The role of the environment in allergic skin disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper explores how environmental factors influence allergic skin diseases, including atopic dermatitis (AD), contact dermatitis (CD), urticaria, angioedema, and reactions to drugs and insect bites. RECENT FINDINGS: Research indicates a significant impact of environmental elements on allergic skin diseases. High air pollution levels exacerbate symptoms, while climate change contributes to increased skin barrier dysfunction, particularly affecting AD. Allergen prevalence is influenced by climate and pollution. Irritants, like those in detergents and cosmetics, play a major role in CD. Plants also contribute, causing various skin reactions. Understanding the interplay between environmental factors and allergic skin diseases is crucial for effective management. Physicians must address these factors to support patient well-being and promote skin health amidst environmental changes.

Amyopathic dermatomyositis with TIF1? positivity treated with IVIG.

Dermatomyositis is an inflammatory myopathy involving the skin that typically affects patients between 40-60 years of age and is more likely to be diagnosed in women. Around 10-20% of dermatomyositis cases present with subclinical or absent muscle involvement, termed "clinically amyopathic." Presence of anti-transcription intermediary factor 1? (TIF1?) antibodies is an important indicator of underlying malignancy. We present a patient with anti-TIF1? positive amyopathic dermatomyositis associated with bilateral breast cancer. The patient was safely treated with trastuzumab for breast cancer and intravenous immunoglobulin for dermatomyositis.

Successful Treatment of Painful Cutaneous Vasculopathy With Rivaroxaban in a Patient With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

Novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) medications have revolutionized hematology and cardiology. Recently, NOACs have demonstrated additional promise in dermatology. Specifically, rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor NOAC, has been shown to be successful in the treatment of livedoid vasculopathy. Herein, we describe a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus who presented with painful cutaneous vasculopathy, demonstrated on biopsy with occlusive microvascular fibrin thrombi without evidence of concurrent vasculitis. Interestingly, imaging and laboratory studies did not show evidence of hypercoagulability, arterial disease, or embolic disease. The patient’s vasculopathy and pain progressed despite antiplatelet therapy, often considered first-line in cases of microvascular occlusive disease. However, with rivaroxaban therapy, the patient experienced complete regression of her painful lesions, thereby supporting a further role for NOACs in cutaneous vasculopathy treatment. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(5) doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.4684.

Nodular amyloidosis in a patient with systemic scleroderma.

Primary cutaneous amyloidosis may be characterized as macular amyloidosis, lichenoid amyloidosis, or nodular amyloidosis. Nodular amyloidosis results from the deposition of immunoglobulin light chains and may rarely be associated with systemic amyloidosis. We report an unusual case of a patient with systemic scleroderma who developed primary cutaneous nodular amyloidosis on the left lower leg. The diagnosis was confirmed with a skin biopsy with Congo red staining and a novel technique using a laser microdissection and mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis method for amyloid protein characterization. A work-up for systemic amyloidosis was negative and the patient improved symptomatically with wound care. Patients with primary cutaneous nodular amyloidosis should be followed clinically over time for the possible development of systemic amyloidosis, although the risk of disease progression is likely low.

SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with autoimmune blistering disorders: A case series and retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmune blistering disorders (AIBDs) are rare, potentially life-threatening conditions often requiring immunosuppression. Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, infection risk and mortality in patients with AIBDs are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We report the outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with AIBDs and determined if patients on rituximab have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We examined clinical outcomes in 10 patients with AIBDs who developed SARS-CoV-2 infections at an American hospital. We performed a retrospective analysis of 132 patients with AIBDs enrolled in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 (n = 4) or death (n = 2) trended to be older. These patients had higher mortality than the national average (20% vs 1.6%). Our cohort included 52 patients with a history of rituximab treatment, 35 of whom were immunosuppressed by rituximab during the pandemic, and 45 patients never treated with rituximab. We found no difference between the rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in patients with AIBDs immunosuppressed by rituximab and those not on rituximab (9.1% vs 12.1%). LIMITATIONS: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 was performed on demand rather than surveillance. Overall transmission varied over time, and outcomes depended on accepted treatments. The small sample size of our cohort limits the generalizability of our results. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that rituximab does not increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity in patients with AIBDs. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to our relatively small sample size.