Practice Gap

Verruca vulgaris is a common dermatologic challenge due to its high prevalence and tendency to recur following routinely employed destructive modalities (eg, cryotherapy, electrosurgery), which can incur a considerable amount of pain and some risk for scarring.^1,2 Other treatment methods for warts such as topical salicylic acid preparations, topical immunotherapy, or intralesional allergen injections often require multiple treatment sessions.^3,4 Furthermore, the financial burden of traditional wart treatment can be substantial.⁴ Better techniques are needed to improve the clinician’s approach to treating warts. We describe a home-based technique to treat common digital warts using pinto bean pressure wraps to induce ischemic changes in wart tissue with similar response rates to commonly used modalities.

Technique

Our technique utilizes a small, hard, convex object that is applied directly over the digital wart. A simple self-adhesive wrap is used to cover the object and maintain constant pressure on the wart overnight. We typically use a dried pinto bean (a variety of the common bean Phaseolus vulgaris) acquired from a local grocery store due to its ideal size, hard surface, and convex shape (Figure 1). The bean is taped in place directly overlying the wart and covered with a self-adhesive wrap overnight. The wrap is removed in the morning, and often no further treatment is needed. The ischemic wart tissue is allowed to slough spontaneously over 1 to 2 weeks. No wound care or dressing is necessary (Figure 2). Larger warts may require application of the pressure wraps for 2 to 3 additional nights. While most warts resolve with this technique, we have observed a recurrence rate similar to that for cryotherapy. Patients are advised that any recurrent warts can be re-treated monthly, if needed, until resolution.

What to Use and How to Prepare—Any small, hard, convex object can be used for the pressure wrap; we also have used appropriately sized and shaped plastic shirt buttons with similar results. Home kits can be assembled in advance and provided to patients at their initial visit along with appropriate instructions (Figure 1A).

Effects on the Skin and Distal Digit—Application of pressure wraps does not harm normal skin; however, care should be taken when the self-adherent wrap is applied so as not to induce ischemia of the distal digit. The wrap should be applied using gentle pressure with patients experiencing minimal discomfort from the overnight application.

Indications—This pressure wrap technique can be employed on most digital warts, including periungual warts, which can be difficult to treat by other means. However, in our experience this technique is not effective for nondigital warts, likely due to the inability to maintain adequate pressure with the overlying dressing. Patients at risk for compromised digital perfusion, such as those with Raynaud phenomenon or systemic sclerosis, should not be treated with pressure wraps due to possible digital ischemia.

Precautions—Patients should be advised that the pinto bean should only be used if dry and should not be ingested. The bean can be a choking hazard for small children, therefore appropriate precautions should be used. Allergic contact dermatitis to the materials used in this technique is possible, but we have never observed this. The pinto bean can be reused for future application as long as it remains dry and provides a hard convex surface.

Practice Implications

The probable mechanism of the ischemic changes to the wart tissue likely is the occlusion of tortuous blood vessels in the dermal papillae, which are intrinsic to wart tissue and absent in normal skin.¹ This pressure-induced ischemic injury allows for selective destruction of the wart tissue with sparing of the normal skin. Our technique is fairly novel, although at least one report in the literature has described the use of a mechanical device to induce ischemic changes in skin tags.⁵

The use of pinto bean pressure wraps to induce ischemic change in digital warts provides a low-risk and nearly pain-free alternative to more expensive and invasive treatment methods. Moreover, this technique allows for a low-cost home-based therapy that can be repeated easily for other digital sites or if recurrence is noted.

Practice Gap

Verruca vulgaris is a common dermatologic challenge due to its high prevalence and tendency to recur following routinely employed destructive modalities (eg, cryotherapy, electrosurgery), which can incur a considerable amount of pain and some risk for scarring.^1,2 Other treatment methods for warts such as topical salicylic acid preparations, topical immunotherapy, or intralesional allergen injections often require multiple treatment sessions.^3,4 Furthermore, the financial burden of traditional wart treatment can be substantial.⁴ Better techniques are needed to improve the clinician’s approach to treating warts. We describe a home-based technique to treat common digital warts using pinto bean pressure wraps to induce ischemic changes in wart tissue with similar response rates to commonly used modalities.

Technique

Our technique utilizes a small, hard, convex object that is applied directly over the digital wart. A simple self-adhesive wrap is used to cover the object and maintain constant pressure on the wart overnight. We typically use a dried pinto bean (a variety of the common bean Phaseolus vulgaris) acquired from a local grocery store due to its ideal size, hard surface, and convex shape (Figure 1). The bean is taped in place directly overlying the wart and covered with a self-adhesive wrap overnight. The wrap is removed in the morning, and often no further treatment is needed. The ischemic wart tissue is allowed to slough spontaneously over 1 to 2 weeks. No wound care or dressing is necessary (Figure 2). Larger warts may require application of the pressure wraps for 2 to 3 additional nights. While most warts resolve with this technique, we have observed a recurrence rate similar to that for cryotherapy. Patients are advised that any recurrent warts can be re-treated monthly, if needed, until resolution.

What to Use and How to Prepare—Any small, hard, convex object can be used for the pressure wrap; we also have used appropriately sized and shaped plastic shirt buttons with similar results. Home kits can be assembled in advance and provided to patients at their initial visit along with appropriate instructions (Figure 1A).

Effects on the Skin and Distal Digit—Application of pressure wraps does not harm normal skin; however, care should be taken when the self-adherent wrap is applied so as not to induce ischemia of the distal digit. The wrap should be applied using gentle pressure with patients experiencing minimal discomfort from the overnight application.

Indications—This pressure wrap technique can be employed on most digital warts, including periungual warts, which can be difficult to treat by other means. However, in our experience this technique is not effective for nondigital warts, likely due to the inability to maintain adequate pressure with the overlying dressing. Patients at risk for compromised digital perfusion, such as those with Raynaud phenomenon or systemic sclerosis, should not be treated with pressure wraps due to possible digital ischemia.

Precautions—Patients should be advised that the pinto bean should only be used if dry and should not be ingested. The bean can be a choking hazard for small children, therefore appropriate precautions should be used. Allergic contact dermatitis to the materials used in this technique is possible, but we have never observed this. The pinto bean can be reused for future application as long as it remains dry and provides a hard convex surface.

Practice Implications

The probable mechanism of the ischemic changes to the wart tissue likely is the occlusion of tortuous blood vessels in the dermal papillae, which are intrinsic to wart tissue and absent in normal skin.¹ This pressure-induced ischemic injury allows for selective destruction of the wart tissue with sparing of the normal skin. Our technique is fairly novel, although at least one report in the literature has described the use of a mechanical device to induce ischemic changes in skin tags.⁵

The use of pinto bean pressure wraps to induce ischemic change in digital warts provides a low-risk and nearly pain-free alternative to more expensive and invasive treatment methods. Moreover, this technique allows for a low-cost home-based therapy that can be repeated easily for other digital sites or if recurrence is noted.

Practice Gap

Verruca vulgaris is a common dermatologic challenge due to its high prevalence and tendency to recur following routinely employed destructive modalities (eg, cryotherapy, electrosurgery), which can incur a considerable amount of pain and some risk for scarring.^1,2 Other treatment methods for warts such as topical salicylic acid preparations, topical immunotherapy, or intralesional allergen injections often require multiple treatment sessions.^3,4 Furthermore, the financial burden of traditional wart treatment can be substantial.⁴ Better techniques are needed to improve the clinician’s approach to treating warts. We describe a home-based technique to treat common digital warts using pinto bean pressure wraps to induce ischemic changes in wart tissue with similar response rates to commonly used modalities.

Technique

Our technique utilizes a small, hard, convex object that is applied directly over the digital wart. A simple self-adhesive wrap is used to cover the object and maintain constant pressure on the wart overnight. We typically use a dried pinto bean (a variety of the common bean Phaseolus vulgaris) acquired from a local grocery store due to its ideal size, hard surface, and convex shape (Figure 1). The bean is taped in place directly overlying the wart and covered with a self-adhesive wrap overnight. The wrap is removed in the morning, and often no further treatment is needed. The ischemic wart tissue is allowed to slough spontaneously over 1 to 2 weeks. No wound care or dressing is necessary (Figure 2). Larger warts may require application of the pressure wraps for 2 to 3 additional nights. While most warts resolve with this technique, we have observed a recurrence rate similar to that for cryotherapy. Patients are advised that any recurrent warts can be re-treated monthly, if needed, until resolution.

What to Use and How to Prepare—Any small, hard, convex object can be used for the pressure wrap; we also have used appropriately sized and shaped plastic shirt buttons with similar results. Home kits can be assembled in advance and provided to patients at their initial visit along with appropriate instructions (Figure 1A).

Effects on the Skin and Distal Digit—Application of pressure wraps does not harm normal skin; however, care should be taken when the self-adherent wrap is applied so as not to induce ischemia of the distal digit. The wrap should be applied using gentle pressure with patients experiencing minimal discomfort from the overnight application.

Indications—This pressure wrap technique can be employed on most digital warts, including periungual warts, which can be difficult to treat by other means. However, in our experience this technique is not effective for nondigital warts, likely due to the inability to maintain adequate pressure with the overlying dressing. Patients at risk for compromised digital perfusion, such as those with Raynaud phenomenon or systemic sclerosis, should not be treated with pressure wraps due to possible digital ischemia.

Precautions—Patients should be advised that the pinto bean should only be used if dry and should not be ingested. The bean can be a choking hazard for small children, therefore appropriate precautions should be used. Allergic contact dermatitis to the materials used in this technique is possible, but we have never observed this. The pinto bean can be reused for future application as long as it remains dry and provides a hard convex surface.

Practice Implications

The probable mechanism of the ischemic changes to the wart tissue likely is the occlusion of tortuous blood vessels in the dermal papillae, which are intrinsic to wart tissue and absent in normal skin.¹ This pressure-induced ischemic injury allows for selective destruction of the wart tissue with sparing of the normal skin. Our technique is fairly novel, although at least one report in the literature has described the use of a mechanical device to induce ischemic changes in skin tags.⁵

The use of pinto bean pressure wraps to induce ischemic change in digital warts provides a low-risk and nearly pain-free alternative to more expensive and invasive treatment methods. Moreover, this technique allows for a low-cost home-based therapy that can be repeated easily for other digital sites or if recurrence is noted.

TOPLINE:

There is no significant association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk for cardiovascular events, a meta-analysis shows. However, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do experience a slight increase in cardiovascular events with PPI use.

METHODOLOGY:

• PPIs are commonly used gastric acid suppressants; however, they have pleiotropic effects, some of which have been hypothesized to augment cardiovascular disorders.
• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with at least 100 patients and treatment durations > 30 days, which compared groups receiving PPIs to those on placebo or other active treatments.
• The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarctions, nonfatal strokes, fatal cardiovascular adverse events, coronary revascularizations, and hospitalizations for unstable angina.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included data from 52 placebo-controlled trials, with 14,988 patients and 8323 patients randomized to receive a PPI or placebo, respectively; the mean treatment duration was 0.45 person-years for those treated with PPIs and 0.32 person-years for those treated with placebo.
• Among placebo-controlled trials, 24 were conducted in patients with GERD.
• Researchers also included 61 active-controlled trials that compared PPIs with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (51 trials) or other active treatments.
• The incidence rate ratio for the primary outcome was 0.72 when comparing PPI to placebo, indicating no significant association between PPI and cardiovascular events.
• Among patients with GERD, cardiovascular events occurred only in those treated with PPIs, leading to approximately one excess cardiovascular event per 100 person-years of PPI treatment relative to placebo.
• Researchers found no association between PPI treatment and the risk for cardiovascular events in trials comparing PPIs with other active treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found no association of cardiovascular events with PPI treatment,” the authors wrote. “Cardiovascular events appeared more frequent with PPI treatment in GERD trials, but results from this subgroup should be interpreted with the limitations of the analysis in mind.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Andrew D. Mosholder, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology, US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked individual patient data, which precluded a time-to-event analysis or an analysis accounting for patient characteristics such as age or sex. The mean duration of PPI treatment in these trials was a few months, limiting the assessment of cardiovascular risk with extended use. The risk estimates were influenced the most by data on omeprazole and esomeprazole.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

There is no significant association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk for cardiovascular events, a meta-analysis shows. However, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do experience a slight increase in cardiovascular events with PPI use.

METHODOLOGY:

• PPIs are commonly used gastric acid suppressants; however, they have pleiotropic effects, some of which have been hypothesized to augment cardiovascular disorders.
• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with at least 100 patients and treatment durations > 30 days, which compared groups receiving PPIs to those on placebo or other active treatments.
• The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarctions, nonfatal strokes, fatal cardiovascular adverse events, coronary revascularizations, and hospitalizations for unstable angina.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included data from 52 placebo-controlled trials, with 14,988 patients and 8323 patients randomized to receive a PPI or placebo, respectively; the mean treatment duration was 0.45 person-years for those treated with PPIs and 0.32 person-years for those treated with placebo.
• Among placebo-controlled trials, 24 were conducted in patients with GERD.
• Researchers also included 61 active-controlled trials that compared PPIs with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (51 trials) or other active treatments.
• The incidence rate ratio for the primary outcome was 0.72 when comparing PPI to placebo, indicating no significant association between PPI and cardiovascular events.
• Among patients with GERD, cardiovascular events occurred only in those treated with PPIs, leading to approximately one excess cardiovascular event per 100 person-years of PPI treatment relative to placebo.
• Researchers found no association between PPI treatment and the risk for cardiovascular events in trials comparing PPIs with other active treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found no association of cardiovascular events with PPI treatment,” the authors wrote. “Cardiovascular events appeared more frequent with PPI treatment in GERD trials, but results from this subgroup should be interpreted with the limitations of the analysis in mind.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Andrew D. Mosholder, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology, US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked individual patient data, which precluded a time-to-event analysis or an analysis accounting for patient characteristics such as age or sex. The mean duration of PPI treatment in these trials was a few months, limiting the assessment of cardiovascular risk with extended use. The risk estimates were influenced the most by data on omeprazole and esomeprazole.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

There is no significant association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk for cardiovascular events, a meta-analysis shows. However, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do experience a slight increase in cardiovascular events with PPI use.

METHODOLOGY:

• PPIs are commonly used gastric acid suppressants; however, they have pleiotropic effects, some of which have been hypothesized to augment cardiovascular disorders.
• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with at least 100 patients and treatment durations > 30 days, which compared groups receiving PPIs to those on placebo or other active treatments.
• The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarctions, nonfatal strokes, fatal cardiovascular adverse events, coronary revascularizations, and hospitalizations for unstable angina.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included data from 52 placebo-controlled trials, with 14,988 patients and 8323 patients randomized to receive a PPI or placebo, respectively; the mean treatment duration was 0.45 person-years for those treated with PPIs and 0.32 person-years for those treated with placebo.
• Among placebo-controlled trials, 24 were conducted in patients with GERD.
• Researchers also included 61 active-controlled trials that compared PPIs with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (51 trials) or other active treatments.
• The incidence rate ratio for the primary outcome was 0.72 when comparing PPI to placebo, indicating no significant association between PPI and cardiovascular events.
• Among patients with GERD, cardiovascular events occurred only in those treated with PPIs, leading to approximately one excess cardiovascular event per 100 person-years of PPI treatment relative to placebo.
• Researchers found no association between PPI treatment and the risk for cardiovascular events in trials comparing PPIs with other active treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found no association of cardiovascular events with PPI treatment,” the authors wrote. “Cardiovascular events appeared more frequent with PPI treatment in GERD trials, but results from this subgroup should be interpreted with the limitations of the analysis in mind.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Andrew D. Mosholder, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology, US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked individual patient data, which precluded a time-to-event analysis or an analysis accounting for patient characteristics such as age or sex. The mean duration of PPI treatment in these trials was a few months, limiting the assessment of cardiovascular risk with extended use. The risk estimates were influenced the most by data on omeprazole and esomeprazole.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cosmetic procedures carry inherent risks of adverse events. Transient and permanent alopecia are rare complications of these procedures. Although they have not been fully elucidated, several pathologic mechanisms for hair loss following cosmetic procedures have been proposed, including extravascular compression (a phenomenon that has been well documented in bed­ridden patients) as well as intravascular occlusion leading to inflammation and necrosis, which has been associated with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers.¹ Cases of alopecia also have been reported following mesotherapy and calcium hydroxyapatite, deoxycholic acid, and botulinum toxin injections.² We report a case of alopecia resulting from poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) injection in a 35-year-old woman with the intent to raise awareness of this rare adverse event.

Case Report

A healthy 35-year-old woman received aesthetic PLLA injections on the face and frontal hairline performed by an outside dermatologist using the vector technique. During the procedure, the patient experienced intense itchiness at the right temporal artery vascular territory and reported a substantial headache the next day. She also presented with erythema and edema of the frontal and right parietal scalp with a well-delimited livedoid vascular area along the temporal artery territory on the right side of the head 1 day after the procedure (Figure 1). These signs were reported to the outside dermatologist who performed the procedure, but they were not assumed to be adverse events at that time.

The condition persisted for 4 days followed by the development of an irregular 3×2-cm patch of alopecia on the right parietal scalp. A 3-day course of self-administered oral prednisolone 0.2 mg/kg/d was prescribed.

Twenty-seven days after the procedure, the patient presented to our trichology clinic for evaluation of a single patch of nonscarring alopecia on the right parietal scalp. Trichoscopy showed multiple yellow and black dots, broken hairs, pigment deposits, and an erythematous background mainly composed of linear telangiectatic vessels (Figure 2). Histopathologic analysis revealed a lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate surrounding the follicular units that was compatible with an alopecia areata–like pattern as well as PLLA deposits in the subcutaneous tissue forming foreign body granulomas (Figure 3). The diagnosis of PLLA-induced alopecia was made based on the detection of PLLA at the biopsy site within the patchy alopecia.

Comment

Poly-L-lactic acid is a biostimulator synthesized from the α-hydroxy acid family in 1954 that has been safely used in suture materials, resorbable plates, and orthopedic screws.⁴ Alopecia has been reported as a systemic allergic reaction to biodegradable screws following an orthopedic procedure.⁵ Prior reports of embolization and retinal ischemia with PLLA have raised concerns regarding its occlusive potential.^6-9

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004 for soft tissue restoration in HIV-related lipoatrophy, PLLA was expanded to cosmetic applications in 2009. As previously reported with HA fillers, we hypothesize that extravascular compression resulting from the placement of the filler material (due to the volume injected in the scalp area) contributes to the development of alopecia plus PLLA embolism–induced ischemic alopecia in the affected areas.¹⁰ In our case, the diagnosis of PLLA-induced alopecia was confirmed based on the finding of the filler material in the subcutaneous tissue on histopathology, probably due to embolization. Moreover, trichoscopic findings were all similar to those described after HA embolization.¹¹ The features found in our patient due to the PLLA local reaction were similar to those seen in other conditions such as alopecia areata, pressure alopecia, and chemotherapy-induced alopecia; therefore, histopathology confirmation is mandatory in cases of hair loss associated with PLLA.

The emergence of a secondary patch of alopecia prompts consideration of an intrinsic late inflammatory propensity of PLLA. Immune cells recognize PLLA as a foreign body, and subclinical inflammatory foreign body reactions can cause PLLA-induced collagen synthesis.¹² This phenomenon underscores the need for further investigation into the immunologic implications of PLLA in alopecia pathogenesis.

The angiogenic properties of the anagen phase require an adequate blood supply for effective hair growth; therefore, the lack of blood and nutrient supply to the hair bulb triggers miniaturization, a possible explanation for the hair thinning found in the alopecic patch.¹³

Conclusion

Alopecia as an adverse effect of cosmetic procedures can be distressing for patients, even when reversible. A detailed understanding of scalp anatomy is critical for satisfactory outcomes with aesthetic procedures. Physicians must pay attention to the amount and area of material injected in order to avoid possible mechanisms of ischemia—embolization and/or extravascular compression—especially in highly vascularized areas.

We present a rare report of alopecia as an adverse event of PLLA injection. Dermatologists must be aware of this rare condition, and trichoscopy combined with histopathologic analysis are encouraged for early recognition and proper management.

Cosmetic procedures carry inherent risks of adverse events. Transient and permanent alopecia are rare complications of these procedures. Although they have not been fully elucidated, several pathologic mechanisms for hair loss following cosmetic procedures have been proposed, including extravascular compression (a phenomenon that has been well documented in bed­ridden patients) as well as intravascular occlusion leading to inflammation and necrosis, which has been associated with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers.¹ Cases of alopecia also have been reported following mesotherapy and calcium hydroxyapatite, deoxycholic acid, and botulinum toxin injections.² We report a case of alopecia resulting from poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) injection in a 35-year-old woman with the intent to raise awareness of this rare adverse event.

Case Report

A healthy 35-year-old woman received aesthetic PLLA injections on the face and frontal hairline performed by an outside dermatologist using the vector technique. During the procedure, the patient experienced intense itchiness at the right temporal artery vascular territory and reported a substantial headache the next day. She also presented with erythema and edema of the frontal and right parietal scalp with a well-delimited livedoid vascular area along the temporal artery territory on the right side of the head 1 day after the procedure (Figure 1). These signs were reported to the outside dermatologist who performed the procedure, but they were not assumed to be adverse events at that time.

The condition persisted for 4 days followed by the development of an irregular 3×2-cm patch of alopecia on the right parietal scalp. A 3-day course of self-administered oral prednisolone 0.2 mg/kg/d was prescribed.

Twenty-seven days after the procedure, the patient presented to our trichology clinic for evaluation of a single patch of nonscarring alopecia on the right parietal scalp. Trichoscopy showed multiple yellow and black dots, broken hairs, pigment deposits, and an erythematous background mainly composed of linear telangiectatic vessels (Figure 2). Histopathologic analysis revealed a lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate surrounding the follicular units that was compatible with an alopecia areata–like pattern as well as PLLA deposits in the subcutaneous tissue forming foreign body granulomas (Figure 3). The diagnosis of PLLA-induced alopecia was made based on the detection of PLLA at the biopsy site within the patchy alopecia.

Comment

Poly-L-lactic acid is a biostimulator synthesized from the α-hydroxy acid family in 1954 that has been safely used in suture materials, resorbable plates, and orthopedic screws.⁴ Alopecia has been reported as a systemic allergic reaction to biodegradable screws following an orthopedic procedure.⁵ Prior reports of embolization and retinal ischemia with PLLA have raised concerns regarding its occlusive potential.^6-9

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004 for soft tissue restoration in HIV-related lipoatrophy, PLLA was expanded to cosmetic applications in 2009. As previously reported with HA fillers, we hypothesize that extravascular compression resulting from the placement of the filler material (due to the volume injected in the scalp area) contributes to the development of alopecia plus PLLA embolism–induced ischemic alopecia in the affected areas.¹⁰ In our case, the diagnosis of PLLA-induced alopecia was confirmed based on the finding of the filler material in the subcutaneous tissue on histopathology, probably due to embolization. Moreover, trichoscopic findings were all similar to those described after HA embolization.¹¹ The features found in our patient due to the PLLA local reaction were similar to those seen in other conditions such as alopecia areata, pressure alopecia, and chemotherapy-induced alopecia; therefore, histopathology confirmation is mandatory in cases of hair loss associated with PLLA.

The emergence of a secondary patch of alopecia prompts consideration of an intrinsic late inflammatory propensity of PLLA. Immune cells recognize PLLA as a foreign body, and subclinical inflammatory foreign body reactions can cause PLLA-induced collagen synthesis.¹² This phenomenon underscores the need for further investigation into the immunologic implications of PLLA in alopecia pathogenesis.

The angiogenic properties of the anagen phase require an adequate blood supply for effective hair growth; therefore, the lack of blood and nutrient supply to the hair bulb triggers miniaturization, a possible explanation for the hair thinning found in the alopecic patch.¹³

Conclusion

Alopecia as an adverse effect of cosmetic procedures can be distressing for patients, even when reversible. A detailed understanding of scalp anatomy is critical for satisfactory outcomes with aesthetic procedures. Physicians must pay attention to the amount and area of material injected in order to avoid possible mechanisms of ischemia—embolization and/or extravascular compression—especially in highly vascularized areas.

We present a rare report of alopecia as an adverse event of PLLA injection. Dermatologists must be aware of this rare condition, and trichoscopy combined with histopathologic analysis are encouraged for early recognition and proper management.

Cosmetic procedures carry inherent risks of adverse events. Transient and permanent alopecia are rare complications of these procedures. Although they have not been fully elucidated, several pathologic mechanisms for hair loss following cosmetic procedures have been proposed, including extravascular compression (a phenomenon that has been well documented in bed­ridden patients) as well as intravascular occlusion leading to inflammation and necrosis, which has been associated with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers.¹ Cases of alopecia also have been reported following mesotherapy and calcium hydroxyapatite, deoxycholic acid, and botulinum toxin injections.² We report a case of alopecia resulting from poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) injection in a 35-year-old woman with the intent to raise awareness of this rare adverse event.

Case Report

A healthy 35-year-old woman received aesthetic PLLA injections on the face and frontal hairline performed by an outside dermatologist using the vector technique. During the procedure, the patient experienced intense itchiness at the right temporal artery vascular territory and reported a substantial headache the next day. She also presented with erythema and edema of the frontal and right parietal scalp with a well-delimited livedoid vascular area along the temporal artery territory on the right side of the head 1 day after the procedure (Figure 1). These signs were reported to the outside dermatologist who performed the procedure, but they were not assumed to be adverse events at that time.

The condition persisted for 4 days followed by the development of an irregular 3×2-cm patch of alopecia on the right parietal scalp. A 3-day course of self-administered oral prednisolone 0.2 mg/kg/d was prescribed.

Twenty-seven days after the procedure, the patient presented to our trichology clinic for evaluation of a single patch of nonscarring alopecia on the right parietal scalp. Trichoscopy showed multiple yellow and black dots, broken hairs, pigment deposits, and an erythematous background mainly composed of linear telangiectatic vessels (Figure 2). Histopathologic analysis revealed a lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate surrounding the follicular units that was compatible with an alopecia areata–like pattern as well as PLLA deposits in the subcutaneous tissue forming foreign body granulomas (Figure 3). The diagnosis of PLLA-induced alopecia was made based on the detection of PLLA at the biopsy site within the patchy alopecia.

Comment

Poly-L-lactic acid is a biostimulator synthesized from the α-hydroxy acid family in 1954 that has been safely used in suture materials, resorbable plates, and orthopedic screws.⁴ Alopecia has been reported as a systemic allergic reaction to biodegradable screws following an orthopedic procedure.⁵ Prior reports of embolization and retinal ischemia with PLLA have raised concerns regarding its occlusive potential.^6-9

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004 for soft tissue restoration in HIV-related lipoatrophy, PLLA was expanded to cosmetic applications in 2009. As previously reported with HA fillers, we hypothesize that extravascular compression resulting from the placement of the filler material (due to the volume injected in the scalp area) contributes to the development of alopecia plus PLLA embolism–induced ischemic alopecia in the affected areas.¹⁰ In our case, the diagnosis of PLLA-induced alopecia was confirmed based on the finding of the filler material in the subcutaneous tissue on histopathology, probably due to embolization. Moreover, trichoscopic findings were all similar to those described after HA embolization.¹¹ The features found in our patient due to the PLLA local reaction were similar to those seen in other conditions such as alopecia areata, pressure alopecia, and chemotherapy-induced alopecia; therefore, histopathology confirmation is mandatory in cases of hair loss associated with PLLA.

The emergence of a secondary patch of alopecia prompts consideration of an intrinsic late inflammatory propensity of PLLA. Immune cells recognize PLLA as a foreign body, and subclinical inflammatory foreign body reactions can cause PLLA-induced collagen synthesis.¹² This phenomenon underscores the need for further investigation into the immunologic implications of PLLA in alopecia pathogenesis.

The angiogenic properties of the anagen phase require an adequate blood supply for effective hair growth; therefore, the lack of blood and nutrient supply to the hair bulb triggers miniaturization, a possible explanation for the hair thinning found in the alopecic patch.¹³

Conclusion

Alopecia as an adverse effect of cosmetic procedures can be distressing for patients, even when reversible. A detailed understanding of scalp anatomy is critical for satisfactory outcomes with aesthetic procedures. Physicians must pay attention to the amount and area of material injected in order to avoid possible mechanisms of ischemia—embolization and/or extravascular compression—especially in highly vascularized areas.

We present a rare report of alopecia as an adverse event of PLLA injection. Dermatologists must be aware of this rare condition, and trichoscopy combined with histopathologic analysis are encouraged for early recognition and proper management.

Inpatient consultative dermatology has advanced as a subspecialty and increasingly gained recognition in recent years. Since its founding in 2009, the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists has fostered research and education in hospital dermatology. Last year, we reviewed the 2022-2023 literature with a focus on developments in severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.¹ In this review, we highlight 3 areas of interest from the 2023-2024 literature: severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, skin and soft tissue infections, and autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs).

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

Adverse drug reactions are among the most common diagnoses encountered by inpatient dermatology consultants.^2,3 Severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Efforts to characterize these conditions and standardize their diagnosis and management continue to be a major focus of ongoing research.

A single-center retrospective analysis of 102 cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome evaluated differences in clinical manifestations depending on the culprit drug, offering insights into the heterogeneity of DRESS syndrome and the potential for diagnostic uncertainty.⁴ The shortest median latency was observed in a case caused by penicillin and cephalosporins (12 and 18 days, respectively), while DRESS syndrome secondary to allopurinol had the longest median latency (36 days). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–induced DRESS syndrome was associated with the shortest hospital stay (6.5 days), while cephalosporin and vancomycin cases had the highest mortality rates.⁴

In the first international Delphi consensus study on the diagnostic workup, severity assessment, and management of DRESS syndrome, 54 dermatology and/or allergy experts reached consensus on 93 statements.⁵ Specific recommendations included basic evaluation with complete blood count with differential, kidney and liver function parameters, and electrocardiogram for all patients with suspected DRESS syndrome, with additional complementary workup considered in patients with evidence of specific organ damage and/or severe disease. In the proposed DRESS syndrome severity grading scheme, laboratory values that reached consensus for inclusion were hemoglobin, neutrophil, and platelet counts and creatinine, transaminases, and alkaline phosphatase levels. Although treatment of DRESS syndrome should be based on assessed disease severity, treatment with corticosteroids should be initiated in all patients with confirmed DRESS syndrome. Cyclosporine, antibodies interfering with the IL-5 axis, and intravenous immunoglobulins can be considered in patients with corticosteroid-refractory DRESS syndrome, and antiviral treatment can be considered in patients with a high serum cytomegalovirus viral load. Regularly following up with laboratory evaluation of involved organs; screening for autoantibodies, thyroid dysfunction, and steroid adverse effects; and offering of psychological support also were consensus recommendations.⁵

Identifying causative agents in drug hypersensitivity reactions remains challenging. A retrospective cohort study of 48 patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) highlighted the need for a systematic unbiased approach to identifying culprit drugs. Using the RegiSCAR database and algorithm for drug causality for epidermal necrolysis to analyze the cohort, more than half of causative agents were determined to be different from those initially identified by the treating physicians. Nine additional suspected culprit drugs were identified, while 43 drugs initially identified as allergens were exonerated.⁶

Etiology-associated definitions for blistering reactions in children have been proposed to replace the existing terms Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and others.⁷ Investigators in a recent study reclassified cases of SJS and TEN as reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) or drug-induced epidermal necrolysis (DEN), respectively. In RIME cases, Mycoplasma pneumoniae was the most commonly identified trigger, and in DEN cases, anticonvulsants were the most common class of culprit medications. Cases of RIME were less severe and were most often treated with antibiotics, whereas patients with DEN were more likely to receive supportive care, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, and other immunosuppressive therapies.⁷

In addition to causing acute devastating mucocutaneous complications, SJS and TEN have long-lasting effects that require ongoing care. In a cohort of 6552 incident SJS/TEN cases over an 11-year period, survivors of SJS/TEN endured a mean loss of 9.4 years in life expectancy and excess health care expenditures of $3752 per year compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Patients with more severe disease, comorbid malignancy, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, or SJS/TEN sequelae experienced greater loss in life expectancy and lifetime health care expenditures.⁸ Separately, a qualitative study investigating the psychological impact of SJS/TEN in pediatric patients described sequelae including night terrors, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety for many years after the acute phase. Many patients reported a desire for increased support for their physical and emotional needs following hospital discharge.⁹

Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention

Dermatology consultation has been shown to be a cost-effective intervention to improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections.^10,11 In particular, cellulitis frequently is misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary antibiotic use, hospitalizations, and major health care expenditures.¹² Recognizing this challenge, researchers have worked to develop objective tools to improve diagnostic accuracy. In a large prospective prognostic validation study, Pulia et al¹³ found that thermal imaging alone or in combination with the ALT-70 prediction model (asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age ≥70 years) could be used successfully to reduce overdiagnosis of cellulitis. Both thermal imaging and the ALT-70 prediction model demonstrated robust sensitivity (93.5% and 98.8%, respectively) but low specificity (38.4% and 22.0%, respectively, and 53.9% when combined).¹³

In a systematic review, Kovacs et al¹⁴ analyzed case reports of pseudocellulitis caused by chemotherapeutic medications. Of the 81 cases selected, 58 (71.6%) were associated with gemcitabine, with the remaining 23 (28.4%) attributed to pemetrexed. Within this group, two-thirds of the patients received antibiotic treatment prior to receiving the correct diagnosis, and 36% experienced interruptions to their oncologic therapies. In contrast to infectious cellulitis, which tends to be unilateral and associated with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, most chemotherapy-induced pseudocellulitis cases occurred bilaterally on the lower extremities, while erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein seldom were elevated.¹⁴

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are severe life-threatening conditions characterized by widespread tissue destruction, signs of systemic toxicity, hemodynamic collapse, organ failure, and high mortality. Surgical inspection along with intraoperative tissue culture is the gold standard for diagnosis. Early detection, prompt surgical intervention, and appropriate antibiotic treatment are essential to reduce mortality and improve outcomes.¹⁵ A retrospective study of patients with surgically confirmed NSTIs assessed the incidence and risk factors for recurrence within 1 year following an initial NSTI of the lower extremity. Among 93 included patients, 32 (34.4%) had recurrence within 1 year, and more than half of recurrences occurred in the first 3 months (median, 66 days). The comparison of patients with and without recurrence showed similar proportions of antibiotic prophylaxis use after the first NSTI. There was significantly less compression therapy use (33.3% vs 62.3%; P=.13) and more negative pressure wound therapy use (83.3% vs 63.3%; P=.03) in the recurrence group, though the authors acknowledged that factors such as severity of pain and size of soft tissue defect may have affected the decisions for compression and negative pressure wound therapy.¹⁶

Residents of nursing homes are a particularly vulnerable population at high risk for health care–associated infections due to older age and a higher likelihood of having wounds, indwelling medical devices, and/or coexisting conditions.¹⁷ One cluster-randomized trial compared universal decolonization with routine-care bathing practices in nursing homes (N=28,956 residents). Decolonization entailed the use of chlorhexidine for all routine bathing and showering and administration of nasal povidone-iodine twice daily for the first 5 days after admission and then twice daily for 5 days every other week. Transfer to a hospital due to infection decreased from 62.9% to 52.2% with decolonization, for a difference in risk ratio of 16.6% (P<.001) compared with routine care. Additionally, the difference in risk ratio of the secondary end point (transfer to a hospital for any reason) was 14.6%. The number needed to treat was 9.7 to prevent 1 infection-related hospitalization and 8.9 to prevent 1 hospitalization for any reason.¹⁷

Autoimmune Blistering Diseases

Although rare, AIBDs are potentially life-threatening cutaneous diseases that often require inpatient management. While corticosteroids remain the mainstay of initial AIBD management, rituximab is now well recognized as the steroid-sparing treatment of choice for patients with moderate to severe pemphigus. In a long-term follow-up study of Ritux 3¹⁸—the trial that led to the US Food and Drug Administration approval of rituximab in the treatment of moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris—researchers assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of rituximab as a first-line treatment in patients with pemphigus.¹⁹ The 5- and 7-year disease-free survival rates without corticosteroid therapy for patients treated with rituximab were 76.7% and 72.1%, respectively, compared with 35.3% and 35.3% in those treated with prednisone alone (P<.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in those treated with rituximab plus prednisone compared with those treated with prednisone alone. None of the patients who maintained complete remission off corticosteroid therapy received any additional maintenance infusions of rituximab after the end of the Ritux 3 regimen (1 g of rituximab at day 0 and day 14, then 500 mg at months 12 and 18).¹⁹

By contrast, treatment of severe bullous pemphigoid (BP) often is less clear-cut, as no single therapeutic option has been shown to be superior to other immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive regimens, and the medical comorbidities of elderly patients with BP can be limiting. Fortunately, newer therapies with favorable safety profiles have emerged in recent years. In a multicenter retrospective study, 100 patients with BP received omalizumab after previously failing to respond to at least one alternative therapy. Disease control was obtained after a median of 10 days, and complete remission was achieved in 77% of patients in a median time of 3 months.²⁰ In a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 146 patients with BP treated with dupilumab following the atopic dermatitis dosing schedule (one 600-mg dose followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks), disease control was achieved in a median of 14 days, while complete remission was achieved in 35.6% of patients, with 8.9% relapsing during the observation period.²¹ A retrospective case series of 30 patients with BP treated with dupilumab with maintenance dosing frequency tailored to individual patient response showed complete remission or marked response in 76.7% (23/30) of patients.²² A phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial of dupilumab in BP is currently ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04206553).

Pemphigoid gestationis is a rare autoimmune subepidermal bullous dermatosis of pregnancy that may be difficult to distinguish clinically from polymorphic eruption of pregnancy but confers notably different maternal and fetal risks. Researchers developed and validated a scoring system using clinical factors—history of pemphigoid gestationis, primigravidae, timing of rash onset, and specific clinical examination findings—that was able to differentiate between the 2 diseases with 79% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.93 without the need for advanced immunologic testing.²³

Final Thoughts

Highlights of the literature from 2023-2024 demonstrate advancements in hospital-based dermatology as well as ongoing challenges. This year’s review emphasizes key developments in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, skin and soft tissue infections, and AIBDs. Continued expansion of knowledge in these areas and others informs patient care and demonstrates the value of dermatologic expertise in the inpatient setting.

Inpatient consultative dermatology has advanced as a subspecialty and increasingly gained recognition in recent years. Since its founding in 2009, the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists has fostered research and education in hospital dermatology. Last year, we reviewed the 2022-2023 literature with a focus on developments in severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.¹ In this review, we highlight 3 areas of interest from the 2023-2024 literature: severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, skin and soft tissue infections, and autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs).

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

Adverse drug reactions are among the most common diagnoses encountered by inpatient dermatology consultants.^2,3 Severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Efforts to characterize these conditions and standardize their diagnosis and management continue to be a major focus of ongoing research.

A single-center retrospective analysis of 102 cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome evaluated differences in clinical manifestations depending on the culprit drug, offering insights into the heterogeneity of DRESS syndrome and the potential for diagnostic uncertainty.⁴ The shortest median latency was observed in a case caused by penicillin and cephalosporins (12 and 18 days, respectively), while DRESS syndrome secondary to allopurinol had the longest median latency (36 days). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–induced DRESS syndrome was associated with the shortest hospital stay (6.5 days), while cephalosporin and vancomycin cases had the highest mortality rates.⁴

In the first international Delphi consensus study on the diagnostic workup, severity assessment, and management of DRESS syndrome, 54 dermatology and/or allergy experts reached consensus on 93 statements.⁵ Specific recommendations included basic evaluation with complete blood count with differential, kidney and liver function parameters, and electrocardiogram for all patients with suspected DRESS syndrome, with additional complementary workup considered in patients with evidence of specific organ damage and/or severe disease. In the proposed DRESS syndrome severity grading scheme, laboratory values that reached consensus for inclusion were hemoglobin, neutrophil, and platelet counts and creatinine, transaminases, and alkaline phosphatase levels. Although treatment of DRESS syndrome should be based on assessed disease severity, treatment with corticosteroids should be initiated in all patients with confirmed DRESS syndrome. Cyclosporine, antibodies interfering with the IL-5 axis, and intravenous immunoglobulins can be considered in patients with corticosteroid-refractory DRESS syndrome, and antiviral treatment can be considered in patients with a high serum cytomegalovirus viral load. Regularly following up with laboratory evaluation of involved organs; screening for autoantibodies, thyroid dysfunction, and steroid adverse effects; and offering of psychological support also were consensus recommendations.⁵

Identifying causative agents in drug hypersensitivity reactions remains challenging. A retrospective cohort study of 48 patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) highlighted the need for a systematic unbiased approach to identifying culprit drugs. Using the RegiSCAR database and algorithm for drug causality for epidermal necrolysis to analyze the cohort, more than half of causative agents were determined to be different from those initially identified by the treating physicians. Nine additional suspected culprit drugs were identified, while 43 drugs initially identified as allergens were exonerated.⁶

Etiology-associated definitions for blistering reactions in children have been proposed to replace the existing terms Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and others.⁷ Investigators in a recent study reclassified cases of SJS and TEN as reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) or drug-induced epidermal necrolysis (DEN), respectively. In RIME cases, Mycoplasma pneumoniae was the most commonly identified trigger, and in DEN cases, anticonvulsants were the most common class of culprit medications. Cases of RIME were less severe and were most often treated with antibiotics, whereas patients with DEN were more likely to receive supportive care, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, and other immunosuppressive therapies.⁷

In addition to causing acute devastating mucocutaneous complications, SJS and TEN have long-lasting effects that require ongoing care. In a cohort of 6552 incident SJS/TEN cases over an 11-year period, survivors of SJS/TEN endured a mean loss of 9.4 years in life expectancy and excess health care expenditures of $3752 per year compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Patients with more severe disease, comorbid malignancy, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, or SJS/TEN sequelae experienced greater loss in life expectancy and lifetime health care expenditures.⁸ Separately, a qualitative study investigating the psychological impact of SJS/TEN in pediatric patients described sequelae including night terrors, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety for many years after the acute phase. Many patients reported a desire for increased support for their physical and emotional needs following hospital discharge.⁹

Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention

Dermatology consultation has been shown to be a cost-effective intervention to improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections.^10,11 In particular, cellulitis frequently is misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary antibiotic use, hospitalizations, and major health care expenditures.¹² Recognizing this challenge, researchers have worked to develop objective tools to improve diagnostic accuracy. In a large prospective prognostic validation study, Pulia et al¹³ found that thermal imaging alone or in combination with the ALT-70 prediction model (asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age ≥70 years) could be used successfully to reduce overdiagnosis of cellulitis. Both thermal imaging and the ALT-70 prediction model demonstrated robust sensitivity (93.5% and 98.8%, respectively) but low specificity (38.4% and 22.0%, respectively, and 53.9% when combined).¹³

In a systematic review, Kovacs et al¹⁴ analyzed case reports of pseudocellulitis caused by chemotherapeutic medications. Of the 81 cases selected, 58 (71.6%) were associated with gemcitabine, with the remaining 23 (28.4%) attributed to pemetrexed. Within this group, two-thirds of the patients received antibiotic treatment prior to receiving the correct diagnosis, and 36% experienced interruptions to their oncologic therapies. In contrast to infectious cellulitis, which tends to be unilateral and associated with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, most chemotherapy-induced pseudocellulitis cases occurred bilaterally on the lower extremities, while erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein seldom were elevated.¹⁴

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are severe life-threatening conditions characterized by widespread tissue destruction, signs of systemic toxicity, hemodynamic collapse, organ failure, and high mortality. Surgical inspection along with intraoperative tissue culture is the gold standard for diagnosis. Early detection, prompt surgical intervention, and appropriate antibiotic treatment are essential to reduce mortality and improve outcomes.¹⁵ A retrospective study of patients with surgically confirmed NSTIs assessed the incidence and risk factors for recurrence within 1 year following an initial NSTI of the lower extremity. Among 93 included patients, 32 (34.4%) had recurrence within 1 year, and more than half of recurrences occurred in the first 3 months (median, 66 days). The comparison of patients with and without recurrence showed similar proportions of antibiotic prophylaxis use after the first NSTI. There was significantly less compression therapy use (33.3% vs 62.3%; P=.13) and more negative pressure wound therapy use (83.3% vs 63.3%; P=.03) in the recurrence group, though the authors acknowledged that factors such as severity of pain and size of soft tissue defect may have affected the decisions for compression and negative pressure wound therapy.¹⁶

Residents of nursing homes are a particularly vulnerable population at high risk for health care–associated infections due to older age and a higher likelihood of having wounds, indwelling medical devices, and/or coexisting conditions.¹⁷ One cluster-randomized trial compared universal decolonization with routine-care bathing practices in nursing homes (N=28,956 residents). Decolonization entailed the use of chlorhexidine for all routine bathing and showering and administration of nasal povidone-iodine twice daily for the first 5 days after admission and then twice daily for 5 days every other week. Transfer to a hospital due to infection decreased from 62.9% to 52.2% with decolonization, for a difference in risk ratio of 16.6% (P<.001) compared with routine care. Additionally, the difference in risk ratio of the secondary end point (transfer to a hospital for any reason) was 14.6%. The number needed to treat was 9.7 to prevent 1 infection-related hospitalization and 8.9 to prevent 1 hospitalization for any reason.¹⁷

Autoimmune Blistering Diseases

Although rare, AIBDs are potentially life-threatening cutaneous diseases that often require inpatient management. While corticosteroids remain the mainstay of initial AIBD management, rituximab is now well recognized as the steroid-sparing treatment of choice for patients with moderate to severe pemphigus. In a long-term follow-up study of Ritux 3¹⁸—the trial that led to the US Food and Drug Administration approval of rituximab in the treatment of moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris—researchers assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of rituximab as a first-line treatment in patients with pemphigus.¹⁹ The 5- and 7-year disease-free survival rates without corticosteroid therapy for patients treated with rituximab were 76.7% and 72.1%, respectively, compared with 35.3% and 35.3% in those treated with prednisone alone (P<.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in those treated with rituximab plus prednisone compared with those treated with prednisone alone. None of the patients who maintained complete remission off corticosteroid therapy received any additional maintenance infusions of rituximab after the end of the Ritux 3 regimen (1 g of rituximab at day 0 and day 14, then 500 mg at months 12 and 18).¹⁹

By contrast, treatment of severe bullous pemphigoid (BP) often is less clear-cut, as no single therapeutic option has been shown to be superior to other immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive regimens, and the medical comorbidities of elderly patients with BP can be limiting. Fortunately, newer therapies with favorable safety profiles have emerged in recent years. In a multicenter retrospective study, 100 patients with BP received omalizumab after previously failing to respond to at least one alternative therapy. Disease control was obtained after a median of 10 days, and complete remission was achieved in 77% of patients in a median time of 3 months.²⁰ In a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 146 patients with BP treated with dupilumab following the atopic dermatitis dosing schedule (one 600-mg dose followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks), disease control was achieved in a median of 14 days, while complete remission was achieved in 35.6% of patients, with 8.9% relapsing during the observation period.²¹ A retrospective case series of 30 patients with BP treated with dupilumab with maintenance dosing frequency tailored to individual patient response showed complete remission or marked response in 76.7% (23/30) of patients.²² A phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial of dupilumab in BP is currently ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04206553).

Pemphigoid gestationis is a rare autoimmune subepidermal bullous dermatosis of pregnancy that may be difficult to distinguish clinically from polymorphic eruption of pregnancy but confers notably different maternal and fetal risks. Researchers developed and validated a scoring system using clinical factors—history of pemphigoid gestationis, primigravidae, timing of rash onset, and specific clinical examination findings—that was able to differentiate between the 2 diseases with 79% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.93 without the need for advanced immunologic testing.²³

Final Thoughts

Highlights of the literature from 2023-2024 demonstrate advancements in hospital-based dermatology as well as ongoing challenges. This year’s review emphasizes key developments in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, skin and soft tissue infections, and AIBDs. Continued expansion of knowledge in these areas and others informs patient care and demonstrates the value of dermatologic expertise in the inpatient setting.

Inpatient consultative dermatology has advanced as a subspecialty and increasingly gained recognition in recent years. Since its founding in 2009, the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists has fostered research and education in hospital dermatology. Last year, we reviewed the 2022-2023 literature with a focus on developments in severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.¹ In this review, we highlight 3 areas of interest from the 2023-2024 literature: severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, skin and soft tissue infections, and autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs).

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

Adverse drug reactions are among the most common diagnoses encountered by inpatient dermatology consultants.^2,3 Severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Efforts to characterize these conditions and standardize their diagnosis and management continue to be a major focus of ongoing research.

A single-center retrospective analysis of 102 cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome evaluated differences in clinical manifestations depending on the culprit drug, offering insights into the heterogeneity of DRESS syndrome and the potential for diagnostic uncertainty.⁴ The shortest median latency was observed in a case caused by penicillin and cephalosporins (12 and 18 days, respectively), while DRESS syndrome secondary to allopurinol had the longest median latency (36 days). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–induced DRESS syndrome was associated with the shortest hospital stay (6.5 days), while cephalosporin and vancomycin cases had the highest mortality rates.⁴

In the first international Delphi consensus study on the diagnostic workup, severity assessment, and management of DRESS syndrome, 54 dermatology and/or allergy experts reached consensus on 93 statements.⁵ Specific recommendations included basic evaluation with complete blood count with differential, kidney and liver function parameters, and electrocardiogram for all patients with suspected DRESS syndrome, with additional complementary workup considered in patients with evidence of specific organ damage and/or severe disease. In the proposed DRESS syndrome severity grading scheme, laboratory values that reached consensus for inclusion were hemoglobin, neutrophil, and platelet counts and creatinine, transaminases, and alkaline phosphatase levels. Although treatment of DRESS syndrome should be based on assessed disease severity, treatment with corticosteroids should be initiated in all patients with confirmed DRESS syndrome. Cyclosporine, antibodies interfering with the IL-5 axis, and intravenous immunoglobulins can be considered in patients with corticosteroid-refractory DRESS syndrome, and antiviral treatment can be considered in patients with a high serum cytomegalovirus viral load. Regularly following up with laboratory evaluation of involved organs; screening for autoantibodies, thyroid dysfunction, and steroid adverse effects; and offering of psychological support also were consensus recommendations.⁵

Identifying causative agents in drug hypersensitivity reactions remains challenging. A retrospective cohort study of 48 patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) highlighted the need for a systematic unbiased approach to identifying culprit drugs. Using the RegiSCAR database and algorithm for drug causality for epidermal necrolysis to analyze the cohort, more than half of causative agents were determined to be different from those initially identified by the treating physicians. Nine additional suspected culprit drugs were identified, while 43 drugs initially identified as allergens were exonerated.⁶

Etiology-associated definitions for blistering reactions in children have been proposed to replace the existing terms Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and others.⁷ Investigators in a recent study reclassified cases of SJS and TEN as reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) or drug-induced epidermal necrolysis (DEN), respectively. In RIME cases, Mycoplasma pneumoniae was the most commonly identified trigger, and in DEN cases, anticonvulsants were the most common class of culprit medications. Cases of RIME were less severe and were most often treated with antibiotics, whereas patients with DEN were more likely to receive supportive care, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, and other immunosuppressive therapies.⁷

In addition to causing acute devastating mucocutaneous complications, SJS and TEN have long-lasting effects that require ongoing care. In a cohort of 6552 incident SJS/TEN cases over an 11-year period, survivors of SJS/TEN endured a mean loss of 9.4 years in life expectancy and excess health care expenditures of $3752 per year compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Patients with more severe disease, comorbid malignancy, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, or SJS/TEN sequelae experienced greater loss in life expectancy and lifetime health care expenditures.⁸ Separately, a qualitative study investigating the psychological impact of SJS/TEN in pediatric patients described sequelae including night terrors, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety for many years after the acute phase. Many patients reported a desire for increased support for their physical and emotional needs following hospital discharge.⁹

Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention

Dermatology consultation has been shown to be a cost-effective intervention to improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections.^10,11 In particular, cellulitis frequently is misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary antibiotic use, hospitalizations, and major health care expenditures.¹² Recognizing this challenge, researchers have worked to develop objective tools to improve diagnostic accuracy. In a large prospective prognostic validation study, Pulia et al¹³ found that thermal imaging alone or in combination with the ALT-70 prediction model (asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age ≥70 years) could be used successfully to reduce overdiagnosis of cellulitis. Both thermal imaging and the ALT-70 prediction model demonstrated robust sensitivity (93.5% and 98.8%, respectively) but low specificity (38.4% and 22.0%, respectively, and 53.9% when combined).¹³

In a systematic review, Kovacs et al¹⁴ analyzed case reports of pseudocellulitis caused by chemotherapeutic medications. Of the 81 cases selected, 58 (71.6%) were associated with gemcitabine, with the remaining 23 (28.4%) attributed to pemetrexed. Within this group, two-thirds of the patients received antibiotic treatment prior to receiving the correct diagnosis, and 36% experienced interruptions to their oncologic therapies. In contrast to infectious cellulitis, which tends to be unilateral and associated with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, most chemotherapy-induced pseudocellulitis cases occurred bilaterally on the lower extremities, while erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein seldom were elevated.¹⁴

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are severe life-threatening conditions characterized by widespread tissue destruction, signs of systemic toxicity, hemodynamic collapse, organ failure, and high mortality. Surgical inspection along with intraoperative tissue culture is the gold standard for diagnosis. Early detection, prompt surgical intervention, and appropriate antibiotic treatment are essential to reduce mortality and improve outcomes.¹⁵ A retrospective study of patients with surgically confirmed NSTIs assessed the incidence and risk factors for recurrence within 1 year following an initial NSTI of the lower extremity. Among 93 included patients, 32 (34.4%) had recurrence within 1 year, and more than half of recurrences occurred in the first 3 months (median, 66 days). The comparison of patients with and without recurrence showed similar proportions of antibiotic prophylaxis use after the first NSTI. There was significantly less compression therapy use (33.3% vs 62.3%; P=.13) and more negative pressure wound therapy use (83.3% vs 63.3%; P=.03) in the recurrence group, though the authors acknowledged that factors such as severity of pain and size of soft tissue defect may have affected the decisions for compression and negative pressure wound therapy.¹⁶

Residents of nursing homes are a particularly vulnerable population at high risk for health care–associated infections due to older age and a higher likelihood of having wounds, indwelling medical devices, and/or coexisting conditions.¹⁷ One cluster-randomized trial compared universal decolonization with routine-care bathing practices in nursing homes (N=28,956 residents). Decolonization entailed the use of chlorhexidine for all routine bathing and showering and administration of nasal povidone-iodine twice daily for the first 5 days after admission and then twice daily for 5 days every other week. Transfer to a hospital due to infection decreased from 62.9% to 52.2% with decolonization, for a difference in risk ratio of 16.6% (P<.001) compared with routine care. Additionally, the difference in risk ratio of the secondary end point (transfer to a hospital for any reason) was 14.6%. The number needed to treat was 9.7 to prevent 1 infection-related hospitalization and 8.9 to prevent 1 hospitalization for any reason.¹⁷

Autoimmune Blistering Diseases

Although rare, AIBDs are potentially life-threatening cutaneous diseases that often require inpatient management. While corticosteroids remain the mainstay of initial AIBD management, rituximab is now well recognized as the steroid-sparing treatment of choice for patients with moderate to severe pemphigus. In a long-term follow-up study of Ritux 3¹⁸—the trial that led to the US Food and Drug Administration approval of rituximab in the treatment of moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris—researchers assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of rituximab as a first-line treatment in patients with pemphigus.¹⁹ The 5- and 7-year disease-free survival rates without corticosteroid therapy for patients treated with rituximab were 76.7% and 72.1%, respectively, compared with 35.3% and 35.3% in those treated with prednisone alone (P<.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in those treated with rituximab plus prednisone compared with those treated with prednisone alone. None of the patients who maintained complete remission off corticosteroid therapy received any additional maintenance infusions of rituximab after the end of the Ritux 3 regimen (1 g of rituximab at day 0 and day 14, then 500 mg at months 12 and 18).¹⁹

By contrast, treatment of severe bullous pemphigoid (BP) often is less clear-cut, as no single therapeutic option has been shown to be superior to other immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive regimens, and the medical comorbidities of elderly patients with BP can be limiting. Fortunately, newer therapies with favorable safety profiles have emerged in recent years. In a multicenter retrospective study, 100 patients with BP received omalizumab after previously failing to respond to at least one alternative therapy. Disease control was obtained after a median of 10 days, and complete remission was achieved in 77% of patients in a median time of 3 months.²⁰ In a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 146 patients with BP treated with dupilumab following the atopic dermatitis dosing schedule (one 600-mg dose followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks), disease control was achieved in a median of 14 days, while complete remission was achieved in 35.6% of patients, with 8.9% relapsing during the observation period.²¹ A retrospective case series of 30 patients with BP treated with dupilumab with maintenance dosing frequency tailored to individual patient response showed complete remission or marked response in 76.7% (23/30) of patients.²² A phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial of dupilumab in BP is currently ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04206553).

Pemphigoid gestationis is a rare autoimmune subepidermal bullous dermatosis of pregnancy that may be difficult to distinguish clinically from polymorphic eruption of pregnancy but confers notably different maternal and fetal risks. Researchers developed and validated a scoring system using clinical factors—history of pemphigoid gestationis, primigravidae, timing of rash onset, and specific clinical examination findings—that was able to differentiate between the 2 diseases with 79% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.93 without the need for advanced immunologic testing.²³

Final Thoughts

Highlights of the literature from 2023-2024 demonstrate advancements in hospital-based dermatology as well as ongoing challenges. This year’s review emphasizes key developments in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, skin and soft tissue infections, and AIBDs. Continued expansion of knowledge in these areas and others informs patient care and demonstrates the value of dermatologic expertise in the inpatient setting.

Keloids are fibroproliferative lesions caused by aberrant wound healing in predisposed individuals.¹ While keloids have been reported in patients of all races and ethnicities, they most commonly develop in individuals of African or Asian descent.² Often associated with symptoms such as pain and itching, keloids can be disfiguring and result in poorer quality of life.³ There is a paucity of research on keloid pathogenesis and efficacious therapeutics, particularly in patients with skin of color (SOC). Herein, we outline the current research on keloid treatment and highlight promising new therapies ranging from innovative intralesional techniques to advanced laser-based and biologic therapies.

Deficiencies in Skin of Color Research

Although keloids are 17 times more prevalent in patients with SOC,⁴ there is a considerable lack of focus on this population in the literature.⁵ Studies on keloids that include individuals with SOC often group patients of all skin types together, and subgroup analyses are not always performed.^6,7 As a result, dermatologists may face considerable challenges in providing effective treatments for keloids in patients with SOC. With few evidence-based options available, patients with SOC who have keloids continue to experience impairments in quality of life.

Common Keloid Therapies

There currently is no gold-standard treatment for keloids. Common therapeutic modalities include intralesional corticosteroids (ILCs), antineoplastic agents and neuromodulators, laser-based devices, and surgical therapies (eg, excision), as well as combined medical and surgical techniques.⁸

Intralesional Corticosteroids—Minimally invasive ILCs are the first-line treatment in all patients with keloids, regardless of skin phototype. Because keloid formation results from trauma to the skin, ILCs often are recommended to minimize further skin damage.⁵ One meta-analysis found that ILCs have demonstrated success rates of 50% to 100%⁹; however, these studies frequently combine ILCs with other treatment modalities, and few studies have focused on the efficacy of ILC monotherapy in patients with SOC.^6,10-13

Antineoplastic Agents and Neuromodulators—Certain antineoplastic agents (eg, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] and bleomycin) and neuromodulators (eg, botulinum toxin A [BTA]) also have been studied in keloid management.⁸

5-Fluorouracil frequently is combined with ILCs such as triamcinolone (TAC). Combined therapy is more effective than TAC monotherapy in scar height reduction.^14,15 Rates of adverse events such as dyspigmentation, atrophy, and telangiectasias also were lower in patients who received combined therapy.^14,15 A systematic review found that intralesional bleomycin may be more effective than TAC alone, 5-FU alone, TAC combined with 5-FU, and TAC combined with cryotherapy; however, hyperpigmentation was a common adverse event, occurring in roughly 70% (42/60) of patients.^16,17 Additionally, a 2024 meta-analysis evaluated 20 randomized controlled trials comprising 1114 patients treated with intralesional TAC, 5-FU, BTA, verapamil, and/or bleomycin. Botulinum toxin A and TAC plus 5-FU were found to have outstanding therapeutic efficacy for keloids, and rates of adverse events were similar among users of TAC, 5-FU, BTA, and TAC plus 5-FU.¹⁸

While antineoplastic agents and BTA may be promising keloid therapies, further studies demonstrating their efficacy and safety profiles are necessary, particularly regarding dyspigmentation as a potential adverse event, as this may be of concern in patients with darker phototypes.

Laser Therapies—Of all treatment modalities, laser-based keloid therapies have been the most robustly studied in SOC. The 2 main types are ablative (eg, CO₂, Er:YAG) and nonablative (eg, pulsed dye, Nd:YAG) lasers. Ablative lasers rapidly heat water molecules within the skin, thereby vaporizing the skin cells in a controlled precise process that reduces scar tissue by removing layers of skin. Nonablative lasers target hemoglobin in blood vessels, reducing oxygen supply and inducing collagen remodeling without damaging the epidermis.¹⁹

For patients with SOC, lasers carry a risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.²⁰ To address this risk, recent advancements in laser technology and procedural protocols have aimed to minimize the number of passes and utilize cooling devices²¹; however, many of these recommendations are based on retrospective reviews and small case series. A 2024 meta-analysis comprising 550 patients found that the combination of fractional CO₂ laser therapy and 5-FU was the most effective intervention, markedly reducing Vancouver Scar Scale and pliability scores as well as keloid thickness.²² Conversely, pulsed dye lasers were the least effective in terms of improving scar thickness, pigmentation, and pliability when compared to other treatments.

Randomized controlled trials of laser-based therapies in patients with SOC are lacking in the literature. Future studies should focus on calibrating laser-based therapies for those with darker skin tones and examine the efficacy and adverse effects of ablative and nonablative lasers in patients with SOC.

Promising New Keloid Therapies

Keloid disease pathogenesis is incompletely understood, but several new therapeutic targets have been highlighted in the literature, including dupilumab, pentoxifylline, sirtuin 6 (SIRT6) modulators, remdesivir, and needle-assisted electrocoagulation plus pharmacotherapy.

Dupilumab—An anti–IL-4 and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, dupilumab was first approved for the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis. Its use has broadened since its approval, and keloids have been identified as a potential therapeutic target. A 2019 case study described a 53-year-old Black man with severe atopic dermatitis and chronic keloids that regressed with systemic dupilumab therapy.²³ This prompted a follow-up case-control study using real-time polymerase chain reaction testing to evaluate Th2 gene expression (IL-4R, IL-13, and CCL18) of lesional and nonlesional tissue in 3 Black patients with chronic keloids and no concurrent atopic dermatitis vs 5 healthy Black controls.Despite the limited sample size, a significant increase in IL-13 and the Th2 chemokine CCL18 was found in patients with keloids compared to controls (P<.05), suggesting that the entire integument of patients with severe keloids is abnormal.²³ This finding supports the use of systemic treatments for chronic and multifocal keloid disease. Several subsequent case reports have corroborated the efficacy of systemic and/or intralesional dupilumab.^24,25 However, some studies have reported contradictory findings, suggesting the need for high-quality clinical trials.^26,27

Pentoxifylline—Pentoxifylline is a methylated xanthine derivative and a nonspecific phosphodiesterase ­inhibitor used to treat claudication from peripheral artery disease. It also inhibits the proliferation and rate of collagen synthesis of fibroblasts from keloids in vitro.^28,29 A 2019 retrospective, open-label pilot study analyzed postsurgical keloid recurrence in 45 patients with 67 unique keloids that were stratified into low- and high-risk groups based on clinical factors including multiple symptomatic keloids, history of recurrence, and family history.³⁰ Both the low- and the high-risk groups were treated with 40 mg/mL intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monthly for 6 months; however, some of the high-risk keloids also received pentoxifylline 300 mg 3 times daily for 6 months. There was a statistically significant decrease in keloid recurrence rate between the high-risk group treated with pentoxifylline and the low-risk group for whom pentoxifylline was not prescribed (P=.015).

Similarly, a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of combination intralesional pentoxifylline and intralesional triamcinolone vs monotherapy with pentoxifylline or triamcinolone found the most significant improvement in the combination cohort with reduction in keloid height (P=.04), pliability (P=.003), and vascularity (P=.05).³¹ These findings highlight the need for supplementary studies on the use of pentoxifylline for keloid therapy.

SIRT6 Modulators—SIRT6 modulators are an exciting future therapeutic target. In a recent case-control study evaluating the histologic milieu of keloid tissue vs normal skin specimens, the researchers found that selective overexpression of SIRT6 via the use of a recombinant adenovirus in keloid fibroblasts attenuated proliferation, invasion, and collagen synthesis while fostering apoptosis, likely through the suppression of MAPK/ERK pathway activity.³²

Remdesivir—The antiviral drug remdesivir has been reported to have pharmacologic activities in a wide range of fibrotic diseases, including keloids. A 2024 study explored the potential effect and mechanisms of remdesivir on skin fibrosis both in vitro and in rodents.³³ Remdesivir was found to decrease skin fibrosis and attenuate the gross weight of keloid tissues in vivo, suppress fibroblast activation and autophagy both in vivo and in vitro, dampen fibroblast activation by the TGF-β1/Smad signaling pathway, and inhibit fibroblasts autophagy by the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. These results demonstrate the therapeutic potential of remdesivir for keloid management.

Needle-Assisted Electrocoagulation Plus Pharmacotherapy—A novel needle-assisted electrocoagulation technique combined with pharmacotherapy (corticosteroid and 5-FU injections) was effective in a Chinese clinical trial involving 6 patients with keloids.³⁴ Investigators used Vancouver Scar Scale and both Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores to grade patients’ scars before treatment and 1 month after the first treatment cycle. They found that ablation combined with pharmacotherapy significantly reduced all 3 scores without any obvious adverse events (P=.004, P=.006, and P=.017, respectively). This novel combination treatment may serve as a safe and effective therapeutic approach for keloid removal.

Final Thoughts

Emerging treatments offer promising new horizons in keloid management; however, the lack of robust, high-quality clinical trials, especially those focusing on SOC, underscores a pressing need for comprehensive and inclusive studies. There is much work to be done to close the existing knowledge gap, and future studies must be more intentional with recruitment, assuring that the patients who are disproportionately affected by these lesions are represented in study populations.

Keloids are fibroproliferative lesions caused by aberrant wound healing in predisposed individuals.¹ While keloids have been reported in patients of all races and ethnicities, they most commonly develop in individuals of African or Asian descent.² Often associated with symptoms such as pain and itching, keloids can be disfiguring and result in poorer quality of life.³ There is a paucity of research on keloid pathogenesis and efficacious therapeutics, particularly in patients with skin of color (SOC). Herein, we outline the current research on keloid treatment and highlight promising new therapies ranging from innovative intralesional techniques to advanced laser-based and biologic therapies.

Deficiencies in Skin of Color Research

Although keloids are 17 times more prevalent in patients with SOC,⁴ there is a considerable lack of focus on this population in the literature.⁵ Studies on keloids that include individuals with SOC often group patients of all skin types together, and subgroup analyses are not always performed.^6,7 As a result, dermatologists may face considerable challenges in providing effective treatments for keloids in patients with SOC. With few evidence-based options available, patients with SOC who have keloids continue to experience impairments in quality of life.

Common Keloid Therapies

There currently is no gold-standard treatment for keloids. Common therapeutic modalities include intralesional corticosteroids (ILCs), antineoplastic agents and neuromodulators, laser-based devices, and surgical therapies (eg, excision), as well as combined medical and surgical techniques.⁸

Intralesional Corticosteroids—Minimally invasive ILCs are the first-line treatment in all patients with keloids, regardless of skin phototype. Because keloid formation results from trauma to the skin, ILCs often are recommended to minimize further skin damage.⁵ One meta-analysis found that ILCs have demonstrated success rates of 50% to 100%⁹; however, these studies frequently combine ILCs with other treatment modalities, and few studies have focused on the efficacy of ILC monotherapy in patients with SOC.^6,10-13

Antineoplastic Agents and Neuromodulators—Certain antineoplastic agents (eg, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] and bleomycin) and neuromodulators (eg, botulinum toxin A [BTA]) also have been studied in keloid management.⁸

5-Fluorouracil frequently is combined with ILCs such as triamcinolone (TAC). Combined therapy is more effective than TAC monotherapy in scar height reduction.^14,15 Rates of adverse events such as dyspigmentation, atrophy, and telangiectasias also were lower in patients who received combined therapy.^14,15 A systematic review found that intralesional bleomycin may be more effective than TAC alone, 5-FU alone, TAC combined with 5-FU, and TAC combined with cryotherapy; however, hyperpigmentation was a common adverse event, occurring in roughly 70% (42/60) of patients.^16,17 Additionally, a 2024 meta-analysis evaluated 20 randomized controlled trials comprising 1114 patients treated with intralesional TAC, 5-FU, BTA, verapamil, and/or bleomycin. Botulinum toxin A and TAC plus 5-FU were found to have outstanding therapeutic efficacy for keloids, and rates of adverse events were similar among users of TAC, 5-FU, BTA, and TAC plus 5-FU.¹⁸

While antineoplastic agents and BTA may be promising keloid therapies, further studies demonstrating their efficacy and safety profiles are necessary, particularly regarding dyspigmentation as a potential adverse event, as this may be of concern in patients with darker phototypes.

Laser Therapies—Of all treatment modalities, laser-based keloid therapies have been the most robustly studied in SOC. The 2 main types are ablative (eg, CO₂, Er:YAG) and nonablative (eg, pulsed dye, Nd:YAG) lasers. Ablative lasers rapidly heat water molecules within the skin, thereby vaporizing the skin cells in a controlled precise process that reduces scar tissue by removing layers of skin. Nonablative lasers target hemoglobin in blood vessels, reducing oxygen supply and inducing collagen remodeling without damaging the epidermis.¹⁹

For patients with SOC, lasers carry a risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.²⁰ To address this risk, recent advancements in laser technology and procedural protocols have aimed to minimize the number of passes and utilize cooling devices²¹; however, many of these recommendations are based on retrospective reviews and small case series. A 2024 meta-analysis comprising 550 patients found that the combination of fractional CO₂ laser therapy and 5-FU was the most effective intervention, markedly reducing Vancouver Scar Scale and pliability scores as well as keloid thickness.²² Conversely, pulsed dye lasers were the least effective in terms of improving scar thickness, pigmentation, and pliability when compared to other treatments.

Randomized controlled trials of laser-based therapies in patients with SOC are lacking in the literature. Future studies should focus on calibrating laser-based therapies for those with darker skin tones and examine the efficacy and adverse effects of ablative and nonablative lasers in patients with SOC.

Promising New Keloid Therapies

Keloid disease pathogenesis is incompletely understood, but several new therapeutic targets have been highlighted in the literature, including dupilumab, pentoxifylline, sirtuin 6 (SIRT6) modulators, remdesivir, and needle-assisted electrocoagulation plus pharmacotherapy.

Dupilumab—An anti–IL-4 and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, dupilumab was first approved for the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis. Its use has broadened since its approval, and keloids have been identified as a potential therapeutic target. A 2019 case study described a 53-year-old Black man with severe atopic dermatitis and chronic keloids that regressed with systemic dupilumab therapy.²³ This prompted a follow-up case-control study using real-time polymerase chain reaction testing to evaluate Th2 gene expression (IL-4R, IL-13, and CCL18) of lesional and nonlesional tissue in 3 Black patients with chronic keloids and no concurrent atopic dermatitis vs 5 healthy Black controls.Despite the limited sample size, a significant increase in IL-13 and the Th2 chemokine CCL18 was found in patients with keloids compared to controls (P<.05), suggesting that the entire integument of patients with severe keloids is abnormal.²³ This finding supports the use of systemic treatments for chronic and multifocal keloid disease. Several subsequent case reports have corroborated the efficacy of systemic and/or intralesional dupilumab.^24,25 However, some studies have reported contradictory findings, suggesting the need for high-quality clinical trials.^26,27

Pentoxifylline—Pentoxifylline is a methylated xanthine derivative and a nonspecific phosphodiesterase ­inhibitor used to treat claudication from peripheral artery disease. It also inhibits the proliferation and rate of collagen synthesis of fibroblasts from keloids in vitro.^28,29 A 2019 retrospective, open-label pilot study analyzed postsurgical keloid recurrence in 45 patients with 67 unique keloids that were stratified into low- and high-risk groups based on clinical factors including multiple symptomatic keloids, history of recurrence, and family history.³⁰ Both the low- and the high-risk groups were treated with 40 mg/mL intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monthly for 6 months; however, some of the high-risk keloids also received pentoxifylline 300 mg 3 times daily for 6 months. There was a statistically significant decrease in keloid recurrence rate between the high-risk group treated with pentoxifylline and the low-risk group for whom pentoxifylline was not prescribed (P=.015).

Similarly, a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of combination intralesional pentoxifylline and intralesional triamcinolone vs monotherapy with pentoxifylline or triamcinolone found the most significant improvement in the combination cohort with reduction in keloid height (P=.04), pliability (P=.003), and vascularity (P=.05).³¹ These findings highlight the need for supplementary studies on the use of pentoxifylline for keloid therapy.

SIRT6 Modulators—SIRT6 modulators are an exciting future therapeutic target. In a recent case-control study evaluating the histologic milieu of keloid tissue vs normal skin specimens, the researchers found that selective overexpression of SIRT6 via the use of a recombinant adenovirus in keloid fibroblasts attenuated proliferation, invasion, and collagen synthesis while fostering apoptosis, likely through the suppression of MAPK/ERK pathway activity.³²

Remdesivir—The antiviral drug remdesivir has been reported to have pharmacologic activities in a wide range of fibrotic diseases, including keloids. A 2024 study explored the potential effect and mechanisms of remdesivir on skin fibrosis both in vitro and in rodents.³³ Remdesivir was found to decrease skin fibrosis and attenuate the gross weight of keloid tissues in vivo, suppress fibroblast activation and autophagy both in vivo and in vitro, dampen fibroblast activation by the TGF-β1/Smad signaling pathway, and inhibit fibroblasts autophagy by the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. These results demonstrate the therapeutic potential of remdesivir for keloid management.

Needle-Assisted Electrocoagulation Plus Pharmacotherapy—A novel needle-assisted electrocoagulation technique combined with pharmacotherapy (corticosteroid and 5-FU injections) was effective in a Chinese clinical trial involving 6 patients with keloids.³⁴ Investigators used Vancouver Scar Scale and both Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores to grade patients’ scars before treatment and 1 month after the first treatment cycle. They found that ablation combined with pharmacotherapy significantly reduced all 3 scores without any obvious adverse events (P=.004, P=.006, and P=.017, respectively). This novel combination treatment may serve as a safe and effective therapeutic approach for keloid removal.

Final Thoughts

Emerging treatments offer promising new horizons in keloid management; however, the lack of robust, high-quality clinical trials, especially those focusing on SOC, underscores a pressing need for comprehensive and inclusive studies. There is much work to be done to close the existing knowledge gap, and future studies must be more intentional with recruitment, assuring that the patients who are disproportionately affected by these lesions are represented in study populations.

Keloids are fibroproliferative lesions caused by aberrant wound healing in predisposed individuals.¹ While keloids have been reported in patients of all races and ethnicities, they most commonly develop in individuals of African or Asian descent.² Often associated with symptoms such as pain and itching, keloids can be disfiguring and result in poorer quality of life.³ There is a paucity of research on keloid pathogenesis and efficacious therapeutics, particularly in patients with skin of color (SOC). Herein, we outline the current research on keloid treatment and highlight promising new therapies ranging from innovative intralesional techniques to advanced laser-based and biologic therapies.

Deficiencies in Skin of Color Research

Although keloids are 17 times more prevalent in patients with SOC,⁴ there is a considerable lack of focus on this population in the literature.⁵ Studies on keloids that include individuals with SOC often group patients of all skin types together, and subgroup analyses are not always performed.^6,7 As a result, dermatologists may face considerable challenges in providing effective treatments for keloids in patients with SOC. With few evidence-based options available, patients with SOC who have keloids continue to experience impairments in quality of life.

Common Keloid Therapies

There currently is no gold-standard treatment for keloids. Common therapeutic modalities include intralesional corticosteroids (ILCs), antineoplastic agents and neuromodulators, laser-based devices, and surgical therapies (eg, excision), as well as combined medical and surgical techniques.⁸

Intralesional Corticosteroids—Minimally invasive ILCs are the first-line treatment in all patients with keloids, regardless of skin phototype. Because keloid formation results from trauma to the skin, ILCs often are recommended to minimize further skin damage.⁵ One meta-analysis found that ILCs have demonstrated success rates of 50% to 100%⁹; however, these studies frequently combine ILCs with other treatment modalities, and few studies have focused on the efficacy of ILC monotherapy in patients with SOC.^6,10-13

Antineoplastic Agents and Neuromodulators—Certain antineoplastic agents (eg, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] and bleomycin) and neuromodulators (eg, botulinum toxin A [BTA]) also have been studied in keloid management.⁸

5-Fluorouracil frequently is combined with ILCs such as triamcinolone (TAC). Combined therapy is more effective than TAC monotherapy in scar height reduction.^14,15 Rates of adverse events such as dyspigmentation, atrophy, and telangiectasias also were lower in patients who received combined therapy.^14,15 A systematic review found that intralesional bleomycin may be more effective than TAC alone, 5-FU alone, TAC combined with 5-FU, and TAC combined with cryotherapy; however, hyperpigmentation was a common adverse event, occurring in roughly 70% (42/60) of patients.^16,17 Additionally, a 2024 meta-analysis evaluated 20 randomized controlled trials comprising 1114 patients treated with intralesional TAC, 5-FU, BTA, verapamil, and/or bleomycin. Botulinum toxin A and TAC plus 5-FU were found to have outstanding therapeutic efficacy for keloids, and rates of adverse events were similar among users of TAC, 5-FU, BTA, and TAC plus 5-FU.¹⁸

While antineoplastic agents and BTA may be promising keloid therapies, further studies demonstrating their efficacy and safety profiles are necessary, particularly regarding dyspigmentation as a potential adverse event, as this may be of concern in patients with darker phototypes.

Laser Therapies—Of all treatment modalities, laser-based keloid therapies have been the most robustly studied in SOC. The 2 main types are ablative (eg, CO₂, Er:YAG) and nonablative (eg, pulsed dye, Nd:YAG) lasers. Ablative lasers rapidly heat water molecules within the skin, thereby vaporizing the skin cells in a controlled precise process that reduces scar tissue by removing layers of skin. Nonablative lasers target hemoglobin in blood vessels, reducing oxygen supply and inducing collagen remodeling without damaging the epidermis.¹⁹

For patients with SOC, lasers carry a risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.²⁰ To address this risk, recent advancements in laser technology and procedural protocols have aimed to minimize the number of passes and utilize cooling devices²¹; however, many of these recommendations are based on retrospective reviews and small case series. A 2024 meta-analysis comprising 550 patients found that the combination of fractional CO₂ laser therapy and 5-FU was the most effective intervention, markedly reducing Vancouver Scar Scale and pliability scores as well as keloid thickness.²² Conversely, pulsed dye lasers were the least effective in terms of improving scar thickness, pigmentation, and pliability when compared to other treatments.

Randomized controlled trials of laser-based therapies in patients with SOC are lacking in the literature. Future studies should focus on calibrating laser-based therapies for those with darker skin tones and examine the efficacy and adverse effects of ablative and nonablative lasers in patients with SOC.

Promising New Keloid Therapies

Keloid disease pathogenesis is incompletely understood, but several new therapeutic targets have been highlighted in the literature, including dupilumab, pentoxifylline, sirtuin 6 (SIRT6) modulators, remdesivir, and needle-assisted electrocoagulation plus pharmacotherapy.

Dupilumab—An anti–IL-4 and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, dupilumab was first approved for the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis. Its use has broadened since its approval, and keloids have been identified as a potential therapeutic target. A 2019 case study described a 53-year-old Black man with severe atopic dermatitis and chronic keloids that regressed with systemic dupilumab therapy.²³ This prompted a follow-up case-control study using real-time polymerase chain reaction testing to evaluate Th2 gene expression (IL-4R, IL-13, and CCL18) of lesional and nonlesional tissue in 3 Black patients with chronic keloids and no concurrent atopic dermatitis vs 5 healthy Black controls.Despite the limited sample size, a significant increase in IL-13 and the Th2 chemokine CCL18 was found in patients with keloids compared to controls (P<.05), suggesting that the entire integument of patients with severe keloids is abnormal.²³ This finding supports the use of systemic treatments for chronic and multifocal keloid disease. Several subsequent case reports have corroborated the efficacy of systemic and/or intralesional dupilumab.^24,25 However, some studies have reported contradictory findings, suggesting the need for high-quality clinical trials.^26,27

Pentoxifylline—Pentoxifylline is a methylated xanthine derivative and a nonspecific phosphodiesterase ­inhibitor used to treat claudication from peripheral artery disease. It also inhibits the proliferation and rate of collagen synthesis of fibroblasts from keloids in vitro.^28,29 A 2019 retrospective, open-label pilot study analyzed postsurgical keloid recurrence in 45 patients with 67 unique keloids that were stratified into low- and high-risk groups based on clinical factors including multiple symptomatic keloids, history of recurrence, and family history.³⁰ Both the low- and the high-risk groups were treated with 40 mg/mL intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monthly for 6 months; however, some of the high-risk keloids also received pentoxifylline 300 mg 3 times daily for 6 months. There was a statistically significant decrease in keloid recurrence rate between the high-risk group treated with pentoxifylline and the low-risk group for whom pentoxifylline was not prescribed (P=.015).

Similarly, a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of combination intralesional pentoxifylline and intralesional triamcinolone vs monotherapy with pentoxifylline or triamcinolone found the most significant improvement in the combination cohort with reduction in keloid height (P=.04), pliability (P=.003), and vascularity (P=.05).³¹ These findings highlight the need for supplementary studies on the use of pentoxifylline for keloid therapy.

SIRT6 Modulators—SIRT6 modulators are an exciting future therapeutic target. In a recent case-control study evaluating the histologic milieu of keloid tissue vs normal skin specimens, the researchers found that selective overexpression of SIRT6 via the use of a recombinant adenovirus in keloid fibroblasts attenuated proliferation, invasion, and collagen synthesis while fostering apoptosis, likely through the suppression of MAPK/ERK pathway activity.³²

Remdesivir—The antiviral drug remdesivir has been reported to have pharmacologic activities in a wide range of fibrotic diseases, including keloids. A 2024 study explored the potential effect and mechanisms of remdesivir on skin fibrosis both in vitro and in rodents.³³ Remdesivir was found to decrease skin fibrosis and attenuate the gross weight of keloid tissues in vivo, suppress fibroblast activation and autophagy both in vivo and in vitro, dampen fibroblast activation by the TGF-β1/Smad signaling pathway, and inhibit fibroblasts autophagy by the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. These results demonstrate the therapeutic potential of remdesivir for keloid management.

Needle-Assisted Electrocoagulation Plus Pharmacotherapy—A novel needle-assisted electrocoagulation technique combined with pharmacotherapy (corticosteroid and 5-FU injections) was effective in a Chinese clinical trial involving 6 patients with keloids.³⁴ Investigators used Vancouver Scar Scale and both Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores to grade patients’ scars before treatment and 1 month after the first treatment cycle. They found that ablation combined with pharmacotherapy significantly reduced all 3 scores without any obvious adverse events (P=.004, P=.006, and P=.017, respectively). This novel combination treatment may serve as a safe and effective therapeutic approach for keloid removal.

Final Thoughts

Emerging treatments offer promising new horizons in keloid management; however, the lack of robust, high-quality clinical trials, especially those focusing on SOC, underscores a pressing need for comprehensive and inclusive studies. There is much work to be done to close the existing knowledge gap, and future studies must be more intentional with recruitment, assuring that the patients who are disproportionately affected by these lesions are represented in study populations.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) selected sulfites as the 2024 Allergen of the Year.¹ Due to their preservative and antioxidant properties, sulfites are prevalent in a variety of foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products; however, sulfites also have been implicated as a potential contact allergen. In this article, we review common sources of sulfite exposure, clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to sulfites, and patch testing considerations for this emerging allergen.

What Are Sulfites?

Sulfiting agents are compounds that contain the sulfite ion SO₃^2-, including sulfur dioxide, sodium disulfite (sodium metabisulfite), and potassium metabisulfite.² Sulfites occur naturally in the environment and commonly are used as preservatives, antibrowning agents, and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, cosmetics, and skin care products. As antibrowning agents and antioxidants, sulfites help maintain the natural appearance of foods and other products and prevent premature spoiling by inactivating oxidative enzymes.³ It should be noted that sulfites and sulfates are distinct and unrelated compounds that do not cross-react.¹

Common Sources of Sulfite Exposure

From a morning glass of juice to an evening shower, in the pharmacy and at the hair salon, sulfite exposure is ubiquitous in most daily routines. Sulfites are present in many foods and beverages, either as a byproduct of natural fermentation or as an additive to prevent spoiling and color change. The Table provides examples of foods with high sulfite content.^1,4-6 In particular, dried fruit, bottled lemon juice, wine, grape juice, sauerkraut juice, and pickled onions have high sulfite content.

Topical medications and personal care products represent other potential sources of sulfite exposure. A number of reports have shown that sulfites may be included in topical steroids,⁷ antibiotics,⁸ antifungals,⁹ hemorrhoidal preparations,¹⁰ local anesthetics,¹¹ and urinary catheterization gel,¹² highlighting their many potential applications. In addition, a comprehensive ingredient analysis of 264 ophthalmic medications found that 3.8% of the products contained sodium disulfite.¹³ Sulfites may be found in personal care products, including facial and hand cleansers, shampoos, moisturizers, and toothpastes. Hair dyes also commonly contain sulfites,⁷ which are listed in as many as 90% of hair dye kits in the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program database.¹

Occupational exposures also are widespread, as sulfites are extensively utilized across diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, health care, leather manufacturing, mineral extraction, food preparation, chemical manufacturing, textiles, alcohol brewing, and wine production.¹

Sulfites also are used in the rubber industry—­particularly in gloves—due to their anticoagulant and preservative properties.⁴ This is relevant to health care providers, who may use dozens of disposable gloves in a single day. In an experimental pilot study, ­researchers detected sulfites in 83% (5/6) of natural rubber latex gloves, 96% (23/24) of synthetic (nitrile) gloves, and 0% (0/5) of polyvinyl chloride gloves.¹⁴ While this study was limited to a small sample size, it demonstrates the common use of sulfites in certain rubber gloves and encourages future studies to determine whether there is a quantitative threshold to elicit allergic reactions.

Sulfite Allergy

In 1968, an early case report of ACD to sulfites was published involving a pharmaceutical worker who developed hand eczema after working at a factory for 3 months and had a positive patch test to potassium metabisulfite.¹⁵ There have been other cases published in the literature since then, including localized ACD as well as less common cases of systemic contact dermatitis following oral, injectable, and rectal sulfite exposures.¹⁶

The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that, among 132 (2.7%) of 4885 patients with positive patch tests to sodium disulfite from 2017 to 2018, the most commonly involved body sites were the face (28.8%) and hands (20.5%) followed by a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Involvement of the face and hands may correlate with the most frequent sources of exposure that were identified, including personal care products (particularly hair dyes)(18.9%), medications (9.1%), and foods (7.6%).¹⁷ A multicenter analysis of patch test results from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1999 to 2013 showed that 357 (2.9%) of 12,156 patients had positive reactions to sodium disulfite, with the most commonly identified exposure sources being topical pharmaceutical agents (59.3%); cosmetics, creams, and sunscreens (13.6%); and systemic drugs (6.8%).¹⁸ However, it is not always possible to determine the clinical relevance of a positive patch test to sulfites.¹

Other than the face and hands, there have been other unexpected anatomic locations for sulfite ACD (eg, the lower back), and systemic contact dermatitis has manifested with widespread rashes due to oral, rectal, and parenteral exposure.^4,16,19 There is no definitive link between sulfite contact allergy and patient sex, but there seems to be a higher prevalence in patients older than 40 years, perhaps related to overall lifetime exposure.¹

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites also have been reported, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis.⁴ Due to multiple cases of severe dermatologic and respiratory reactions to food products containing sulfites,²⁰ the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited their use in fresh fruit and vegetables as antibrowning agents in 1986 and required labels on packaged foods that contained sulfites at more than 10 parts per million.²¹ However, food and drinks produced in restaurants, bakeries, and cafes as well as those that are distributed directly to consumers from the preparation site are exempt from these rules.¹⁷

In addition, consuming high amounts of dietary sulfites has been linked to headaches through unclear (ie, not necessarily allergic) mechanisms.^4,22 One study found that wine with a higher sulfite concentration was associated with increased risk for headaches in participants who had a history of headaches related to wine consumption.²²

Patch Testing to Sulfites

The North American Contact Dermatitis Group has tested sodium disulfite since 2017 and found an increased frequency of positive patch tests from 2.7% (N=4885) in 2017 and 2018¹⁷ to 3.3% (N=4115) in 2019 and 2020²³ among patients referred for testing. Similarly, patch testing to sodium disulfite in nearly 40,000 patients in 9 European countries showed a pooled prevalence of reactions of 3.1%.¹⁷ However, this contact allergy may go unrecognized, as sulfites are not included in common patch test series, including the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test and the ACDS Core Allergen Series.^24,25 The relatively high patch test positivity to sulfites along with the prevalence of daily exposures supports the addition of sulfites to more patch test screening series.

The recommended patch test concentration for sodium disulfite is 1% in petrolatum.⁵ Testing in aqueous solutions is not recommended because they can cause sulfites to break down, potentially producing false-positive or irritant patch test reactions.^7,26,27

Recommendations for Patients With Sulfite Allergies

Individuals with contact allergies to sulfites should be counseled on exposure sources and should be given resources providing a list of safe products, such as the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/login) or SkinSAFE ­(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/). Prescribers should be cognizant of sulfites that are present in prescription medications. Just because a patient has a positive patch test to sulfites does not automatically imply that they will need to modify their diet to avoid sulfite-containing foods; in the absence of cheilitis or a distribution suggestive of systemic contact dermatitis (eg, vesicular hand/foot dermatitis, intertriginous eruptions), this step may be unnecessary. On the other hand, individuals who have experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites should avoid sulfite-containing foods and carry an epinephrine autoinjector.

Final Interpretation

Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds found in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products in addition to a range of occupational exposures. The face and hands are the most common sites of sulfite ACD. Despite patch test positivity in as many as 3% of tested patients,^17,23 sulfite allergy may be missed due to lack of routine testing on standard screening series.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) selected sulfites as the 2024 Allergen of the Year.¹ Due to their preservative and antioxidant properties, sulfites are prevalent in a variety of foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products; however, sulfites also have been implicated as a potential contact allergen. In this article, we review common sources of sulfite exposure, clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to sulfites, and patch testing considerations for this emerging allergen.

What Are Sulfites?

Sulfiting agents are compounds that contain the sulfite ion SO₃^2-, including sulfur dioxide, sodium disulfite (sodium metabisulfite), and potassium metabisulfite.² Sulfites occur naturally in the environment and commonly are used as preservatives, antibrowning agents, and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, cosmetics, and skin care products. As antibrowning agents and antioxidants, sulfites help maintain the natural appearance of foods and other products and prevent premature spoiling by inactivating oxidative enzymes.³ It should be noted that sulfites and sulfates are distinct and unrelated compounds that do not cross-react.¹

Common Sources of Sulfite Exposure

From a morning glass of juice to an evening shower, in the pharmacy and at the hair salon, sulfite exposure is ubiquitous in most daily routines. Sulfites are present in many foods and beverages, either as a byproduct of natural fermentation or as an additive to prevent spoiling and color change. The Table provides examples of foods with high sulfite content.^1,4-6 In particular, dried fruit, bottled lemon juice, wine, grape juice, sauerkraut juice, and pickled onions have high sulfite content.

Topical medications and personal care products represent other potential sources of sulfite exposure. A number of reports have shown that sulfites may be included in topical steroids,⁷ antibiotics,⁸ antifungals,⁹ hemorrhoidal preparations,¹⁰ local anesthetics,¹¹ and urinary catheterization gel,¹² highlighting their many potential applications. In addition, a comprehensive ingredient analysis of 264 ophthalmic medications found that 3.8% of the products contained sodium disulfite.¹³ Sulfites may be found in personal care products, including facial and hand cleansers, shampoos, moisturizers, and toothpastes. Hair dyes also commonly contain sulfites,⁷ which are listed in as many as 90% of hair dye kits in the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program database.¹

Occupational exposures also are widespread, as sulfites are extensively utilized across diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, health care, leather manufacturing, mineral extraction, food preparation, chemical manufacturing, textiles, alcohol brewing, and wine production.¹

Sulfites also are used in the rubber industry—­particularly in gloves—due to their anticoagulant and preservative properties.⁴ This is relevant to health care providers, who may use dozens of disposable gloves in a single day. In an experimental pilot study, ­researchers detected sulfites in 83% (5/6) of natural rubber latex gloves, 96% (23/24) of synthetic (nitrile) gloves, and 0% (0/5) of polyvinyl chloride gloves.¹⁴ While this study was limited to a small sample size, it demonstrates the common use of sulfites in certain rubber gloves and encourages future studies to determine whether there is a quantitative threshold to elicit allergic reactions.

Sulfite Allergy

In 1968, an early case report of ACD to sulfites was published involving a pharmaceutical worker who developed hand eczema after working at a factory for 3 months and had a positive patch test to potassium metabisulfite.¹⁵ There have been other cases published in the literature since then, including localized ACD as well as less common cases of systemic contact dermatitis following oral, injectable, and rectal sulfite exposures.¹⁶

The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that, among 132 (2.7%) of 4885 patients with positive patch tests to sodium disulfite from 2017 to 2018, the most commonly involved body sites were the face (28.8%) and hands (20.5%) followed by a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Involvement of the face and hands may correlate with the most frequent sources of exposure that were identified, including personal care products (particularly hair dyes)(18.9%), medications (9.1%), and foods (7.6%).¹⁷ A multicenter analysis of patch test results from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1999 to 2013 showed that 357 (2.9%) of 12,156 patients had positive reactions to sodium disulfite, with the most commonly identified exposure sources being topical pharmaceutical agents (59.3%); cosmetics, creams, and sunscreens (13.6%); and systemic drugs (6.8%).¹⁸ However, it is not always possible to determine the clinical relevance of a positive patch test to sulfites.¹

Other than the face and hands, there have been other unexpected anatomic locations for sulfite ACD (eg, the lower back), and systemic contact dermatitis has manifested with widespread rashes due to oral, rectal, and parenteral exposure.^4,16,19 There is no definitive link between sulfite contact allergy and patient sex, but there seems to be a higher prevalence in patients older than 40 years, perhaps related to overall lifetime exposure.¹

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites also have been reported, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis.⁴ Due to multiple cases of severe dermatologic and respiratory reactions to food products containing sulfites,²⁰ the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited their use in fresh fruit and vegetables as antibrowning agents in 1986 and required labels on packaged foods that contained sulfites at more than 10 parts per million.²¹ However, food and drinks produced in restaurants, bakeries, and cafes as well as those that are distributed directly to consumers from the preparation site are exempt from these rules.¹⁷

In addition, consuming high amounts of dietary sulfites has been linked to headaches through unclear (ie, not necessarily allergic) mechanisms.^4,22 One study found that wine with a higher sulfite concentration was associated with increased risk for headaches in participants who had a history of headaches related to wine consumption.²²

Patch Testing to Sulfites

The North American Contact Dermatitis Group has tested sodium disulfite since 2017 and found an increased frequency of positive patch tests from 2.7% (N=4885) in 2017 and 2018¹⁷ to 3.3% (N=4115) in 2019 and 2020²³ among patients referred for testing. Similarly, patch testing to sodium disulfite in nearly 40,000 patients in 9 European countries showed a pooled prevalence of reactions of 3.1%.¹⁷ However, this contact allergy may go unrecognized, as sulfites are not included in common patch test series, including the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test and the ACDS Core Allergen Series.^24,25 The relatively high patch test positivity to sulfites along with the prevalence of daily exposures supports the addition of sulfites to more patch test screening series.

The recommended patch test concentration for sodium disulfite is 1% in petrolatum.⁵ Testing in aqueous solutions is not recommended because they can cause sulfites to break down, potentially producing false-positive or irritant patch test reactions.^7,26,27

Recommendations for Patients With Sulfite Allergies

Individuals with contact allergies to sulfites should be counseled on exposure sources and should be given resources providing a list of safe products, such as the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/login) or SkinSAFE ­(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/). Prescribers should be cognizant of sulfites that are present in prescription medications. Just because a patient has a positive patch test to sulfites does not automatically imply that they will need to modify their diet to avoid sulfite-containing foods; in the absence of cheilitis or a distribution suggestive of systemic contact dermatitis (eg, vesicular hand/foot dermatitis, intertriginous eruptions), this step may be unnecessary. On the other hand, individuals who have experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites should avoid sulfite-containing foods and carry an epinephrine autoinjector.

Final Interpretation

Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds found in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products in addition to a range of occupational exposures. The face and hands are the most common sites of sulfite ACD. Despite patch test positivity in as many as 3% of tested patients,^17,23 sulfite allergy may be missed due to lack of routine testing on standard screening series.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) selected sulfites as the 2024 Allergen of the Year.¹ Due to their preservative and antioxidant properties, sulfites are prevalent in a variety of foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products; however, sulfites also have been implicated as a potential contact allergen. In this article, we review common sources of sulfite exposure, clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to sulfites, and patch testing considerations for this emerging allergen.

What Are Sulfites?

Sulfiting agents are compounds that contain the sulfite ion SO₃^2-, including sulfur dioxide, sodium disulfite (sodium metabisulfite), and potassium metabisulfite.² Sulfites occur naturally in the environment and commonly are used as preservatives, antibrowning agents, and antioxidants in various foods, beverages, medications, cosmetics, and skin care products. As antibrowning agents and antioxidants, sulfites help maintain the natural appearance of foods and other products and prevent premature spoiling by inactivating oxidative enzymes.³ It should be noted that sulfites and sulfates are distinct and unrelated compounds that do not cross-react.¹

Common Sources of Sulfite Exposure

From a morning glass of juice to an evening shower, in the pharmacy and at the hair salon, sulfite exposure is ubiquitous in most daily routines. Sulfites are present in many foods and beverages, either as a byproduct of natural fermentation or as an additive to prevent spoiling and color change. The Table provides examples of foods with high sulfite content.^1,4-6 In particular, dried fruit, bottled lemon juice, wine, grape juice, sauerkraut juice, and pickled onions have high sulfite content.

Topical medications and personal care products represent other potential sources of sulfite exposure. A number of reports have shown that sulfites may be included in topical steroids,⁷ antibiotics,⁸ antifungals,⁹ hemorrhoidal preparations,¹⁰ local anesthetics,¹¹ and urinary catheterization gel,¹² highlighting their many potential applications. In addition, a comprehensive ingredient analysis of 264 ophthalmic medications found that 3.8% of the products contained sodium disulfite.¹³ Sulfites may be found in personal care products, including facial and hand cleansers, shampoos, moisturizers, and toothpastes. Hair dyes also commonly contain sulfites,⁷ which are listed in as many as 90% of hair dye kits in the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program database.¹

Occupational exposures also are widespread, as sulfites are extensively utilized across diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, health care, leather manufacturing, mineral extraction, food preparation, chemical manufacturing, textiles, alcohol brewing, and wine production.¹

Sulfites also are used in the rubber industry—­particularly in gloves—due to their anticoagulant and preservative properties.⁴ This is relevant to health care providers, who may use dozens of disposable gloves in a single day. In an experimental pilot study, ­researchers detected sulfites in 83% (5/6) of natural rubber latex gloves, 96% (23/24) of synthetic (nitrile) gloves, and 0% (0/5) of polyvinyl chloride gloves.¹⁴ While this study was limited to a small sample size, it demonstrates the common use of sulfites in certain rubber gloves and encourages future studies to determine whether there is a quantitative threshold to elicit allergic reactions.

Sulfite Allergy

In 1968, an early case report of ACD to sulfites was published involving a pharmaceutical worker who developed hand eczema after working at a factory for 3 months and had a positive patch test to potassium metabisulfite.¹⁵ There have been other cases published in the literature since then, including localized ACD as well as less common cases of systemic contact dermatitis following oral, injectable, and rectal sulfite exposures.¹⁶

The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that, among 132 (2.7%) of 4885 patients with positive patch tests to sodium disulfite from 2017 to 2018, the most commonly involved body sites were the face (28.8%) and hands (20.5%) followed by a scattered/generalized distribution (13.6%). Involvement of the face and hands may correlate with the most frequent sources of exposure that were identified, including personal care products (particularly hair dyes)(18.9%), medications (9.1%), and foods (7.6%).¹⁷ A multicenter analysis of patch test results from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland from 1999 to 2013 showed that 357 (2.9%) of 12,156 patients had positive reactions to sodium disulfite, with the most commonly identified exposure sources being topical pharmaceutical agents (59.3%); cosmetics, creams, and sunscreens (13.6%); and systemic drugs (6.8%).¹⁸ However, it is not always possible to determine the clinical relevance of a positive patch test to sulfites.¹

Other than the face and hands, there have been other unexpected anatomic locations for sulfite ACD (eg, the lower back), and systemic contact dermatitis has manifested with widespread rashes due to oral, rectal, and parenteral exposure.^4,16,19 There is no definitive link between sulfite contact allergy and patient sex, but there seems to be a higher prevalence in patients older than 40 years, perhaps related to overall lifetime exposure.¹

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites also have been reported, including urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis.⁴ Due to multiple cases of severe dermatologic and respiratory reactions to food products containing sulfites,²⁰ the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited their use in fresh fruit and vegetables as antibrowning agents in 1986 and required labels on packaged foods that contained sulfites at more than 10 parts per million.²¹ However, food and drinks produced in restaurants, bakeries, and cafes as well as those that are distributed directly to consumers from the preparation site are exempt from these rules.¹⁷

In addition, consuming high amounts of dietary sulfites has been linked to headaches through unclear (ie, not necessarily allergic) mechanisms.^4,22 One study found that wine with a higher sulfite concentration was associated with increased risk for headaches in participants who had a history of headaches related to wine consumption.²²

Patch Testing to Sulfites

The North American Contact Dermatitis Group has tested sodium disulfite since 2017 and found an increased frequency of positive patch tests from 2.7% (N=4885) in 2017 and 2018¹⁷ to 3.3% (N=4115) in 2019 and 2020²³ among patients referred for testing. Similarly, patch testing to sodium disulfite in nearly 40,000 patients in 9 European countries showed a pooled prevalence of reactions of 3.1%.¹⁷ However, this contact allergy may go unrecognized, as sulfites are not included in common patch test series, including the thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test and the ACDS Core Allergen Series.^24,25 The relatively high patch test positivity to sulfites along with the prevalence of daily exposures supports the addition of sulfites to more patch test screening series.

The recommended patch test concentration for sodium disulfite is 1% in petrolatum.⁵ Testing in aqueous solutions is not recommended because they can cause sulfites to break down, potentially producing false-positive or irritant patch test reactions.^7,26,27

Recommendations for Patients With Sulfite Allergies

Individuals with contact allergies to sulfites should be counseled on exposure sources and should be given resources providing a list of safe products, such as the ACDS Contact Allergen Management Program (https://www.acdscamp.org/login) or SkinSAFE ­(https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/). Prescribers should be cognizant of sulfites that are present in prescription medications. Just because a patient has a positive patch test to sulfites does not automatically imply that they will need to modify their diet to avoid sulfite-containing foods; in the absence of cheilitis or a distribution suggestive of systemic contact dermatitis (eg, vesicular hand/foot dermatitis, intertriginous eruptions), this step may be unnecessary. On the other hand, individuals who have experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sulfites should avoid sulfite-containing foods and carry an epinephrine autoinjector.

Final Interpretation

Sulfites are ubiquitous compounds found in various foods, beverages, medications, and personal care products in addition to a range of occupational exposures. The face and hands are the most common sites of sulfite ACD. Despite patch test positivity in as many as 3% of tested patients,^17,23 sulfite allergy may be missed due to lack of routine testing on standard screening series.

This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. As the FDA announcement notes, patients with anaphylaxis at times “delay or avoid” anaphylaxis “treatment due to fear of injections.” Neffy was approved on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine. 

The Need for Neffy

It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy. 

I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away. 

Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine. 

My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute. 

The potential benefits of neffy are clear: 

• It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
• It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
• It cannot be injected incorrectly. 
• Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
• There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).

Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions

As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
 

Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery

It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied. 

Insurance Coverage

As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both. 

In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
 

Conclusion

Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives. 

Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. As the FDA announcement notes, patients with anaphylaxis at times “delay or avoid” anaphylaxis “treatment due to fear of injections.” Neffy was approved on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine. 

The Need for Neffy

It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy. 

I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away. 

Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine. 

My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute. 

The potential benefits of neffy are clear: 

• It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
• It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
• It cannot be injected incorrectly. 
• Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
• There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).

Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions

As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
 

Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery

It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied. 

Insurance Coverage

As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both. 

In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
 

Conclusion

Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives. 

Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. As the FDA announcement notes, patients with anaphylaxis at times “delay or avoid” anaphylaxis “treatment due to fear of injections.” Neffy was approved on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine. 

The Need for Neffy

It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy. 

I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away. 

Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine. 

My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute. 

The potential benefits of neffy are clear: 

• It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
• It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
• It cannot be injected incorrectly. 
• Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
• There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).

Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions

As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
 

Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery

It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied. 

Insurance Coverage

As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both. 

In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
 

Conclusion

Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives. 

Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Habit-Tic Deformity

Habit-tic deformity is a cause of nail dystrophy that commonly arises in children and adults due to subconscious repetitive and self-injurious manipulation of the nail bed or cuticle, which ultimately damages the nail matrix.^1,2 It can be considered a variant of onychotillomania.¹

Characteristic features of habit-tic deformity include a longitudinal depression on the central nail plate with transverse ridges,¹ which can be more prominent on the dominant hand.³ Patients typically note a long duration of nail deformity, often without insight into its etiology.² Diagnosis relies on careful assessment of the clinical presentation and the patient’s history to rule out other differential diagnoses. Based on our patient’s clinical presentation and history, we excluded wart, squamous cell carcinoma, eczema, psoriasis, lichen planus, autoimmune connective tissue disease, onychomycosis, paronychia, pincer nail deformity, and Beau line as potential diagnoses. Biopsy also can be performed to exclude these diagnoses from the differential if the cause is unclear following clinical examination.

Treatment for habit-tic deformity involves identifying and addressing the underlying habit. Barrier methods such as bandages and cyanoacrylate adhesives that prevent further manipulation of the nail matrix are effective treatments for habit-tic deformity.² A multidisciplinary approach with psychiatry may be optimal to identify underlying psychological comorbidities and break the habit through behavior interventions and medications.⁴ Nail dystrophy generally improves once the habit is disrupted; however, a younger age of onset may carry a worse prognosis.³ Patients should be counseled that the affected nail may never grow normally.

Our patient was advised to use fluocinonide ointment 0.05% to reduce inflammation of the proximal nail fold and to cover the thumbnail with a bandage to prevent picking. He also was counseled that the nail may show ongoing abnormal growth. Minimal improvement was noted after 6 months.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Habit-Tic Deformity

Habit-tic deformity is a cause of nail dystrophy that commonly arises in children and adults due to subconscious repetitive and self-injurious manipulation of the nail bed or cuticle, which ultimately damages the nail matrix.^1,2 It can be considered a variant of onychotillomania.¹

Characteristic features of habit-tic deformity include a longitudinal depression on the central nail plate with transverse ridges,¹ which can be more prominent on the dominant hand.³ Patients typically note a long duration of nail deformity, often without insight into its etiology.² Diagnosis relies on careful assessment of the clinical presentation and the patient’s history to rule out other differential diagnoses. Based on our patient’s clinical presentation and history, we excluded wart, squamous cell carcinoma, eczema, psoriasis, lichen planus, autoimmune connective tissue disease, onychomycosis, paronychia, pincer nail deformity, and Beau line as potential diagnoses. Biopsy also can be performed to exclude these diagnoses from the differential if the cause is unclear following clinical examination.

Treatment for habit-tic deformity involves identifying and addressing the underlying habit. Barrier methods such as bandages and cyanoacrylate adhesives that prevent further manipulation of the nail matrix are effective treatments for habit-tic deformity.² A multidisciplinary approach with psychiatry may be optimal to identify underlying psychological comorbidities and break the habit through behavior interventions and medications.⁴ Nail dystrophy generally improves once the habit is disrupted; however, a younger age of onset may carry a worse prognosis.³ Patients should be counseled that the affected nail may never grow normally.

Our patient was advised to use fluocinonide ointment 0.05% to reduce inflammation of the proximal nail fold and to cover the thumbnail with a bandage to prevent picking. He also was counseled that the nail may show ongoing abnormal growth. Minimal improvement was noted after 6 months.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Habit-Tic Deformity

Habit-tic deformity is a cause of nail dystrophy that commonly arises in children and adults due to subconscious repetitive and self-injurious manipulation of the nail bed or cuticle, which ultimately damages the nail matrix.^1,2 It can be considered a variant of onychotillomania.¹

Characteristic features of habit-tic deformity include a longitudinal depression on the central nail plate with transverse ridges,¹ which can be more prominent on the dominant hand.³ Patients typically note a long duration of nail deformity, often without insight into its etiology.² Diagnosis relies on careful assessment of the clinical presentation and the patient’s history to rule out other differential diagnoses. Based on our patient’s clinical presentation and history, we excluded wart, squamous cell carcinoma, eczema, psoriasis, lichen planus, autoimmune connective tissue disease, onychomycosis, paronychia, pincer nail deformity, and Beau line as potential diagnoses. Biopsy also can be performed to exclude these diagnoses from the differential if the cause is unclear following clinical examination.

Treatment for habit-tic deformity involves identifying and addressing the underlying habit. Barrier methods such as bandages and cyanoacrylate adhesives that prevent further manipulation of the nail matrix are effective treatments for habit-tic deformity.² A multidisciplinary approach with psychiatry may be optimal to identify underlying psychological comorbidities and break the habit through behavior interventions and medications.⁴ Nail dystrophy generally improves once the habit is disrupted; however, a younger age of onset may carry a worse prognosis.³ Patients should be counseled that the affected nail may never grow normally.

Our patient was advised to use fluocinonide ointment 0.05% to reduce inflammation of the proximal nail fold and to cover the thumbnail with a bandage to prevent picking. He also was counseled that the nail may show ongoing abnormal growth. Minimal improvement was noted after 6 months.