Brandling‐Bennett, Heather A.

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.

ImportanceMorphea is an insidious inflammatory disorder of the skin and deeper tissues. Determining disease activity is challenging yet important to medical decision-making and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a scoring tool, the Morphea Activity Measure (MAM), to evaluate morphea disease activity of any type or severity that is easy to use in clinical and research settings.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis pilot diagnostic study was conducted from September 9, 2019, to March 6, 2020, in 2 phases: development and validation. During the development phase, 14 morphea experts (dermatologists and pediatric dermatologists) used a Delphi consensus method to determine items that would be included in the MAM. The validation phase included 8 investigators who evaluated the tool in collaboration with 14 patients with pediatric morphea (recruited from a referral center [Medical College of Wisconsin]) during a 1-day in-person meeting on March 6, 2020.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDuring the development phase, online survey items were evaluated by experts in morphea using a Likert scale (score range, 0-10, with 0 indicating not important and 10 indicating very important); agreement was defined as a median score of 7.0 or higher, disagreement as a median score of 3.9 or lower, and no consensus as a median score of 4.0 to 6.9. During the validation phase, reliability (interrater and intrarater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients), validity (using the content validity index and κ statistics as well as correlations with the modified Localized Scleroderma Severity Index and the Physician Global Assessment of Activity using Spearman ρ coefficients), and viability (using qualitative interviews of investigators who used the MAM tool) were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables. Data on race and ethnicity categories were collected but not analyzed because skin color was more relevant for the purposes of this study.ResultsAmong 14 survey respondents during the development phase, 9 (64.3%) were pediatric dermatologists and 5 (35.7%) were dermatologists. After 2 rounds, a final tool was developed comprising 10 items that experts agreed were indicative of morphea activity (new lesion in the past 3 months, enlarging lesion in the past 3 months, linear lesion developing progressive atrophy in the past 3 months, erythema, violaceous rim or color, warmth to the touch, induration, white-yellow or waxy appearance, shiny white wrinkling, and body surface area). The validation phase was conducted with 14 patients (median age, 14.5 years [range, 8.0-18.0 years]; 8 [57.1%] female), 2 dermatologists, and 6 pediatric dermatologists. Interrater and intrarater agreement for MAM total scores was good, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.844 (95% CI, 0.681-0.942) for interrater agreement and 0.856 (95% CI, 0.791-0.901) for intrarater agreement. Correlations between the MAM and the modified Localized Scleroderma Severity Index (Spearman ρ = 0.747; P < .001) and the MAM and the Physician Global Assessment of Activity (Spearman ρ = 0.729; P < .001) were moderately strong. In qualitative interviews, evaluators agreed that the tool was easy to use, measured morphea disease activity at a single time point, and should be responsive to changes in morphea disease activity over multiple time points.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, the MAM was found to be a reliable, valid, and viable tool to measure pediatric morphea activity. Further testing to assess validity in adults and responsiveness to change is needed.

AbstractBackground/ObjectivesThough maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis is the most common form of pediatric mastocytosis, it remains unclear which patients will experience severe symptoms. We sought to better define the presentation and the cutaneous and systemic signs and symptoms in patients with maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis.MethodsWe analyzed retrospective data on 227 patients diagnosed with maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis prior to age 15 years from five US clinical sites. We collected data on signs, symptoms, age of onset, and laboratory testing.ResultsMedian age of onset of maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis was 3 months, with 94% of patients presenting prior to age 2 (range 0‐15 years). Patients presenting before age 2 had significantly lower serum tryptase level (P = .019). Greater number of skin lesions (P = .006), number of reported skin signs and symptoms (P < .001), and higher tryptase levels (P < .001) were associated with more systemic symptoms.ConclusionChildren with maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis, who have greater skin involvement, higher serum tryptase level, and more skin signs and symptoms, are more likely to have systemic symptoms.

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.

AbstractBackground/ObjectivesStudies describing treatment efficacy in pediatric morphea are lacking. Subspecialists have reached no consensus on how to optimally treat pediatric morphea. The objective of the current study was to describe the most common treatment practices of pediatric dermatologists worldwide who care for children with morphea.MethodsA survey regarding topical treatment practices of pediatric morphea, with representative case‐based scenarios, was distributed to pediatric dermatologists and results were tallied.ResultsThe survey response rate was 13.4%, with 110 respondents in the final analysis. The majority of respondents agreed on red violaceous rim (99%), increased local warmth (75%), raised borders (69%), and dermal thickening (64%) as signs of disease activity. Respondents had less agreement on sclerotic lesions (41%), scaling (43%), dyspigmentation (19%), and atrophy (13%) as signs of disease activity. Ninety‐two percent of respondents used primary therapy or monotherapy with topical medications, including 45% in linear morphea of the limbs and 37% in linear morphea of the head or neck. High‐potency topical corticosteroids were most commonly used (80%), although respondents did not agree on specific regimens. Sixteen different treatment regimens were selected as first‐line therapy for one case scenario of active disease.ConclusionThe survey found large variation in how pediatric dermatologists treat pediatric morphea. Consensus treatment guidelines developed by pediatric dermatologists and pediatric rheumatologists are urgently needed regarding the efficacy of therapies for pediatric morphea. Prospective studies of treatment efficacy in pediatric morphea are urgently needed as well.