Roberto Russo1, Andrea Muracchioli1, Paola Canepa1, Aurora Parodi1, Anna Maria Spagnolo2. 1. Department of Health Science (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy, Unit of Dermatology, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. 2. Department of Health Science (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Skin infections caused by Pseudomonas oryzihabitans are
extremely rare.They usually happen in immunocompromised patients, for example, AIDS
patients, people who consume alcoholics or patients with other
conditions depleting lymphocyte count, following trauma, surgery, or
animal bites.Nonpuerperal mastitis caused by P. oryzihabitans has
been described in young, healthy women.Even in immunocompetent patients, skin infections by P.
oryzihabitans may be favored by microtraumas such as
bristles of a colonized makeup brush. Microtraumas play an important
role in colonization of skin by bacteria, also due to the use of masks
during the pandemic, and/or application of aggressive products to treat
skin inflammation caused by the masks.Makeup brushes should be considered as potential sources of skin
infection due to their possibility of colonization and microtraumas they
may cause; therefore, they should be removed when a skin infection
develops, and they should not be shared with other people. Also, they
are not to be considered eternal, and should be replaced
periodically.
Dear Editors,
A 30-year-old female patient presented with an extremely pruritic rash involving
face, neck, and chest. Her medical history was unremarkable. She denied taking
medications or consuming alcohol. At clinical examination, the eruption was composed
of pustules and involved forehead, face, anterior neck and chest, with sharp borders
and sparing of scalp, shoulders, and back (Fig. 1). Physical examination was otherwise unremarkable. Laboratory tests,
including blood count and CD4+ count, were within normal ranges. HIV tests were
negative. Gram staining and swab culture, performed on MacConkey agar, of pus from a
lesion revealed the presence of nonlactose fermenting GRAM-negative bacteria. The
isolate was identified as Pseudomonas oryzihabitans by the VITEK
2-automated microbiology system (BIOMÉRIEUX). Given the distribution of the
eruption, culture tests were also performed from the makeup products of the patient,
and a foundation brush was found to be colonized by P.
oryzihabitans. A 6-week topical therapy with amikacin was
prescribed according to the susceptibility test, leading to dramatic
improvement.
Fig. 1.
Pustular eruption involving forehead, face, anterior neck, and chest.
Pustular eruption involving forehead, face, anterior neck, and chest.P. (formerly Flavimonas)
oryzihabitans is a yellow-pigmented, Gram-negative,
oxidase-negative, nonfermenting bacillus, which has been isolated from damp
environments, such as rice paddies and sink drains. Diverse epidemiological studies
have found P. oryzihabitans in the hospital
environment. Occasionally, it may cause catheter-associated infections.[1]P. oryzihabitans causes skin infections very
rarely. Principally, it has been found in surgical wound infections or mastitis,
usually favored by local predisposing factors, or by immunosuppression (eg, AIDS,
diabetes, and drugs).[2] Pustular
rashes caused by P. oryzihabitans were only
reported, together with sepsis, in a 1-year-old child from a rural area of
Ghana.[3] We are reporting a
unique case of a diffuse pustular dermatitis due to P.
oryzihabitans in an immunocompetent adult patient. She did not
have any condition impairing her immune system, nor wounds, bites, or traumas on the
affected areas. Maybe, the only condition predisposing infection could have been a
pre-existing “maskne,” an acne-like eruption arising on the skin under
the masks widely used due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or rosacea. The pustular
dermatitis also involved forehead, neck, and chest. This made us suspect makeup
products as the possible source of colonization, also considering a previous report
of a synthetic bath sponge as the source of catheter contamination by
P. oryzihabitans and subsequent bacteremia in
an AIDS patient.[1] Therefore, we
tested all the makeup products and equipment, including sponges, used by the
patient, which were all noncolonized except the foundation brush. Of course, it is
possible that the brush might have been contaminated due to contact with the skin
already infected. However, we could not find an alternative explanation for the
colonization of skin. In fact, the patient was a school teacher and during the
pandemic was working from home, so there was no professional exposition. Also, other
people living in the same house had no manifestation, and all the other products
tested (including bath sponges) were not contaminated. The colonized foundation
brush is probably the source of skin infection, as the pustules were localized on
the areas where the makeup was applied. Microtrauma caused by the bristles of the
brush could have allowed P. oryzihabitans to
penetrate the skin. Removing the brush, together with the topical antibiotic
treatment, resulted in prompt resolution of the rash.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Funding
None.
Study approval
N/A
Patient Consent
Informed, written consent was received from the patient and confirmed to the journal
pre-publication, stating that the patient gave consent for her photos and case
history to be published.