Multiple Deep Vein Thromboses After Curative Surgery for Cushing Disease: A Case Presentation and Review.

Background/Objective: Cushing syndrome (CS) is a prothrombotic state associated with an increased risk of postoperative venous thrombosis. We aim to present the case of a patient with Cushing disease who underwent pituitary surgery and subsequently developed acute lower extremity deep venous thromboses after anticoagulation was stopped. Case Report: We present the case of a 57-year-old woman who was admitted for intra-abdominal abscesses after a gastric bypass surgery and was found to have evidence of severe CS. Her 24-hour urinary free cortisol level was 898.6 µg/24 h. She was diagnosed with Cushing disease and underwent transsphenoidal resection of a pituitary adenoma, with an appropriate postoperative drop in the cortisol level. She received thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization; however, this was discontinued upon discharge, on postoperative day 9, because she was ambulating. Five days after hospital discharge and 14 days after her surgery, she developed left lower extremity edema and was found to have 4 deep venous thromboses. Discussion: As previously described, thrombotic risk can be elevated for at least 1 month after surgery for CS, and thromboprophylaxis can decrease this risk. Conclusion: This case highlights the need for clear recommendations for the duration of postoperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with CS. Clinicians should consider continuing thromboprophylaxis for at least 1 month after surgery for CS.

Why Does Facial Eczema Differ From Body Eczema?

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis (AD) is multifactorial, influenced by genetics, skin barrier dysfunction, and environmental stressors. There is a lack of research comparing the etiologies and pathologic mechanisms accounting for differences in facial vs body eczema. OBJECTIVES: To explore reasons why facial eczema may differ from body eczema. RESULTS: There are key differences in the environments of the face and body that may lead to AD exacerbation. These include differences in the skin microbiome, sebaceous glands concentration, and levels of natural moisturizing factor. The face is exposed to more environmental stress compared with the rest of the body. These stresses include aeroallergens, ultraviolet radiation, and cosmetic products. Management of facial eczema also differs from that of body eczema due to the avoidance of high potency topical steroids on the face. Topical steroids increase microbiome diversity, and lack of topical steroid use on the face can lead to decreased microbiome diversity and increased AD severity. CONCLUSION: Facial and body eczema differ due to differences seen in anatomical structure and environmental exposures. These differences should be further researched and used in the management of facial vs body eczema and can also be used in the development of new AD treatments. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(10): 1119-1123. doi:10.36849/JDD.6354.

Apremilast in the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis: Differential Use in Psoriasis.

Small molecule medications like apremilast are emerging as promising options for patients with psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions. Apremilast was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for the management of both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Apremilast inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, which increases the intracellular levels of cyclic AMP, thereby reducing inflammatory cytokine production. This review aims to discuss the published evidence and evaluate the differential use of apremilast in plaque psoriasis of the body and scalp, nail psoriasis, and palmoplantar psoriasis. In clinical trials, apremilast effectively reduced the severity of different dermatological manifestations of psoriasis and improved patients' quality of life. It has an acceptable safety profile and is generally well-tolerated. Oral medications like apremilast offer an alternative route of administration which can be more convenient and appropriate for some patients. Additionally, pharmacoeconomic analyses of available anti-psoriatic systemic agents favor apremilast as a cost-effective therapeutic option.

Steroid Phobia: A Review of Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Interventions.

Topical corticosteroid phobia may lead to poor adherence, resulting in persistent disease and escalation to systemic agents. The aim of this paper was to review current literature to assess topical steroid phobia prevalence, populations most at risk, reasons behind steroid phobia, and interventions to reduce it. A systematic search of PubMed, Ovid (Journals@Ovid, MEDLINE), ScienceDirect, and Web of Science was performed. Studies ranged from May 2000 to February 2021. In total, 37 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was inter-study variation in the way steroid phobia is defined, from concern to irrational fear. The worldwide prevalence of topical steroid phobia ranges from 31 to 95.7% and does not differ with patient race/ethnicity or dermatological condition. Female patients and caregivers, and those who have experienced side effects of topical corticosteroids are most likely to express steroid phobia. Reasons for steroid phobia include lack of education, fear of side effects, polypharmacy, misinformation, negative experience with topical steroids, and frequently changing of clinics. Successful interventions to address steroid phobia include patient education in the form of educational videos followed by individualized oral education based on concerns, and demonstrations of application of topical steroids. Multiple interventions address topical corticosteroid phobia and improve adherence of topical corticosteroids in the management of dermatological conditions. Providers should screen patients for steroid phobia, especially in populations particularly at risk. Interventions using patient education should be individualized based on concerns expressed during screening. Further research should investigate if reducing steroid phobia can in fact improve long-term adherence.

Center Volume and Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Pediatric Patients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES: Recent data demonstrate that center volume is not a factor in the outcomes of adult kidney transplant recipients. This study assessed whether center volume affects graft survival in pediatric patients who received a kidney transplant. STUDY DESIGN: Case-cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Kidney transplantation centers, recipients younger than 18 years. RESULTS: Data were retrieved from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for transplantations performed July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015, and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for transplantations performed January 1, 2010, to December 30, 2015. Center volume was divided into 3 groups: low (<4 per year), intermediate (4-8 per year), and high (>8 per year). The primary outcome was 3-year graft survival rate. Outcomes were reviewed in 115 centers that performed 3,762 transplantations. There were no substantive differences in sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, and kidney donor profile index score in the 3 transplantation center volume categories. During the 5-year period (July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015), 3-year graft survival in centers with low, intermediate, and high volumes were 88.4%, 90.3%, and 92.1%, respectively; P = 0.02. Although outcomes for deceased donor kidney recipients were similar in the 3 volume categories, outcomes in patients who received a living kidney donation were better in the high-volume centers. Low household income was associated with poorer outcomes. However, 3-year graft survival was similar in the 3 center volume categories in high and low mean household income states. LIMITATIONS: Lack of information for complications and individual family household income of recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation outcomes are worse in pediatric patients treated at lower-volume centers. The difference was more pronounced for patients receiving living versus deceased donor kidneys. The distribution of household income in pediatric transplant recipients may also be a factor that contributes to lower 3-year graft survival in low-volume centers.