinical features and the clinical time course of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasiform eruptions in children.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA multicenter retrospective case series of children younger than 18 years seen between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016, who developed a new-onset psoriasiform eruption while taking a TNF inhibitor for a nondermatologic disorder. Participating sites were members of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. Data were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture database at the Mayo Clinic (ie, the coordinating center).ResultsPsoriasiform eruptions were identified in 103 TNF inhibitor–treated patients (median age, 13.8 years [IQR, 11.7-16.4 years]; 52 female patients [50%]; 57 White patients [55%]), with 67 patients (65%) treated with infliximab, 35 (34%) with adalimumab, and 1 (1%) with certolizumab pegol. Most patients had no personal history (101 [98%]) or family history of psoriasis (60 patients [58%]). Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common indication for treatment with TNF inhibitor (94 patients [91%]). The primary extracutaneous disease was under control in 95 patients (92%) who developed the eruption. Most patients (n = 85 [83%]) developed psoriasiform eruptions at multiple anatomic sites, with scalp involvement being most common (65 patients [63%]). Skin disease developed at a median of 14.5 months (IQR, 9-24 months) after TNF inhibitor initiation. To treat the psoriasiform eruption, topical steroidal and nonsteroidal medication was prescribed for all patients. Systemic therapy was added for 30 patients (29%): methotrexate for 24 patients (23%), oral corticosteroids for 8 patients (8%), and azathioprine for 1 patient (1%). For 26 patients (25%), suboptimal effectiveness with topical medications alone prompted discontinuation of the initial TNF inhibitor and a change to a second-line TNF inhibitor with cutaneous improvement in 23 patients (88%) by a median of 3 months (IQR, 2-4 months). Eight patients (31%) who started a second-line TNF inhibitor developed a subsequent TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasiform eruption at a median of 6 months (IQR, 4-8 months). Persistent skin disease in 18 patients (17%) prompted discontinuation of all TNF inhibitors; 11 patients changed to a non-TNF inhibitor systemic therapy, and 7 discontinued all systemic therapy.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this case series, paradoxical TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasiform eruptions were seen in children treated with TNF inhibitors for any indication, and there appears to be a class effect among the varying TNF inhibitors. The majority of these children were able to continue TNF inhibitor therapy with adequate skin-directed and other adjuvant therapies.

AbstractBackground/ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 pandemic has raised questions about the approach to management of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for dermatologic indications in children. Change to: Given the absence of data to address concerns related to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and systemic immunosuppressive therapies in an evidence‐based manner, a Pediatric Dermatology COVID‐19 Response Task Force (PDCRTF) was assembled to offer time‐sensitive guidance for clinicians.MethodsA survey was distributed to an expert panel of 37 pediatric dermatologists on the PDCRTF to assess expert opinion and current practice related to three primary domains of systemic therapy: initiation, continuation, and laboratory monitoring.ResultsNearly all respondents (97%) reported that the COVID‐19 pandemic had impacted their decision to initiate immunosuppressive medications. The majority of pediatric dermatologists (87%) reported that they were pausing or reducing the frequency of laboratory monitoring for certain immunosuppressive medications. In asymptomatic patients, continuing therapy was the most popular choice across all medications queried. The majority agreed that patients on immunosuppressive medications who have a household exposure to COVID‐19 or test positive for new infection should temporarily discontinue systemic and biologic medications, with the exception of systemic steroids, which may require tapering.ConclusionsThe ultimate decision regarding initiation, continuation, and laboratory monitoring of immunosuppressive therapy during the pandemic requires careful deliberation, consideration of the little evidence available, and discussion with families. Consideration of an individual's adherence to COVID‐19 preventive measures, risk of exposure, and the potential severity if infected must be weighed against the dermatological disease, medication, and risks to the patient of tapering or discontinuing therapies.

AbstractThe COVID‐19 pandemic has caused significant shifts in patient care including a steep decline in ambulatory visits and a marked increase in the use of telemedicine. Infantile hemangiomas (IH) can require urgent evaluation and risk stratification to determine which infants need treatment and which can be managed with continued observation. For those requiring treatment, prompt initiation decreases morbidity and improves long‐term outcomes. The Hemangioma Investigator Group has created consensus recommendations for management of IH via telemedicine. FDA/EMA‐approved monitoring guidelines, clinical practice guidelines, and relevant, up‐to‐date publications regarding initiation and monitoring of beta‐blocker therapy were used to inform the recommendations. Clinical decision‐making guidelines about when telehealth is an appropriate alternative to in‐office visits, including medication initiation, dosage changes, and ongoing evaluation, are included. The importance of communication with caregivers in the context of telemedicine is discussed, and online resources for both hemangioma education and propranolol therapy are provided.

AbstractBackgroundErythema multiforme (EM) is an acute condition characterized by distinctive target lesions of the skin often accompanied by mucosal ulcers. A subset of individuals experience frequent episodes of recurrent EM, which is rare and poorly understood, especially in children.ObjectiveTo characterize clinical features, laboratory findings, and treatment responses of pediatric recurrent EM.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (2000‐2015) and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota (1990‐2015). Inclusion criterion was a diagnosis before age 18 years with recurrent EM, defined as a symmetrically distributed, fixed eruption, including target lesions, with or without mucous membrane involvement, occurring on at least three occasions. A literature review was conducted to include individuals who met the inclusion criterion.ResultsTwenty‐six patients were included, of whom 16 (62%) were male. The median age of onset was 9.1 years (range 0‐15.7 years). Nine patients (35%) required hospitalization. Herpes simplex virus testing was positive in 9 of 17 (65%) patients. Remission was achieved in 5 of 16 (31%) patients while taking suppressive antivirals. Eight patients received continuous anti‐inflammatory treatment, two (25%) of whom experienced remission.ConclusionThis study of pediatric recurrent EM found a greater male predominance, more hospitalizations, fewer cases caused by herpes simplex virus, and a lower response to immunosuppression in children than in the general population.

AbstractHobnail hemangioma (HH), initially termed targetoid hemosiderotic hemangioma, is a rare, often solitary lesion classically characterized by a central brown or violaceous papulonodule surrounded at times by an ecchymotic halo. This lesion is typically found on the trunk or limbs of children or young to middle‐aged adults. Numerous case reports have found HHs to have a reproducible histologic appearance. Although the exact histogenesis of these lesions is unknown, multiple recent immunohistochemical studies suggest a lymphatic origin of these lesions. We present six cases of children with HHs with classic histology but with variability in their clinical appearance. Because the clinical presence of a targetoid halo is inconsistent and the hobnail phenomenon is not specific, we favor the designation of superficial hemosiderotic lymphovascular malformation instead of HH or targetoid hemosiderotic hemangioma as a more unifying term for this rare clinical entity. By eliminating confounding terminologies (in this case, incorporation of “hemangioma” in the name of this entity), we also hope to encourage a swifter change in practice to move away from erroneous diagnostic considerations.