MDedge Dermatology

Exposure to arsenic and other metals in utero is associated with an elevated risk for atopic dermatitis in children, researchers report in a study published Oct. 27, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

In this multicenter cohort study, led by epidemiologist Shu-Li Wang, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Taiwan, each twofold increase in prenatal arsenic level correlated with a 2.4-fold higher rate of atopic dermatitis in 4-year-olds.

Atopic diseases have been on the rise. Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the first stage of the so-called atopic march, followed by food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and asthma later in childhood. Previous research has linked heavy metal exposure to allergic diseases in adults. In another study by Dr. Wang and colleagues that was published in 2021, prenatal and early-life arsenic exposure was found to correlate with higher rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. In that study, the participants were followed every 2-3 years through the age of 14 as part of the Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study.

The new study included 370 mother and child pairs who were enrolled in that birth cohort study between October 2012 and May 2015. During their third trimester of pregnancy, women completed questionnaires about their lifestyle, diet, and living environment. In addition, their height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded, and urine samples were taken. In follow-up interviews 3-4 years later, the mothers were asked whether their child had ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.

The researchers used an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer to analyze the participants’ urine samples. They assessed for exposures in utero to eight metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

Each unit increase of an index that estimates the combined exposure to these metals during pregnancy was associated with 63% higher odds of atopic dermatitis in the children by age 4. The researchers adjusted for parental allergies (yes or no), mother’s educational level (<12 years, 13-16 years, or >16 years), geographic area (central or eastern Taiwan), exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, and the child’s gender. Arsenic (40.1%) and cadmium (20.5%) accounted for most of the metal coexposure index.

A wealth of previous research links arsenic exposure during adulthood to skin disease and immune dysfunction. Early-life arsenic exposure has been linked with elevated risk for various adult disorders, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, years later. In light of such research, “the findings in this paper are not surprising,” J. Christopher States, PhD, director of the Center for Integrative Environmental Health Science at the University of Louisville (Ky.), told this news organization. “Low-level arsenic exposure does not cause disease immediately, but it does appear to have long-lasting effects, making individuals susceptible to ‘second hits’ with another environmental agent.”

Research into the molecular mechanisms for these links has shown that arsenic and cadmium exposure can promote allergic phenotypes in immune cells. “We think the toxic metals activate the alarmin pathway, thus inducing innate lymphoid cells, then activating T-helper 2 cells, which drive immunoglobulin E production and breakdown of the epithelium and promotion of allergies,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. Dr. Nadeau led that study, published in 2017 in PLOS One, along with epidemiologist Margaret Karagas, PhD, of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

As for what pregnant women can do to minimize their exposure to heavy metals, “that is a difficult problem and primarily a function of where one lives,” said Dr. States.

Drinking water and food are major sources of arsenic exposure. Groundwater is naturally contaminated with arsenic deposits that seep in from bedrock, said Dr. States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates arsenic levels in public drinking water that is supplied to more than a few thousand people. However, small water supplies and private wells are unregulated, he said, and having these water sources tested for arsenic or fitted with systems to reduce arsenic can be very expensive.

Among foods, rice can have high concentrations of arsenic, Dr. Karagas told this news organization. To minimize arsenic exposure through the diet, women can limit rice-based foods, according to a web-based tool developed by her and coworkers.

In addition, tobacco smoke is a major source of cadmium exposure and a moderate source of arsenic exposure, Dr. States noted. Women can reduce their exposure to these metals by avoiding tobacco and secondhand smoke.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health Research Institutes, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. The authors and quoted experts report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to arsenic and other metals in utero is associated with an elevated risk for atopic dermatitis in children, researchers report in a study published Oct. 27, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

In this multicenter cohort study, led by epidemiologist Shu-Li Wang, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Taiwan, each twofold increase in prenatal arsenic level correlated with a 2.4-fold higher rate of atopic dermatitis in 4-year-olds.

Atopic diseases have been on the rise. Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the first stage of the so-called atopic march, followed by food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and asthma later in childhood. Previous research has linked heavy metal exposure to allergic diseases in adults. In another study by Dr. Wang and colleagues that was published in 2021, prenatal and early-life arsenic exposure was found to correlate with higher rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. In that study, the participants were followed every 2-3 years through the age of 14 as part of the Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study.

The new study included 370 mother and child pairs who were enrolled in that birth cohort study between October 2012 and May 2015. During their third trimester of pregnancy, women completed questionnaires about their lifestyle, diet, and living environment. In addition, their height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded, and urine samples were taken. In follow-up interviews 3-4 years later, the mothers were asked whether their child had ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.

The researchers used an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer to analyze the participants’ urine samples. They assessed for exposures in utero to eight metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

Each unit increase of an index that estimates the combined exposure to these metals during pregnancy was associated with 63% higher odds of atopic dermatitis in the children by age 4. The researchers adjusted for parental allergies (yes or no), mother’s educational level (<12 years, 13-16 years, or >16 years), geographic area (central or eastern Taiwan), exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, and the child’s gender. Arsenic (40.1%) and cadmium (20.5%) accounted for most of the metal coexposure index.

A wealth of previous research links arsenic exposure during adulthood to skin disease and immune dysfunction. Early-life arsenic exposure has been linked with elevated risk for various adult disorders, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, years later. In light of such research, “the findings in this paper are not surprising,” J. Christopher States, PhD, director of the Center for Integrative Environmental Health Science at the University of Louisville (Ky.), told this news organization. “Low-level arsenic exposure does not cause disease immediately, but it does appear to have long-lasting effects, making individuals susceptible to ‘second hits’ with another environmental agent.”

Research into the molecular mechanisms for these links has shown that arsenic and cadmium exposure can promote allergic phenotypes in immune cells. “We think the toxic metals activate the alarmin pathway, thus inducing innate lymphoid cells, then activating T-helper 2 cells, which drive immunoglobulin E production and breakdown of the epithelium and promotion of allergies,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. Dr. Nadeau led that study, published in 2017 in PLOS One, along with epidemiologist Margaret Karagas, PhD, of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

As for what pregnant women can do to minimize their exposure to heavy metals, “that is a difficult problem and primarily a function of where one lives,” said Dr. States.

Drinking water and food are major sources of arsenic exposure. Groundwater is naturally contaminated with arsenic deposits that seep in from bedrock, said Dr. States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates arsenic levels in public drinking water that is supplied to more than a few thousand people. However, small water supplies and private wells are unregulated, he said, and having these water sources tested for arsenic or fitted with systems to reduce arsenic can be very expensive.

Among foods, rice can have high concentrations of arsenic, Dr. Karagas told this news organization. To minimize arsenic exposure through the diet, women can limit rice-based foods, according to a web-based tool developed by her and coworkers.

In addition, tobacco smoke is a major source of cadmium exposure and a moderate source of arsenic exposure, Dr. States noted. Women can reduce their exposure to these metals by avoiding tobacco and secondhand smoke.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health Research Institutes, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. The authors and quoted experts report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to arsenic and other metals in utero is associated with an elevated risk for atopic dermatitis in children, researchers report in a study published Oct. 27, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

In this multicenter cohort study, led by epidemiologist Shu-Li Wang, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Taiwan, each twofold increase in prenatal arsenic level correlated with a 2.4-fold higher rate of atopic dermatitis in 4-year-olds.

Atopic diseases have been on the rise. Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the first stage of the so-called atopic march, followed by food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and asthma later in childhood. Previous research has linked heavy metal exposure to allergic diseases in adults. In another study by Dr. Wang and colleagues that was published in 2021, prenatal and early-life arsenic exposure was found to correlate with higher rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children. In that study, the participants were followed every 2-3 years through the age of 14 as part of the Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study.

The new study included 370 mother and child pairs who were enrolled in that birth cohort study between October 2012 and May 2015. During their third trimester of pregnancy, women completed questionnaires about their lifestyle, diet, and living environment. In addition, their height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded, and urine samples were taken. In follow-up interviews 3-4 years later, the mothers were asked whether their child had ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.

The researchers used an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer to analyze the participants’ urine samples. They assessed for exposures in utero to eight metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

Each unit increase of an index that estimates the combined exposure to these metals during pregnancy was associated with 63% higher odds of atopic dermatitis in the children by age 4. The researchers adjusted for parental allergies (yes or no), mother’s educational level (<12 years, 13-16 years, or >16 years), geographic area (central or eastern Taiwan), exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, and the child’s gender. Arsenic (40.1%) and cadmium (20.5%) accounted for most of the metal coexposure index.

A wealth of previous research links arsenic exposure during adulthood to skin disease and immune dysfunction. Early-life arsenic exposure has been linked with elevated risk for various adult disorders, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, years later. In light of such research, “the findings in this paper are not surprising,” J. Christopher States, PhD, director of the Center for Integrative Environmental Health Science at the University of Louisville (Ky.), told this news organization. “Low-level arsenic exposure does not cause disease immediately, but it does appear to have long-lasting effects, making individuals susceptible to ‘second hits’ with another environmental agent.”

Research into the molecular mechanisms for these links has shown that arsenic and cadmium exposure can promote allergic phenotypes in immune cells. “We think the toxic metals activate the alarmin pathway, thus inducing innate lymphoid cells, then activating T-helper 2 cells, which drive immunoglobulin E production and breakdown of the epithelium and promotion of allergies,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University. Dr. Nadeau led that study, published in 2017 in PLOS One, along with epidemiologist Margaret Karagas, PhD, of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

As for what pregnant women can do to minimize their exposure to heavy metals, “that is a difficult problem and primarily a function of where one lives,” said Dr. States.

Drinking water and food are major sources of arsenic exposure. Groundwater is naturally contaminated with arsenic deposits that seep in from bedrock, said Dr. States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates arsenic levels in public drinking water that is supplied to more than a few thousand people. However, small water supplies and private wells are unregulated, he said, and having these water sources tested for arsenic or fitted with systems to reduce arsenic can be very expensive.

Among foods, rice can have high concentrations of arsenic, Dr. Karagas told this news organization. To minimize arsenic exposure through the diet, women can limit rice-based foods, according to a web-based tool developed by her and coworkers.

In addition, tobacco smoke is a major source of cadmium exposure and a moderate source of arsenic exposure, Dr. States noted. Women can reduce their exposure to these metals by avoiding tobacco and secondhand smoke.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health Research Institutes, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. The authors and quoted experts report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Boswellia serrata exudate or gum (known in India as “guggulu”) that forms an aromatic resin traditionally used as incense – and known as frankincense (especially when retrieved from Boswellia species found in Eritrea and Somalia but also from the Indian variety) – has been considered for thousands of years to possess therapeutic properties. It is used in Ayurvedic medicine, as well as in traditional medicine in China and the Middle East, particularly for its anti-inflammatory effects to treat chronic conditions.^1-8 In fact, such essential oils have been used since 2800 BC to treat various inflammatory conditions, including skin sores and wounds, as well as in perfumes and incense.^2,9 In the West, use of frankincense dates back to thousands of years as well, more often found in the form of incense for religious and cultural ceremonies.⁷ Over the past 2 decades, evidence supporting the use of frankincense for therapeutic medical purposes has increased, particularly because of its purported anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties.³ This column focuses on some of the emerging data on this ancient botanical agent.

Madeleine_Steinbach / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Chemical constituents

Terpenoids and essential oils are the primary components of frankincense and are known to impart anti-inflammatory and anticancer activity. The same is true for myrrh, which has been combined with frankincense in traditional Chinese medicine as a single medication for millennia, with the two acting synergistically and considered still to be a potent combination in conferring various biological benefits.⁷

In 2010, in a systematic review of the anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities of Boswellia species and their chemical ingredients, Efferth and Oesch found that frankincense blocks the production of leukotrienes, cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 and 2, as well as 5-lipoxygenase; and oxidative stress. It also contributes to regulation of immune cells from the innate and acquired immune systems and exerts anticancer activity by influencing signaling transduction responsible for cell cycle arrest, as well as inhibition of proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis. The investigators also reported on clinical trial results that have found efficacy of frankincense and its constituents in ameliorating symptoms of psoriasis and erythematous eczema, among other disorders.³

Anti-inflammatory activity

Li et al. completed a study in 2016 to identify the active ingredients responsible for the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of frankincense. They found that alpha-pinene, linalool, and 1-octanol were key contributors. These constituents were noted for suppressing COX-2 overexpression in mice, as well as nociceptive stimulus-induced inflammatory infiltrates.¹⁰

Noting the increasing popularity of frankincense essential oil in skin care, despite a paucity of data, in 2017, Han et al. evaluated the biological activities of the essential oil in pre-inflamed human dermal fibroblasts using 17 key protein biomarkers. Frankincense essential oil displayed significant antiproliferative activity and suppressed collagen III, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1. The investigators referred to the overall encouraging potential of frankincense essential oil to exert influence over inflammation and tissue remodeling in human skin and called for additional research into its mechanisms of action and active constituents.¹¹

Anticancer activity

The main active ingredient in frankincense, boswellic acid, has been shown to promote apoptosis, suppress matrix metalloproteinase secretion, and hinder migration in metastatic melanoma cell lines in mice.^6,12

In 2019, Hakkim et al. demonstrated that frankincense essential oil yielded substantial antimelanoma activity in vitro and in vivo and ameliorated hepatotoxicity caused by acetaminophen.¹³

There is one case report in the literature on the use of frankincense as a treatment for skin cancer. A 56-year-old man received frankincense oil multiple times a day for 4 months to treat a nodular basal cell carcinoma on one arm (which resolved) and an infiltrative BCC on the chest (some focal residual tumor remained).^6,14 Topical frankincense or boswellic acid has been given a grade D recommendation for treating skin cancer, however, because of only one level-of-evidence-5 study.⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, de Rapper et al. collected samples of three essential oils of frankincense (Boswellia rivae, Boswellia neglecta, and Boswellia papyrifera) and two essential oil samples of myrrh and sweet myrrh from different regions of Ethiopia to study their anti-infective properties alone and in combination. The investigators observed synergistic and additive effects, particularly between B. papyrifera and Commiphora myrrha. While noting the long history of the combined use of frankincense and myrrh essential oils since 1500 BC, the investigators highlighted their study as the first antimicrobial work to verify the effectiveness of this combination, validating the use of this combination to thwart particular pathogens.¹⁵

Just 2 years ago, Ljaljević Grbić et al. evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial potential of the liquid and vapor phases of B. carteri and C. myrrha (frankincense and myrrh, respectively) essential oils, finding that frankincense demonstrated marked capacity to act as a natural antimicrobial agent.⁹

Transdermal delivery

In 2017, Zhu et al. showed that frankincense and myrrh essential oils promoted the permeability of the Chinese herb Chuanxiong and may facilitate drug elimination from the epidermis via dermal capillaries by dint of improved cutaneous blood flow, thereby augmenting transdermal drug delivery.¹⁶ The same team also showed that frankincense and myrrh essential oils, by fostering permeation by enhancing drug delivery across the stratum corneum, can also alter the structure of the stratum corneum.¹⁷

Conclusion

The use of frankincense in traditional medicine has a long and impressive track record. Recent research provides reason for optimism, and further investigating the possible incorporation of this botanical agent into modern dermatologic therapies appears warranted. Clearly, however, much more research is needed.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Kimmatkar N et al. Phytomedicine. 2003 Jan;10(1):3-7.

2. Ammon HP. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2002;152(15-16):373-8.

3. Efferth T & Oesch F. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020 Feb 4;S1044-579X(20)30034-1.

4. Banno N et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006 Sep 19;107(2):249-53.

5. Poeckel D & Werz O. Curr Med Chem. 2006;13(28):3359-69.

6. Li JY, Kampp JT. Dermatol Surg. 2019 Jan;45(1):58-67.

7. Cao B et al. Molecules. 2019 Aug 24;24(17): 3076.

8. Mertens M et al. Flavour Fragr J. 2009;24:279-300.

9. Ljaljević Grbić M et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2018 Jun 12;219:1-14.

10. Li XJ et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016 Feb 17;179:22-6.

11. Han X et al. Biochim Open. 2017 Feb 3;4:31-5.

12. Zhao W et al. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:67-75.

13. Hakkim FL et al. Oncotarget. 2019 May 28;10(37):3472-90.

14. Fung K et al. OA Altern Med 2013;1:14.

15. de Rapper S et al. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2012 Apr;54(4):352-8.

16. Zhu XF et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2017 Feb;42(4):680-5.

17. Guan YM et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2017 Sep;42(17):3350-5.

The Boswellia serrata exudate or gum (known in India as “guggulu”) that forms an aromatic resin traditionally used as incense – and known as frankincense (especially when retrieved from Boswellia species found in Eritrea and Somalia but also from the Indian variety) – has been considered for thousands of years to possess therapeutic properties. It is used in Ayurvedic medicine, as well as in traditional medicine in China and the Middle East, particularly for its anti-inflammatory effects to treat chronic conditions.^1-8 In fact, such essential oils have been used since 2800 BC to treat various inflammatory conditions, including skin sores and wounds, as well as in perfumes and incense.^2,9 In the West, use of frankincense dates back to thousands of years as well, more often found in the form of incense for religious and cultural ceremonies.⁷ Over the past 2 decades, evidence supporting the use of frankincense for therapeutic medical purposes has increased, particularly because of its purported anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties.³ This column focuses on some of the emerging data on this ancient botanical agent.

Madeleine_Steinbach / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Chemical constituents

Terpenoids and essential oils are the primary components of frankincense and are known to impart anti-inflammatory and anticancer activity. The same is true for myrrh, which has been combined with frankincense in traditional Chinese medicine as a single medication for millennia, with the two acting synergistically and considered still to be a potent combination in conferring various biological benefits.⁷

In 2010, in a systematic review of the anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities of Boswellia species and their chemical ingredients, Efferth and Oesch found that frankincense blocks the production of leukotrienes, cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 and 2, as well as 5-lipoxygenase; and oxidative stress. It also contributes to regulation of immune cells from the innate and acquired immune systems and exerts anticancer activity by influencing signaling transduction responsible for cell cycle arrest, as well as inhibition of proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis. The investigators also reported on clinical trial results that have found efficacy of frankincense and its constituents in ameliorating symptoms of psoriasis and erythematous eczema, among other disorders.³

Anti-inflammatory activity

Li et al. completed a study in 2016 to identify the active ingredients responsible for the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of frankincense. They found that alpha-pinene, linalool, and 1-octanol were key contributors. These constituents were noted for suppressing COX-2 overexpression in mice, as well as nociceptive stimulus-induced inflammatory infiltrates.¹⁰

Noting the increasing popularity of frankincense essential oil in skin care, despite a paucity of data, in 2017, Han et al. evaluated the biological activities of the essential oil in pre-inflamed human dermal fibroblasts using 17 key protein biomarkers. Frankincense essential oil displayed significant antiproliferative activity and suppressed collagen III, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1. The investigators referred to the overall encouraging potential of frankincense essential oil to exert influence over inflammation and tissue remodeling in human skin and called for additional research into its mechanisms of action and active constituents.¹¹

Anticancer activity

The main active ingredient in frankincense, boswellic acid, has been shown to promote apoptosis, suppress matrix metalloproteinase secretion, and hinder migration in metastatic melanoma cell lines in mice.^6,12

In 2019, Hakkim et al. demonstrated that frankincense essential oil yielded substantial antimelanoma activity in vitro and in vivo and ameliorated hepatotoxicity caused by acetaminophen.¹³

There is one case report in the literature on the use of frankincense as a treatment for skin cancer. A 56-year-old man received frankincense oil multiple times a day for 4 months to treat a nodular basal cell carcinoma on one arm (which resolved) and an infiltrative BCC on the chest (some focal residual tumor remained).^6,14 Topical frankincense or boswellic acid has been given a grade D recommendation for treating skin cancer, however, because of only one level-of-evidence-5 study.⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, de Rapper et al. collected samples of three essential oils of frankincense (Boswellia rivae, Boswellia neglecta, and Boswellia papyrifera) and two essential oil samples of myrrh and sweet myrrh from different regions of Ethiopia to study their anti-infective properties alone and in combination. The investigators observed synergistic and additive effects, particularly between B. papyrifera and Commiphora myrrha. While noting the long history of the combined use of frankincense and myrrh essential oils since 1500 BC, the investigators highlighted their study as the first antimicrobial work to verify the effectiveness of this combination, validating the use of this combination to thwart particular pathogens.¹⁵

Just 2 years ago, Ljaljević Grbić et al. evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial potential of the liquid and vapor phases of B. carteri and C. myrrha (frankincense and myrrh, respectively) essential oils, finding that frankincense demonstrated marked capacity to act as a natural antimicrobial agent.⁹

Transdermal delivery

In 2017, Zhu et al. showed that frankincense and myrrh essential oils promoted the permeability of the Chinese herb Chuanxiong and may facilitate drug elimination from the epidermis via dermal capillaries by dint of improved cutaneous blood flow, thereby augmenting transdermal drug delivery.¹⁶ The same team also showed that frankincense and myrrh essential oils, by fostering permeation by enhancing drug delivery across the stratum corneum, can also alter the structure of the stratum corneum.¹⁷

Conclusion

The use of frankincense in traditional medicine has a long and impressive track record. Recent research provides reason for optimism, and further investigating the possible incorporation of this botanical agent into modern dermatologic therapies appears warranted. Clearly, however, much more research is needed.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Kimmatkar N et al. Phytomedicine. 2003 Jan;10(1):3-7.

2. Ammon HP. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2002;152(15-16):373-8.

3. Efferth T & Oesch F. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020 Feb 4;S1044-579X(20)30034-1.

4. Banno N et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006 Sep 19;107(2):249-53.

5. Poeckel D & Werz O. Curr Med Chem. 2006;13(28):3359-69.

6. Li JY, Kampp JT. Dermatol Surg. 2019 Jan;45(1):58-67.

7. Cao B et al. Molecules. 2019 Aug 24;24(17): 3076.

8. Mertens M et al. Flavour Fragr J. 2009;24:279-300.

9. Ljaljević Grbić M et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2018 Jun 12;219:1-14.

10. Li XJ et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016 Feb 17;179:22-6.

11. Han X et al. Biochim Open. 2017 Feb 3;4:31-5.

12. Zhao W et al. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:67-75.

13. Hakkim FL et al. Oncotarget. 2019 May 28;10(37):3472-90.

14. Fung K et al. OA Altern Med 2013;1:14.

15. de Rapper S et al. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2012 Apr;54(4):352-8.

16. Zhu XF et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2017 Feb;42(4):680-5.

17. Guan YM et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2017 Sep;42(17):3350-5.

The Boswellia serrata exudate or gum (known in India as “guggulu”) that forms an aromatic resin traditionally used as incense – and known as frankincense (especially when retrieved from Boswellia species found in Eritrea and Somalia but also from the Indian variety) – has been considered for thousands of years to possess therapeutic properties. It is used in Ayurvedic medicine, as well as in traditional medicine in China and the Middle East, particularly for its anti-inflammatory effects to treat chronic conditions.^1-8 In fact, such essential oils have been used since 2800 BC to treat various inflammatory conditions, including skin sores and wounds, as well as in perfumes and incense.^2,9 In the West, use of frankincense dates back to thousands of years as well, more often found in the form of incense for religious and cultural ceremonies.⁷ Over the past 2 decades, evidence supporting the use of frankincense for therapeutic medical purposes has increased, particularly because of its purported anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties.³ This column focuses on some of the emerging data on this ancient botanical agent.

Madeleine_Steinbach / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Chemical constituents

Terpenoids and essential oils are the primary components of frankincense and are known to impart anti-inflammatory and anticancer activity. The same is true for myrrh, which has been combined with frankincense in traditional Chinese medicine as a single medication for millennia, with the two acting synergistically and considered still to be a potent combination in conferring various biological benefits.⁷

In 2010, in a systematic review of the anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities of Boswellia species and their chemical ingredients, Efferth and Oesch found that frankincense blocks the production of leukotrienes, cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 and 2, as well as 5-lipoxygenase; and oxidative stress. It also contributes to regulation of immune cells from the innate and acquired immune systems and exerts anticancer activity by influencing signaling transduction responsible for cell cycle arrest, as well as inhibition of proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis. The investigators also reported on clinical trial results that have found efficacy of frankincense and its constituents in ameliorating symptoms of psoriasis and erythematous eczema, among other disorders.³

Anti-inflammatory activity

Li et al. completed a study in 2016 to identify the active ingredients responsible for the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of frankincense. They found that alpha-pinene, linalool, and 1-octanol were key contributors. These constituents were noted for suppressing COX-2 overexpression in mice, as well as nociceptive stimulus-induced inflammatory infiltrates.¹⁰

Noting the increasing popularity of frankincense essential oil in skin care, despite a paucity of data, in 2017, Han et al. evaluated the biological activities of the essential oil in pre-inflamed human dermal fibroblasts using 17 key protein biomarkers. Frankincense essential oil displayed significant antiproliferative activity and suppressed collagen III, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1. The investigators referred to the overall encouraging potential of frankincense essential oil to exert influence over inflammation and tissue remodeling in human skin and called for additional research into its mechanisms of action and active constituents.¹¹

Anticancer activity

The main active ingredient in frankincense, boswellic acid, has been shown to promote apoptosis, suppress matrix metalloproteinase secretion, and hinder migration in metastatic melanoma cell lines in mice.^6,12

In 2019, Hakkim et al. demonstrated that frankincense essential oil yielded substantial antimelanoma activity in vitro and in vivo and ameliorated hepatotoxicity caused by acetaminophen.¹³

There is one case report in the literature on the use of frankincense as a treatment for skin cancer. A 56-year-old man received frankincense oil multiple times a day for 4 months to treat a nodular basal cell carcinoma on one arm (which resolved) and an infiltrative BCC on the chest (some focal residual tumor remained).^6,14 Topical frankincense or boswellic acid has been given a grade D recommendation for treating skin cancer, however, because of only one level-of-evidence-5 study.⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, de Rapper et al. collected samples of three essential oils of frankincense (Boswellia rivae, Boswellia neglecta, and Boswellia papyrifera) and two essential oil samples of myrrh and sweet myrrh from different regions of Ethiopia to study their anti-infective properties alone and in combination. The investigators observed synergistic and additive effects, particularly between B. papyrifera and Commiphora myrrha. While noting the long history of the combined use of frankincense and myrrh essential oils since 1500 BC, the investigators highlighted their study as the first antimicrobial work to verify the effectiveness of this combination, validating the use of this combination to thwart particular pathogens.¹⁵

Just 2 years ago, Ljaljević Grbić et al. evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial potential of the liquid and vapor phases of B. carteri and C. myrrha (frankincense and myrrh, respectively) essential oils, finding that frankincense demonstrated marked capacity to act as a natural antimicrobial agent.⁹

Transdermal delivery

In 2017, Zhu et al. showed that frankincense and myrrh essential oils promoted the permeability of the Chinese herb Chuanxiong and may facilitate drug elimination from the epidermis via dermal capillaries by dint of improved cutaneous blood flow, thereby augmenting transdermal drug delivery.¹⁶ The same team also showed that frankincense and myrrh essential oils, by fostering permeation by enhancing drug delivery across the stratum corneum, can also alter the structure of the stratum corneum.¹⁷

Conclusion

The use of frankincense in traditional medicine has a long and impressive track record. Recent research provides reason for optimism, and further investigating the possible incorporation of this botanical agent into modern dermatologic therapies appears warranted. Clearly, however, much more research is needed.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Kimmatkar N et al. Phytomedicine. 2003 Jan;10(1):3-7.

2. Ammon HP. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2002;152(15-16):373-8.

3. Efferth T & Oesch F. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020 Feb 4;S1044-579X(20)30034-1.

4. Banno N et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006 Sep 19;107(2):249-53.

5. Poeckel D & Werz O. Curr Med Chem. 2006;13(28):3359-69.

6. Li JY, Kampp JT. Dermatol Surg. 2019 Jan;45(1):58-67.

7. Cao B et al. Molecules. 2019 Aug 24;24(17): 3076.

8. Mertens M et al. Flavour Fragr J. 2009;24:279-300.

9. Ljaljević Grbić M et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2018 Jun 12;219:1-14.

10. Li XJ et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016 Feb 17;179:22-6.

11. Han X et al. Biochim Open. 2017 Feb 3;4:31-5.

12. Zhao W et al. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:67-75.

13. Hakkim FL et al. Oncotarget. 2019 May 28;10(37):3472-90.

14. Fung K et al. OA Altern Med 2013;1:14.

15. de Rapper S et al. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2012 Apr;54(4):352-8.

16. Zhu XF et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2017 Feb;42(4):680-5.

17. Guan YM et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2017 Sep;42(17):3350-5.

Four years after new infant feeding guidelines were issued to prevent allergies to peanut and other foods, 70% of surveyed parents and caregivers in the United States said they had never heard about the new recommendation.

Food allergies in developed countries have doubled in each of the last decades and now affect 7.6% of U.S. children. About 1 in 50 are allergic to peanut. Data from the 2015 LEAP study and other research has convincingly shown that early, sustained feeding of peanuts, eggs, and other allergens can prevent babies from developing allergies to these foods.

Based on those findings, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) updated its feeding guidelines in 2017, urging parents to introduce these foods to babies around 4-6 months of age rather than wait until 1-3 years of age, as previously recommended. The American Academy of Pediatrics approved those guidelines too, and in 2019 changed its own feeding recommendations.

To assess awareness of this new guidance and to what extent these recommendations are being translated into clinical practice, researchers surveyed a demographically representative U.S. sample of 3,062 parents and caregivers with children between 7 months and 3½ years old. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish over the web or by phone.

More than one-third reported that their child’s primary care physician never discussed when to start feeding peanut-containing foods. And among those whose doctors did offer guidance, fewer than 1 in 4 specifically recommended introducing peanut by 6 months of age.

These data show that “despite strong evidence that early introduction of peanut within the first year of life can prevent the development of peanut allergy, this evidence is simply not making its way to parents of infants,” said Christopher Warren, PhD, assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. Dr. Warren led the study and presented the findings on a poster at this year’s American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting in New Orleans.

In addition to caregivers, the Northwestern team surveyed U.S. allergists and pediatricians about the new feeding guidelines. Uptake was fairly good among allergists, with 65% reporting full implementation. On the other hand, while most pediatricians seemed familiar with the 2017 recommendations, fewer than one-third said they were following them.

“What’s unique about this challenge is that it’s not just a guideline change – it’s a guideline reversal,” said Wendy Sue Swanson, MD, chief medical officer for SpoonfulONE, a company that makes mix-ins and other products for multi-allergen feeding. After telling families for years to avoid these allergens in early life because food allergies were rising, “it’s harder advice to say, actually, we were wrong. Not only should you not wait, you should get peanut in while your baby’s immune system has this critical moment to learn and develop, and you should keep getting it in,” Dr. Swanson said in an interview.

Making matters worse, pediatricians are time pressed. Typically, at 4- to 6-month-old well-check visits, “they’re talking about sleep and development and feeding and milestones,” said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Northwestern Feinberg, who led the allergist and pediatrician analyses.

Another challenge: Guidelines differ depending on the child’s level of food allergy risk, so it’s hard to explain them clearly and quickly. Babies at highest risk – as judged by having severe eczema, egg allergy, or both – should get peanut IgE blood testing and, if negative, begin regular consumption of peanut by 4-6 months. Intermediate-risk babies who have mild-to-moderate eczema are recommended to start peanut-containing foods by 6 months. And for low-risk babies with no eczema or known food allergies, the guidance is simply to introduce peanut-containing foods “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”

As for pediatricians who say it’s hard to distinguish mild-to-moderate from severe eczema, “any eczema puts you at some risk,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “If they’ve required steroid creams to clear up their skin, or if you look at their skin, and you think it’s severe, don’t hesitate. Go ahead and draw the IgE and send them to an allergist.”

Australia, which has the highest rate of confirmed food allergy, has had more success implementing early feeding guidelines, said Dr. Swanson. Unlike the United States’ tiered approach, she said, they “had a national guideline that very crisply, years ago, told parents what to do.” Australia also has nurse educators that follow up with new moms to make sure they understand and follow the recommendations.

Dr. Gupta receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, Food Allergy Research and Education, the Melchiorre Family Foundation, the Sunshine Charitable Foundation, the Walder Foundation, the UnitedHealth Group, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Genentech. She serves as a medical consultant/advisor for Genentech, Novartis, and Food Allergy Research and Education. Dr. Swanson serves as chief medical officer for SpoonfulONE.

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

Four years after new infant feeding guidelines were issued to prevent allergies to peanut and other foods, 70% of surveyed parents and caregivers in the United States said they had never heard about the new recommendation.

Food allergies in developed countries have doubled in each of the last decades and now affect 7.6% of U.S. children. About 1 in 50 are allergic to peanut. Data from the 2015 LEAP study and other research has convincingly shown that early, sustained feeding of peanuts, eggs, and other allergens can prevent babies from developing allergies to these foods.

Based on those findings, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) updated its feeding guidelines in 2017, urging parents to introduce these foods to babies around 4-6 months of age rather than wait until 1-3 years of age, as previously recommended. The American Academy of Pediatrics approved those guidelines too, and in 2019 changed its own feeding recommendations.

To assess awareness of this new guidance and to what extent these recommendations are being translated into clinical practice, researchers surveyed a demographically representative U.S. sample of 3,062 parents and caregivers with children between 7 months and 3½ years old. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish over the web or by phone.

More than one-third reported that their child’s primary care physician never discussed when to start feeding peanut-containing foods. And among those whose doctors did offer guidance, fewer than 1 in 4 specifically recommended introducing peanut by 6 months of age.

These data show that “despite strong evidence that early introduction of peanut within the first year of life can prevent the development of peanut allergy, this evidence is simply not making its way to parents of infants,” said Christopher Warren, PhD, assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. Dr. Warren led the study and presented the findings on a poster at this year’s American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting in New Orleans.

In addition to caregivers, the Northwestern team surveyed U.S. allergists and pediatricians about the new feeding guidelines. Uptake was fairly good among allergists, with 65% reporting full implementation. On the other hand, while most pediatricians seemed familiar with the 2017 recommendations, fewer than one-third said they were following them.

“What’s unique about this challenge is that it’s not just a guideline change – it’s a guideline reversal,” said Wendy Sue Swanson, MD, chief medical officer for SpoonfulONE, a company that makes mix-ins and other products for multi-allergen feeding. After telling families for years to avoid these allergens in early life because food allergies were rising, “it’s harder advice to say, actually, we were wrong. Not only should you not wait, you should get peanut in while your baby’s immune system has this critical moment to learn and develop, and you should keep getting it in,” Dr. Swanson said in an interview.

Making matters worse, pediatricians are time pressed. Typically, at 4- to 6-month-old well-check visits, “they’re talking about sleep and development and feeding and milestones,” said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Northwestern Feinberg, who led the allergist and pediatrician analyses.

Another challenge: Guidelines differ depending on the child’s level of food allergy risk, so it’s hard to explain them clearly and quickly. Babies at highest risk – as judged by having severe eczema, egg allergy, or both – should get peanut IgE blood testing and, if negative, begin regular consumption of peanut by 4-6 months. Intermediate-risk babies who have mild-to-moderate eczema are recommended to start peanut-containing foods by 6 months. And for low-risk babies with no eczema or known food allergies, the guidance is simply to introduce peanut-containing foods “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”

As for pediatricians who say it’s hard to distinguish mild-to-moderate from severe eczema, “any eczema puts you at some risk,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “If they’ve required steroid creams to clear up their skin, or if you look at their skin, and you think it’s severe, don’t hesitate. Go ahead and draw the IgE and send them to an allergist.”

Australia, which has the highest rate of confirmed food allergy, has had more success implementing early feeding guidelines, said Dr. Swanson. Unlike the United States’ tiered approach, she said, they “had a national guideline that very crisply, years ago, told parents what to do.” Australia also has nurse educators that follow up with new moms to make sure they understand and follow the recommendations.

Dr. Gupta receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, Food Allergy Research and Education, the Melchiorre Family Foundation, the Sunshine Charitable Foundation, the Walder Foundation, the UnitedHealth Group, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Genentech. She serves as a medical consultant/advisor for Genentech, Novartis, and Food Allergy Research and Education. Dr. Swanson serves as chief medical officer for SpoonfulONE.

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

Four years after new infant feeding guidelines were issued to prevent allergies to peanut and other foods, 70% of surveyed parents and caregivers in the United States said they had never heard about the new recommendation.

Food allergies in developed countries have doubled in each of the last decades and now affect 7.6% of U.S. children. About 1 in 50 are allergic to peanut. Data from the 2015 LEAP study and other research has convincingly shown that early, sustained feeding of peanuts, eggs, and other allergens can prevent babies from developing allergies to these foods.

Based on those findings, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) updated its feeding guidelines in 2017, urging parents to introduce these foods to babies around 4-6 months of age rather than wait until 1-3 years of age, as previously recommended. The American Academy of Pediatrics approved those guidelines too, and in 2019 changed its own feeding recommendations.

To assess awareness of this new guidance and to what extent these recommendations are being translated into clinical practice, researchers surveyed a demographically representative U.S. sample of 3,062 parents and caregivers with children between 7 months and 3½ years old. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish over the web or by phone.

More than one-third reported that their child’s primary care physician never discussed when to start feeding peanut-containing foods. And among those whose doctors did offer guidance, fewer than 1 in 4 specifically recommended introducing peanut by 6 months of age.

These data show that “despite strong evidence that early introduction of peanut within the first year of life can prevent the development of peanut allergy, this evidence is simply not making its way to parents of infants,” said Christopher Warren, PhD, assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. Dr. Warren led the study and presented the findings on a poster at this year’s American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting in New Orleans.

In addition to caregivers, the Northwestern team surveyed U.S. allergists and pediatricians about the new feeding guidelines. Uptake was fairly good among allergists, with 65% reporting full implementation. On the other hand, while most pediatricians seemed familiar with the 2017 recommendations, fewer than one-third said they were following them.

“What’s unique about this challenge is that it’s not just a guideline change – it’s a guideline reversal,” said Wendy Sue Swanson, MD, chief medical officer for SpoonfulONE, a company that makes mix-ins and other products for multi-allergen feeding. After telling families for years to avoid these allergens in early life because food allergies were rising, “it’s harder advice to say, actually, we were wrong. Not only should you not wait, you should get peanut in while your baby’s immune system has this critical moment to learn and develop, and you should keep getting it in,” Dr. Swanson said in an interview.

Making matters worse, pediatricians are time pressed. Typically, at 4- to 6-month-old well-check visits, “they’re talking about sleep and development and feeding and milestones,” said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Northwestern Feinberg, who led the allergist and pediatrician analyses.

Another challenge: Guidelines differ depending on the child’s level of food allergy risk, so it’s hard to explain them clearly and quickly. Babies at highest risk – as judged by having severe eczema, egg allergy, or both – should get peanut IgE blood testing and, if negative, begin regular consumption of peanut by 4-6 months. Intermediate-risk babies who have mild-to-moderate eczema are recommended to start peanut-containing foods by 6 months. And for low-risk babies with no eczema or known food allergies, the guidance is simply to introduce peanut-containing foods “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”

As for pediatricians who say it’s hard to distinguish mild-to-moderate from severe eczema, “any eczema puts you at some risk,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “If they’ve required steroid creams to clear up their skin, or if you look at their skin, and you think it’s severe, don’t hesitate. Go ahead and draw the IgE and send them to an allergist.”

Australia, which has the highest rate of confirmed food allergy, has had more success implementing early feeding guidelines, said Dr. Swanson. Unlike the United States’ tiered approach, she said, they “had a national guideline that very crisply, years ago, told parents what to do.” Australia also has nurse educators that follow up with new moms to make sure they understand and follow the recommendations.

Dr. Gupta receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, Food Allergy Research and Education, the Melchiorre Family Foundation, the Sunshine Charitable Foundation, the Walder Foundation, the UnitedHealth Group, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Genentech. She serves as a medical consultant/advisor for Genentech, Novartis, and Food Allergy Research and Education. Dr. Swanson serves as chief medical officer for SpoonfulONE.

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

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson dropped dramatically as the Delta variant swept the United States, a study of almost 800,000 veterans found.

The study, published in the journal Science ., says the three vaccines offered about the same protection against the virus in March, when the Delta variant was first detected in the United States, but that changed 6 months later.

The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

“In summary, although vaccination remains protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, protection waned as the Delta variant emerged in the U.S., and this decline did not differ by age,” the study said.

The three vaccines also lost effectiveness in the ability to protect against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group, veterans who got the Moderna vaccine and had a breakthrough case were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 by July.

The protection was 70% for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recipients and 52% for J&J vaccine recipients for the same age group, compared to unvaccinated veterans, according to the newspaper.

For veterans under 65, the protectiveness against a fatal case of COVID was 84% for Pfizer/BioNTech recipients, 82% for Moderna recipients, and 73% for J&J recipients, compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group.

The study confirms the need for booster vaccines and protective measures such as vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, masking, hand-washing, and social distancing, the researchers said.

Of the veterans studied, about 500,000 were vaccinated and 300,000 were not. Researchers noted that the study population had 6 times as many men as women. About 48% of the study group was 65 or older, 29% was 50-64, while 24% was under 50.

Researchers from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center conducted the study.

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

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson dropped dramatically as the Delta variant swept the United States, a study of almost 800,000 veterans found.

The study, published in the journal Science ., says the three vaccines offered about the same protection against the virus in March, when the Delta variant was first detected in the United States, but that changed 6 months later.

The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

“In summary, although vaccination remains protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, protection waned as the Delta variant emerged in the U.S., and this decline did not differ by age,” the study said.

The three vaccines also lost effectiveness in the ability to protect against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group, veterans who got the Moderna vaccine and had a breakthrough case were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 by July.

The protection was 70% for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recipients and 52% for J&J vaccine recipients for the same age group, compared to unvaccinated veterans, according to the newspaper.

For veterans under 65, the protectiveness against a fatal case of COVID was 84% for Pfizer/BioNTech recipients, 82% for Moderna recipients, and 73% for J&J recipients, compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group.

The study confirms the need for booster vaccines and protective measures such as vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, masking, hand-washing, and social distancing, the researchers said.

Of the veterans studied, about 500,000 were vaccinated and 300,000 were not. Researchers noted that the study population had 6 times as many men as women. About 48% of the study group was 65 or older, 29% was 50-64, while 24% was under 50.

Researchers from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center conducted the study.

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

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson dropped dramatically as the Delta variant swept the United States, a study of almost 800,000 veterans found.

The study, published in the journal Science ., says the three vaccines offered about the same protection against the virus in March, when the Delta variant was first detected in the United States, but that changed 6 months later.

The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

“In summary, although vaccination remains protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, protection waned as the Delta variant emerged in the U.S., and this decline did not differ by age,” the study said.

The three vaccines also lost effectiveness in the ability to protect against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group, veterans who got the Moderna vaccine and had a breakthrough case were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 by July.

The protection was 70% for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recipients and 52% for J&J vaccine recipients for the same age group, compared to unvaccinated veterans, according to the newspaper.

For veterans under 65, the protectiveness against a fatal case of COVID was 84% for Pfizer/BioNTech recipients, 82% for Moderna recipients, and 73% for J&J recipients, compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group.

The study confirms the need for booster vaccines and protective measures such as vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, masking, hand-washing, and social distancing, the researchers said.

Of the veterans studied, about 500,000 were vaccinated and 300,000 were not. Researchers noted that the study population had 6 times as many men as women. About 48% of the study group was 65 or older, 29% was 50-64, while 24% was under 50.

Researchers from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center conducted the study.

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

Kowtoniuk RA, Liu YE, Jeter JP. Cutaneous cold weather injuries in the US Military. Cutis. 2021;108:181-184, 202. doi:10.12788/cutis.0363

In the article above from the October 2021 issue, an author’s name was spelled incorrectly. The correct byline appears below. The article has been corrected online at www.mdedge.com/dermatology. We apologize for the error.

Robert A. Kowtoniuk, DO; Yizhen E. Liu, MD; Jonathan P. Jeter, MD

Kowtoniuk RA, Liu YE, Jeter JP. Cutaneous cold weather injuries in the US Military. Cutis. 2021;108:181-184, 202. doi:10.12788/cutis.0363

In the article above from the October 2021 issue, an author’s name was spelled incorrectly. The correct byline appears below. The article has been corrected online at www.mdedge.com/dermatology. We apologize for the error.

Robert A. Kowtoniuk, DO; Yizhen E. Liu, MD; Jonathan P. Jeter, MD

Kowtoniuk RA, Liu YE, Jeter JP. Cutaneous cold weather injuries in the US Military. Cutis. 2021;108:181-184, 202. doi:10.12788/cutis.0363

In the article above from the October 2021 issue, an author’s name was spelled incorrectly. The correct byline appears below. The article has been corrected online at www.mdedge.com/dermatology. We apologize for the error.

Robert A. Kowtoniuk, DO; Yizhen E. Liu, MD; Jonathan P. Jeter, MD

Rituximab effectively reduced skin sclerosis and appeared to have a beneficial effect on interstitial lung disease (ILD) for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a randomized, clinical trial.

Courtesy Charlotte E. LaSenna and Dr. Andrea Maderal, University of Miami

At 24 weeks’ follow-up, there was significant improvement in total skin thickness scores among patients who received four once-weekly rituximab infusions, compared with patients who received placebo infusions. Among patients who received rituximab, there were also small but significant improvements in percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC). Among patients who received placebo, FVC worsened, reported Ayumi Yoshizaki, MD, of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

“Systemic sclerosis is considered to have high unmet medical needs because of its poor prognosis and the lack of satisfactory and effective treatments,” he said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Several clinical studies have suggested that B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab anti-CD20 antibody is effective in treating skin and lung fibrosis of SSc. However, no randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been able to confirm the efficacy of rituximab in SSc,” Dr. Yoshizaki said.

A rheumatologist who is currently conducting an investigator-initiated trial in which patients with SSC are undergoing treatment with rituximab followed by belimumab (Benlysta) said in an interview that he found the data to be “super interesting.”

“There are a lot of reasons to think that B cells might be important in systemic sclerosis, and actually that’s why our group had previously done an investigator-initiated trial with belimumab years ago,” said Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Randomized trial

Dr. Yoshizaki and colleagues conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled DESIRES trial in four hospitals in Japan to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of SSc.

In the investigator-initiated trial, patients aged 20-79 years who fulfilled ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic sclerosis and who had a modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) of 10 or more and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive infusions with either rituximab 375 mg/m² or placebo once weekly for 4 weeks. Patients and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation.

The trial included 56 patients (51 women, 5 men). Of all patients enrolled, 27 of 28 who were allocated to receive rituximab and 22 of 28 who were allocated to receive placebo underwent at least one infusion and completed 24 weeks of follow-up.

The absolute change in mRSS at 24 weeks after the start of therapy, the primary endpoint, was –6.30 in the rituximab group, compared with +2.14 in the placebo group, a difference of –8.44 (P < .0001).

In a subgroup analysis, rituximab was superior to placebo regardless of disease duration, disease type (diffuse cutaneous or limited cutaneous SSc), prior receipt of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, or having C-reactive protein levels less than 0.3 mg/dL or at least 0.3 mg/dL.

However, there was no significant benefit with rituximab for patients with baseline mRSS of at least 20 or for those without ILD at baseline.

There was also evidence that rituximab reduced lung fibrosis. For patients assigned to the active drug, the absolute change in FVC at 24 weeks was +0.09% of the predicted value, compared with –3.56% for patients who received placebo (P = .044).

The researchers also observed radiographic evidence of lung improvement. The absolute change in the percentage of lung field occupied with interstitial shadows was –0.32% in the rituximab arm versus +2.39% in the placebo arm (P = .034). There was no significant between-group difference in the absolute change in diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, however.

Adverse events that occurred more frequently with rituximab included oral mucositis, diarrhea, and decreased neutrophil and white blood cell counts.

Convincing results

“What I thought the Japanese study did was to give a much more convincing proof of concept than has been out there,” Dr. Spiera said in an interview.

“There have been some preliminary experiences that have been encouraging with rituximab in scleroderma, most of which has been open label,” he said.

He also referred to a retrospective study by EUSTAR, the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group, which indicated that patients who had previously received rituximab seemed to have had better outcomes than patients who had been treated with other therapies.

Dr. Spiera added that, although he was glad to see the data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in this population, he was uncomfortable with the idea of leaving patients untreated for 6 months.

“From the standpoint of somebody wanting to know what strategies might be promising, this is great for us, but I would not have designed the trial that way,” he said.

The study results were previously published in the Lancet Rheumatology.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Zenyaku Kogyo. Dr. Yoshizaki disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Spiera has received grant/research support from and has consulted for Roche/Genentech, maker of rituximab, and has received compensation from other companies.

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

Rituximab effectively reduced skin sclerosis and appeared to have a beneficial effect on interstitial lung disease (ILD) for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a randomized, clinical trial.

Courtesy Charlotte E. LaSenna and Dr. Andrea Maderal, University of Miami

At 24 weeks’ follow-up, there was significant improvement in total skin thickness scores among patients who received four once-weekly rituximab infusions, compared with patients who received placebo infusions. Among patients who received rituximab, there were also small but significant improvements in percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC). Among patients who received placebo, FVC worsened, reported Ayumi Yoshizaki, MD, of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

“Systemic sclerosis is considered to have high unmet medical needs because of its poor prognosis and the lack of satisfactory and effective treatments,” he said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Several clinical studies have suggested that B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab anti-CD20 antibody is effective in treating skin and lung fibrosis of SSc. However, no randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been able to confirm the efficacy of rituximab in SSc,” Dr. Yoshizaki said.

A rheumatologist who is currently conducting an investigator-initiated trial in which patients with SSC are undergoing treatment with rituximab followed by belimumab (Benlysta) said in an interview that he found the data to be “super interesting.”

“There are a lot of reasons to think that B cells might be important in systemic sclerosis, and actually that’s why our group had previously done an investigator-initiated trial with belimumab years ago,” said Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Randomized trial

Dr. Yoshizaki and colleagues conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled DESIRES trial in four hospitals in Japan to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of SSc.

In the investigator-initiated trial, patients aged 20-79 years who fulfilled ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic sclerosis and who had a modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) of 10 or more and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive infusions with either rituximab 375 mg/m² or placebo once weekly for 4 weeks. Patients and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation.

The trial included 56 patients (51 women, 5 men). Of all patients enrolled, 27 of 28 who were allocated to receive rituximab and 22 of 28 who were allocated to receive placebo underwent at least one infusion and completed 24 weeks of follow-up.

The absolute change in mRSS at 24 weeks after the start of therapy, the primary endpoint, was –6.30 in the rituximab group, compared with +2.14 in the placebo group, a difference of –8.44 (P < .0001).

In a subgroup analysis, rituximab was superior to placebo regardless of disease duration, disease type (diffuse cutaneous or limited cutaneous SSc), prior receipt of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, or having C-reactive protein levels less than 0.3 mg/dL or at least 0.3 mg/dL.

However, there was no significant benefit with rituximab for patients with baseline mRSS of at least 20 or for those without ILD at baseline.

There was also evidence that rituximab reduced lung fibrosis. For patients assigned to the active drug, the absolute change in FVC at 24 weeks was +0.09% of the predicted value, compared with –3.56% for patients who received placebo (P = .044).

The researchers also observed radiographic evidence of lung improvement. The absolute change in the percentage of lung field occupied with interstitial shadows was –0.32% in the rituximab arm versus +2.39% in the placebo arm (P = .034). There was no significant between-group difference in the absolute change in diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, however.

Adverse events that occurred more frequently with rituximab included oral mucositis, diarrhea, and decreased neutrophil and white blood cell counts.

Convincing results

“What I thought the Japanese study did was to give a much more convincing proof of concept than has been out there,” Dr. Spiera said in an interview.

“There have been some preliminary experiences that have been encouraging with rituximab in scleroderma, most of which has been open label,” he said.

He also referred to a retrospective study by EUSTAR, the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group, which indicated that patients who had previously received rituximab seemed to have had better outcomes than patients who had been treated with other therapies.

Dr. Spiera added that, although he was glad to see the data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in this population, he was uncomfortable with the idea of leaving patients untreated for 6 months.

“From the standpoint of somebody wanting to know what strategies might be promising, this is great for us, but I would not have designed the trial that way,” he said.

The study results were previously published in the Lancet Rheumatology.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Zenyaku Kogyo. Dr. Yoshizaki disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Spiera has received grant/research support from and has consulted for Roche/Genentech, maker of rituximab, and has received compensation from other companies.

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

Rituximab effectively reduced skin sclerosis and appeared to have a beneficial effect on interstitial lung disease (ILD) for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a randomized, clinical trial.

Courtesy Charlotte E. LaSenna and Dr. Andrea Maderal, University of Miami

At 24 weeks’ follow-up, there was significant improvement in total skin thickness scores among patients who received four once-weekly rituximab infusions, compared with patients who received placebo infusions. Among patients who received rituximab, there were also small but significant improvements in percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC). Among patients who received placebo, FVC worsened, reported Ayumi Yoshizaki, MD, of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

“Systemic sclerosis is considered to have high unmet medical needs because of its poor prognosis and the lack of satisfactory and effective treatments,” he said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Several clinical studies have suggested that B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab anti-CD20 antibody is effective in treating skin and lung fibrosis of SSc. However, no randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been able to confirm the efficacy of rituximab in SSc,” Dr. Yoshizaki said.

A rheumatologist who is currently conducting an investigator-initiated trial in which patients with SSC are undergoing treatment with rituximab followed by belimumab (Benlysta) said in an interview that he found the data to be “super interesting.”

“There are a lot of reasons to think that B cells might be important in systemic sclerosis, and actually that’s why our group had previously done an investigator-initiated trial with belimumab years ago,” said Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Randomized trial

Dr. Yoshizaki and colleagues conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled DESIRES trial in four hospitals in Japan to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of SSc.

In the investigator-initiated trial, patients aged 20-79 years who fulfilled ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic sclerosis and who had a modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) of 10 or more and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive infusions with either rituximab 375 mg/m² or placebo once weekly for 4 weeks. Patients and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation.

The trial included 56 patients (51 women, 5 men). Of all patients enrolled, 27 of 28 who were allocated to receive rituximab and 22 of 28 who were allocated to receive placebo underwent at least one infusion and completed 24 weeks of follow-up.

The absolute change in mRSS at 24 weeks after the start of therapy, the primary endpoint, was –6.30 in the rituximab group, compared with +2.14 in the placebo group, a difference of –8.44 (P < .0001).

In a subgroup analysis, rituximab was superior to placebo regardless of disease duration, disease type (diffuse cutaneous or limited cutaneous SSc), prior receipt of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, or having C-reactive protein levels less than 0.3 mg/dL or at least 0.3 mg/dL.

However, there was no significant benefit with rituximab for patients with baseline mRSS of at least 20 or for those without ILD at baseline.

There was also evidence that rituximab reduced lung fibrosis. For patients assigned to the active drug, the absolute change in FVC at 24 weeks was +0.09% of the predicted value, compared with –3.56% for patients who received placebo (P = .044).

The researchers also observed radiographic evidence of lung improvement. The absolute change in the percentage of lung field occupied with interstitial shadows was –0.32% in the rituximab arm versus +2.39% in the placebo arm (P = .034). There was no significant between-group difference in the absolute change in diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, however.

Adverse events that occurred more frequently with rituximab included oral mucositis, diarrhea, and decreased neutrophil and white blood cell counts.

Convincing results

“What I thought the Japanese study did was to give a much more convincing proof of concept than has been out there,” Dr. Spiera said in an interview.

“There have been some preliminary experiences that have been encouraging with rituximab in scleroderma, most of which has been open label,” he said.

He also referred to a retrospective study by EUSTAR, the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group, which indicated that patients who had previously received rituximab seemed to have had better outcomes than patients who had been treated with other therapies.

Dr. Spiera added that, although he was glad to see the data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in this population, he was uncomfortable with the idea of leaving patients untreated for 6 months.

“From the standpoint of somebody wanting to know what strategies might be promising, this is great for us, but I would not have designed the trial that way,” he said.

The study results were previously published in the Lancet Rheumatology.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Zenyaku Kogyo. Dr. Yoshizaki disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Spiera has received grant/research support from and has consulted for Roche/Genentech, maker of rituximab, and has received compensation from other companies.

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

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE COMPARISON

A Seborrheic dermatitis in a woman with brown-gray greasy scale as well as petaloid papules and plaques that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

B Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, scale, and mild postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

C Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, faint scale, and postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

D Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema and scale of the eyebrows and glabellar region.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is an inflammatory condition that is thought to be part of a response to Malassezia yeast. The scalp and face are most commonly affected, particularly the nasolabial folds, eyebrows, ears, postauricular areas, and beard area. Men also may have SD on the mid upper chest in association with chest hair. In infants, the scalp and body skin folds often are affected.

Epidemiology

Seborrheic dermatitis affects patients of all ages: infants, adolescents, and adults. It is among the most common dermatologic diagnoses reported in Black patients in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in darker skin tones

• In those with darker skin tones, arcuate, polycyclic, or petaloid (flower petal–like) plaques may be present (Figure A). Also, hypopigmented patches and plaques may be prominent (Figures B and C). The classic description includes thin pink patches and plaques with white greasy scale on the face (Figure D).
• The scalp may have diffuse scale or isolated scaly plaques.

Worth noting

• In those with tightly coiled hair, there is a predisposition for dry hair and increased risk for breakage.
• Treatment plans for patients with SD often include frequent hair washing. However, in those with tightly coiled hair, the treatment plan may need to be modified due to hair texture, tendency for dryness, and washing frequency preferences. Washing the scalp at least every 1 to 2 weeks may be a preferred approach for those with tightly coiled hair at increased risk for dryness/breakage vs washing daily.² In a sample of 201 caregivers of Black girls, Rucker Wright et al3 found that washing the hair more than once per week was not correlated with a lower prevalence of SD.
• If tightly coiled hair is temporarily straightened with heat (eg, blow-dryer, flat iron), adding a liquid-based treatment such as clobetasol solution or fluocinonide solution will cause the hair to revert to its normal curl pattern.
• It is appropriate to ask patients for their vehicle preference for medications.² For example, if clobetasol is the treatment selected for the patient, the vehicle can reflect patient preference for a liquid, foam, cream, or ointment.
• Some antifungal/antiyeast shampoos may cause further hair dryness and breakage.
• Treatment may be delayed because patients often use various topical pomades and ointments to cover up the scale and help with pruritus.
• Diffuse scale of tinea capitis in school-aged children can be mistaken for SD, which leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment.
• Clinicians should become comfortable with scalp examinations in patients with tightly coiled hair. Patients with chief concerns related to their hair and scalp expect their clinicians to touch these areas. Avoid leaning in to examine the patient without touching the patient’s hair and scalp.^2,4

Health disparity highlight

Seborrheic dermatitis is among the most common cutaneous disorders diagnosed in patients with skin of color.^1,5 Delay in recognition of SD in those with darker skin tones leads to delayed treatment. Seborrheic dermatitis of the face can cause notable postinflammatory pigmentation alteration. Pigmentation changes in the skin further impact quality of life.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE COMPARISON

A Seborrheic dermatitis in a woman with brown-gray greasy scale as well as petaloid papules and plaques that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

B Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, scale, and mild postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

C Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, faint scale, and postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

D Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema and scale of the eyebrows and glabellar region.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is an inflammatory condition that is thought to be part of a response to Malassezia yeast. The scalp and face are most commonly affected, particularly the nasolabial folds, eyebrows, ears, postauricular areas, and beard area. Men also may have SD on the mid upper chest in association with chest hair. In infants, the scalp and body skin folds often are affected.

Epidemiology

Seborrheic dermatitis affects patients of all ages: infants, adolescents, and adults. It is among the most common dermatologic diagnoses reported in Black patients in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in darker skin tones

• In those with darker skin tones, arcuate, polycyclic, or petaloid (flower petal–like) plaques may be present (Figure A). Also, hypopigmented patches and plaques may be prominent (Figures B and C). The classic description includes thin pink patches and plaques with white greasy scale on the face (Figure D).
• The scalp may have diffuse scale or isolated scaly plaques.

Worth noting

• In those with tightly coiled hair, there is a predisposition for dry hair and increased risk for breakage.
• Treatment plans for patients with SD often include frequent hair washing. However, in those with tightly coiled hair, the treatment plan may need to be modified due to hair texture, tendency for dryness, and washing frequency preferences. Washing the scalp at least every 1 to 2 weeks may be a preferred approach for those with tightly coiled hair at increased risk for dryness/breakage vs washing daily.² In a sample of 201 caregivers of Black girls, Rucker Wright et al3 found that washing the hair more than once per week was not correlated with a lower prevalence of SD.
• If tightly coiled hair is temporarily straightened with heat (eg, blow-dryer, flat iron), adding a liquid-based treatment such as clobetasol solution or fluocinonide solution will cause the hair to revert to its normal curl pattern.
• It is appropriate to ask patients for their vehicle preference for medications.² For example, if clobetasol is the treatment selected for the patient, the vehicle can reflect patient preference for a liquid, foam, cream, or ointment.
• Some antifungal/antiyeast shampoos may cause further hair dryness and breakage.
• Treatment may be delayed because patients often use various topical pomades and ointments to cover up the scale and help with pruritus.
• Diffuse scale of tinea capitis in school-aged children can be mistaken for SD, which leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment.
• Clinicians should become comfortable with scalp examinations in patients with tightly coiled hair. Patients with chief concerns related to their hair and scalp expect their clinicians to touch these areas. Avoid leaning in to examine the patient without touching the patient’s hair and scalp.^2,4

Health disparity highlight

Seborrheic dermatitis is among the most common cutaneous disorders diagnosed in patients with skin of color.^1,5 Delay in recognition of SD in those with darker skin tones leads to delayed treatment. Seborrheic dermatitis of the face can cause notable postinflammatory pigmentation alteration. Pigmentation changes in the skin further impact quality of life.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE COMPARISON

A Seborrheic dermatitis in a woman with brown-gray greasy scale as well as petaloid papules and plaques that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

B Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, scale, and mild postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

C Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, faint scale, and postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

D Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema and scale of the eyebrows and glabellar region.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is an inflammatory condition that is thought to be part of a response to Malassezia yeast. The scalp and face are most commonly affected, particularly the nasolabial folds, eyebrows, ears, postauricular areas, and beard area. Men also may have SD on the mid upper chest in association with chest hair. In infants, the scalp and body skin folds often are affected.

Epidemiology

Seborrheic dermatitis affects patients of all ages: infants, adolescents, and adults. It is among the most common dermatologic diagnoses reported in Black patients in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in darker skin tones

• In those with darker skin tones, arcuate, polycyclic, or petaloid (flower petal–like) plaques may be present (Figure A). Also, hypopigmented patches and plaques may be prominent (Figures B and C). The classic description includes thin pink patches and plaques with white greasy scale on the face (Figure D).
• The scalp may have diffuse scale or isolated scaly plaques.

Worth noting

• In those with tightly coiled hair, there is a predisposition for dry hair and increased risk for breakage.
• Treatment plans for patients with SD often include frequent hair washing. However, in those with tightly coiled hair, the treatment plan may need to be modified due to hair texture, tendency for dryness, and washing frequency preferences. Washing the scalp at least every 1 to 2 weeks may be a preferred approach for those with tightly coiled hair at increased risk for dryness/breakage vs washing daily.² In a sample of 201 caregivers of Black girls, Rucker Wright et al3 found that washing the hair more than once per week was not correlated with a lower prevalence of SD.
• If tightly coiled hair is temporarily straightened with heat (eg, blow-dryer, flat iron), adding a liquid-based treatment such as clobetasol solution or fluocinonide solution will cause the hair to revert to its normal curl pattern.
• It is appropriate to ask patients for their vehicle preference for medications.² For example, if clobetasol is the treatment selected for the patient, the vehicle can reflect patient preference for a liquid, foam, cream, or ointment.
• Some antifungal/antiyeast shampoos may cause further hair dryness and breakage.
• Treatment may be delayed because patients often use various topical pomades and ointments to cover up the scale and help with pruritus.
• Diffuse scale of tinea capitis in school-aged children can be mistaken for SD, which leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment.
• Clinicians should become comfortable with scalp examinations in patients with tightly coiled hair. Patients with chief concerns related to their hair and scalp expect their clinicians to touch these areas. Avoid leaning in to examine the patient without touching the patient’s hair and scalp.^2,4

Health disparity highlight

Seborrheic dermatitis is among the most common cutaneous disorders diagnosed in patients with skin of color.^1,5 Delay in recognition of SD in those with darker skin tones leads to delayed treatment. Seborrheic dermatitis of the face can cause notable postinflammatory pigmentation alteration. Pigmentation changes in the skin further impact quality of life.

Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) showed more improvement in symptoms at 6 months with risankizumab (Skyrizi) than with placebo in combined phase 3, randomized, controlled trials, according to data presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Risankizumab was well tolerated and showed no new safety signals over those seen in the trial program for psoriasis,” reported Andrew Östör, MD, of Monash University and Cabrini Hospital, both in Melbourne. The results included pooled data that added KEEPsAKE 1 data to KEEPsAKE 2 results, which were presented at the 2021 congress of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Risankizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019 for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits interleukin-23, which is believed to be involved in the development of PsA. The FDA updated its approval in August 2021 to make it available as a 150-mg single-dose injection instead of two 75-mg doses for psoriasis treatment, but it is not yet approved for PsA.

The trials included adults with active PsA, active plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis, and at least five swollen joints and five tender joints. All the participants had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), and KEEPsAKE 2 included participants who had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic therapy.

The majority of patients in both groups were taking anti-inflammatory drugs (58.8% with risankizumab vs. 62.1% with placebo) and methotrexate (60% vs. 59.1%, respectively), but a minority were taking oral glucocorticoids (18.2% with risankizumab vs. 15.6% with placebo). A small proportion in both groups were also taking a csDMARD besides methotrexate (11.9% with risankizumab vs. 11.3% with placebo).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 150 mg of subcutaneous risankizumab or placebo at baseline, 4 weeks, and 16 weeks with a double-blind protocol. The proportion of patients with 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR 20) at 24 weeks was the primary endpoint. The trial is currently continuing with all participants receiving open-label risankizumab.

The 1,407 patients initially enrolled included 707 receiving risankizumab and 700 receiving placebo across both trials, with similar baseline demographic and disease characteristics in both groups. A total of 1,354 participants completed the 24-week assessments, including 688 receiving risankizumab and 666 receiving placebo. In an intent-to-treat analysis, 55.5% of patients receiving risankizumab and 31.3% of those receiving placebo achieved ACR 20 at week 24 (P < .001). Participants who received risankizumab also had more improvement in secondary clinical and patient-reported outcomes than did those who received placebo. A quarter (25.2%) of risankizumab patients versus 10.6% of placebo patients showed minimal disease activity, and significantly more participants receiving risankizumab than placebo saw resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue.

Adverse events of any kind occurred in 45.5% of risankizumab and 43.9% of placebo participants, with similar numbers of serious adverse events (3% vs. 4.4%, respectively). One death caused by urosepsis in an 81-year-old participant with dementia occurred in the risankizumab group and was determined to be unrelated to the drug.

David Karp, MD, PhD, chief of division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and ACR president, conducted a question-and-answer session with Dr. Östör following his presentation and asked whether a difference in responses was seen between patients who had failed biologic DMARDs. Dr. Östör said the response rates were similar independent of which previous therapies the participants had failed.

Regarding where risankizumab, as an IL-23 inhibitor, fits among the options for treating PsA, Dr. Östör said “the data speaks for itself” in terms of efficacy with arthritic, musculoskeletal manifestations and the patient-reported outcomes.

“One of the major benefits of these medications is their remarkable effect on skin with psoriasis,” Dr. Östör told Dr. Karp. Regarding axial response to the drug, Dr. Östör noted the statistically significant improvement in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, appearing to show a clinical benefit with spinal inflammatory disease. Radiologic data, however, are not currently available for the trials.

Dr. Karp noted the recent findings of a phase 2a trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding risankizumab’s poor performance in patients with severe asthma, who experienced worsening symptoms sooner and more rapidly than did those who received placebo. It’s unclear whether any patients in the KEEPsAKE 1 or 2 trials had an asthma diagnosis, but any people with unstable, severe asthma would have been excluded from participation, Dr. Östör said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Östör and colleagues have a range of financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) showed more improvement in symptoms at 6 months with risankizumab (Skyrizi) than with placebo in combined phase 3, randomized, controlled trials, according to data presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Risankizumab was well tolerated and showed no new safety signals over those seen in the trial program for psoriasis,” reported Andrew Östör, MD, of Monash University and Cabrini Hospital, both in Melbourne. The results included pooled data that added KEEPsAKE 1 data to KEEPsAKE 2 results, which were presented at the 2021 congress of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Risankizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019 for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits interleukin-23, which is believed to be involved in the development of PsA. The FDA updated its approval in August 2021 to make it available as a 150-mg single-dose injection instead of two 75-mg doses for psoriasis treatment, but it is not yet approved for PsA.

The trials included adults with active PsA, active plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis, and at least five swollen joints and five tender joints. All the participants had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), and KEEPsAKE 2 included participants who had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic therapy.

The majority of patients in both groups were taking anti-inflammatory drugs (58.8% with risankizumab vs. 62.1% with placebo) and methotrexate (60% vs. 59.1%, respectively), but a minority were taking oral glucocorticoids (18.2% with risankizumab vs. 15.6% with placebo). A small proportion in both groups were also taking a csDMARD besides methotrexate (11.9% with risankizumab vs. 11.3% with placebo).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 150 mg of subcutaneous risankizumab or placebo at baseline, 4 weeks, and 16 weeks with a double-blind protocol. The proportion of patients with 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR 20) at 24 weeks was the primary endpoint. The trial is currently continuing with all participants receiving open-label risankizumab.

The 1,407 patients initially enrolled included 707 receiving risankizumab and 700 receiving placebo across both trials, with similar baseline demographic and disease characteristics in both groups. A total of 1,354 participants completed the 24-week assessments, including 688 receiving risankizumab and 666 receiving placebo. In an intent-to-treat analysis, 55.5% of patients receiving risankizumab and 31.3% of those receiving placebo achieved ACR 20 at week 24 (P < .001). Participants who received risankizumab also had more improvement in secondary clinical and patient-reported outcomes than did those who received placebo. A quarter (25.2%) of risankizumab patients versus 10.6% of placebo patients showed minimal disease activity, and significantly more participants receiving risankizumab than placebo saw resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue.

Adverse events of any kind occurred in 45.5% of risankizumab and 43.9% of placebo participants, with similar numbers of serious adverse events (3% vs. 4.4%, respectively). One death caused by urosepsis in an 81-year-old participant with dementia occurred in the risankizumab group and was determined to be unrelated to the drug.

David Karp, MD, PhD, chief of division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and ACR president, conducted a question-and-answer session with Dr. Östör following his presentation and asked whether a difference in responses was seen between patients who had failed biologic DMARDs. Dr. Östör said the response rates were similar independent of which previous therapies the participants had failed.

Regarding where risankizumab, as an IL-23 inhibitor, fits among the options for treating PsA, Dr. Östör said “the data speaks for itself” in terms of efficacy with arthritic, musculoskeletal manifestations and the patient-reported outcomes.

“One of the major benefits of these medications is their remarkable effect on skin with psoriasis,” Dr. Östör told Dr. Karp. Regarding axial response to the drug, Dr. Östör noted the statistically significant improvement in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, appearing to show a clinical benefit with spinal inflammatory disease. Radiologic data, however, are not currently available for the trials.

Dr. Karp noted the recent findings of a phase 2a trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding risankizumab’s poor performance in patients with severe asthma, who experienced worsening symptoms sooner and more rapidly than did those who received placebo. It’s unclear whether any patients in the KEEPsAKE 1 or 2 trials had an asthma diagnosis, but any people with unstable, severe asthma would have been excluded from participation, Dr. Östör said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Östör and colleagues have a range of financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) showed more improvement in symptoms at 6 months with risankizumab (Skyrizi) than with placebo in combined phase 3, randomized, controlled trials, according to data presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Risankizumab was well tolerated and showed no new safety signals over those seen in the trial program for psoriasis,” reported Andrew Östör, MD, of Monash University and Cabrini Hospital, both in Melbourne. The results included pooled data that added KEEPsAKE 1 data to KEEPsAKE 2 results, which were presented at the 2021 congress of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Risankizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019 for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The humanized monoclonal antibody inhibits interleukin-23, which is believed to be involved in the development of PsA. The FDA updated its approval in August 2021 to make it available as a 150-mg single-dose injection instead of two 75-mg doses for psoriasis treatment, but it is not yet approved for PsA.

The trials included adults with active PsA, active plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis, and at least five swollen joints and five tender joints. All the participants had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), and KEEPsAKE 2 included participants who had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic therapy.

The majority of patients in both groups were taking anti-inflammatory drugs (58.8% with risankizumab vs. 62.1% with placebo) and methotrexate (60% vs. 59.1%, respectively), but a minority were taking oral glucocorticoids (18.2% with risankizumab vs. 15.6% with placebo). A small proportion in both groups were also taking a csDMARD besides methotrexate (11.9% with risankizumab vs. 11.3% with placebo).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 150 mg of subcutaneous risankizumab or placebo at baseline, 4 weeks, and 16 weeks with a double-blind protocol. The proportion of patients with 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR 20) at 24 weeks was the primary endpoint. The trial is currently continuing with all participants receiving open-label risankizumab.

The 1,407 patients initially enrolled included 707 receiving risankizumab and 700 receiving placebo across both trials, with similar baseline demographic and disease characteristics in both groups. A total of 1,354 participants completed the 24-week assessments, including 688 receiving risankizumab and 666 receiving placebo. In an intent-to-treat analysis, 55.5% of patients receiving risankizumab and 31.3% of those receiving placebo achieved ACR 20 at week 24 (P < .001). Participants who received risankizumab also had more improvement in secondary clinical and patient-reported outcomes than did those who received placebo. A quarter (25.2%) of risankizumab patients versus 10.6% of placebo patients showed minimal disease activity, and significantly more participants receiving risankizumab than placebo saw resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue.

Adverse events of any kind occurred in 45.5% of risankizumab and 43.9% of placebo participants, with similar numbers of serious adverse events (3% vs. 4.4%, respectively). One death caused by urosepsis in an 81-year-old participant with dementia occurred in the risankizumab group and was determined to be unrelated to the drug.

David Karp, MD, PhD, chief of division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and ACR president, conducted a question-and-answer session with Dr. Östör following his presentation and asked whether a difference in responses was seen between patients who had failed biologic DMARDs. Dr. Östör said the response rates were similar independent of which previous therapies the participants had failed.

Regarding where risankizumab, as an IL-23 inhibitor, fits among the options for treating PsA, Dr. Östör said “the data speaks for itself” in terms of efficacy with arthritic, musculoskeletal manifestations and the patient-reported outcomes.

“One of the major benefits of these medications is their remarkable effect on skin with psoriasis,” Dr. Östör told Dr. Karp. Regarding axial response to the drug, Dr. Östör noted the statistically significant improvement in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, appearing to show a clinical benefit with spinal inflammatory disease. Radiologic data, however, are not currently available for the trials.

Dr. Karp noted the recent findings of a phase 2a trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding risankizumab’s poor performance in patients with severe asthma, who experienced worsening symptoms sooner and more rapidly than did those who received placebo. It’s unclear whether any patients in the KEEPsAKE 1 or 2 trials had an asthma diagnosis, but any people with unstable, severe asthma would have been excluded from participation, Dr. Östör said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Östör and colleagues have a range of financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The Diagnosis: Infantile Digital Fibromatosis

Infantile digital fibromatosis (IDF) is a rare benign neoplasm of infancy prone to recurrence after resection but not to metastasis. It usually is limited to the fingers and toes.¹ One-third of cases occur at birth. Most patients develop clinical symptoms within the first year of life, but presentation can occur in adolescents and adults. The exact etiology and pathogenesis of IDF remain unclear, but trauma is thought to be a trigger.

Physical examination reveals single or multiple smooth, round, pink papules or nodules confined to the sides and backs of the fingers, sparing the thumb and first toe.^2,3 The nodules typically are firm, less than 2 cm in diameter, and often painless. Infantile digital fibromatosis exhibits an indolent progression followed by a rapid growth phase during several months, which may lead to functional impairment and joint deformities.^4,5 Histopathology displays spindle cells with eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions that range from round to oval with uneven distribution, lack of refraction, and a large size difference (3–15 μm).6 The inclusions are deep red with Masson trichrome staining and can express smooth muscle actin and calponin. Tumor cells usually express vimentin, smooth muscle actin, calponin, and desmin but fail to express S-100 protein. The Ki67 proliferation index is 2% to 15%.^6,7

Nonsurgical treatments for IDF include topical imiquimod, topical or intradermal injection of glucocorticoids, and intradermal injection of 5-fluorouracil. Complete resection should be reserved for cases with invasive growth that may lead to joint deformities, tendon or ligament involvement, digit or contracture deformity, and complications such as decreased joint mobility. Although there is a recurrence rate of up to 50% after excision, most lesions eventually will spontaneously regress and will leave no scar.^8-10

The clinical and histopathologic differential diagnoses of IDF include other cutaneous diseases that occur in the digits. A dermatofibroma is a round, firm, fibrohistiocytic nodule that mainly occurs on the extensor limbs. Histopathology includes both fibrous and cellular types.¹¹ Histologic analysis shows an ill-defined dermal proliferation of spindled fibroblasts with pale eosinophilic cytoplasm and bland fusiform nuclei growing in bands or fascicles that trap collagen fibers at the periphery (Figure 1). Generally, dermatofibromas have marked epidermal hyperplasia, which differs from IDF.

A digital myxoid cyst is characterized by a fleshcolored, hemispherical, and translucent cystic nodule that arises from the dorsum of the distal interphalangeal joint.¹² It commonly is associated with injury and chronic pressure. Translucent viscous liquid may flow out when the cyst is punctured, a hallmark feature of this entity. Clinical variants of myxoid cyst include myxomatous and ganglion types. Histopathology reveals excessive mucin deposited in the dermis, and the surrounding collagen is compressed to form the pseudocyst (Figure 2).

A giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath presents with asymptomatic nodules or lumps. Lesions frequently are localized to the tendon sheath, especially on the fingers and wrists, with no malignant tendency or propensity for spontaneous regression.¹³ The local recurrence rate is as high as 45%, which is related to surgical resection insufficiency.¹⁴ Histopathologic examination shows lobulated tumor tissue surrounded by dense fibrosis. The tumor cells are histiocytic with scattered giant cells (Figure 3). The characteristic osteoclastlike giant cells have eosinophilic cytoplasm and irregularly arranged nuclei in varying numbers.

Keloids are connective tissue hyperplasias caused by skin injury. Histopathologically, keloids are characterized by nodules of thick hyalinized collagen bundles and whorled fibroblasts (Figure 4). No inclusions in the fibroblasts and a history of trauma can differentiate keloids from IDF.

The Diagnosis: Infantile Digital Fibromatosis

Infantile digital fibromatosis (IDF) is a rare benign neoplasm of infancy prone to recurrence after resection but not to metastasis. It usually is limited to the fingers and toes.¹ One-third of cases occur at birth. Most patients develop clinical symptoms within the first year of life, but presentation can occur in adolescents and adults. The exact etiology and pathogenesis of IDF remain unclear, but trauma is thought to be a trigger.

Physical examination reveals single or multiple smooth, round, pink papules or nodules confined to the sides and backs of the fingers, sparing the thumb and first toe.^2,3 The nodules typically are firm, less than 2 cm in diameter, and often painless. Infantile digital fibromatosis exhibits an indolent progression followed by a rapid growth phase during several months, which may lead to functional impairment and joint deformities.^4,5 Histopathology displays spindle cells with eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions that range from round to oval with uneven distribution, lack of refraction, and a large size difference (3–15 μm).6 The inclusions are deep red with Masson trichrome staining and can express smooth muscle actin and calponin. Tumor cells usually express vimentin, smooth muscle actin, calponin, and desmin but fail to express S-100 protein. The Ki67 proliferation index is 2% to 15%.^6,7

Nonsurgical treatments for IDF include topical imiquimod, topical or intradermal injection of glucocorticoids, and intradermal injection of 5-fluorouracil. Complete resection should be reserved for cases with invasive growth that may lead to joint deformities, tendon or ligament involvement, digit or contracture deformity, and complications such as decreased joint mobility. Although there is a recurrence rate of up to 50% after excision, most lesions eventually will spontaneously regress and will leave no scar.^8-10

The clinical and histopathologic differential diagnoses of IDF include other cutaneous diseases that occur in the digits. A dermatofibroma is a round, firm, fibrohistiocytic nodule that mainly occurs on the extensor limbs. Histopathology includes both fibrous and cellular types.¹¹ Histologic analysis shows an ill-defined dermal proliferation of spindled fibroblasts with pale eosinophilic cytoplasm and bland fusiform nuclei growing in bands or fascicles that trap collagen fibers at the periphery (Figure 1). Generally, dermatofibromas have marked epidermal hyperplasia, which differs from IDF.

A digital myxoid cyst is characterized by a fleshcolored, hemispherical, and translucent cystic nodule that arises from the dorsum of the distal interphalangeal joint.¹² It commonly is associated with injury and chronic pressure. Translucent viscous liquid may flow out when the cyst is punctured, a hallmark feature of this entity. Clinical variants of myxoid cyst include myxomatous and ganglion types. Histopathology reveals excessive mucin deposited in the dermis, and the surrounding collagen is compressed to form the pseudocyst (Figure 2).

A giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath presents with asymptomatic nodules or lumps. Lesions frequently are localized to the tendon sheath, especially on the fingers and wrists, with no malignant tendency or propensity for spontaneous regression.¹³ The local recurrence rate is as high as 45%, which is related to surgical resection insufficiency.¹⁴ Histopathologic examination shows lobulated tumor tissue surrounded by dense fibrosis. The tumor cells are histiocytic with scattered giant cells (Figure 3). The characteristic osteoclastlike giant cells have eosinophilic cytoplasm and irregularly arranged nuclei in varying numbers.

Keloids are connective tissue hyperplasias caused by skin injury. Histopathologically, keloids are characterized by nodules of thick hyalinized collagen bundles and whorled fibroblasts (Figure 4). No inclusions in the fibroblasts and a history of trauma can differentiate keloids from IDF.

The Diagnosis: Infantile Digital Fibromatosis

Infantile digital fibromatosis (IDF) is a rare benign neoplasm of infancy prone to recurrence after resection but not to metastasis. It usually is limited to the fingers and toes.¹ One-third of cases occur at birth. Most patients develop clinical symptoms within the first year of life, but presentation can occur in adolescents and adults. The exact etiology and pathogenesis of IDF remain unclear, but trauma is thought to be a trigger.

Physical examination reveals single or multiple smooth, round, pink papules or nodules confined to the sides and backs of the fingers, sparing the thumb and first toe.^2,3 The nodules typically are firm, less than 2 cm in diameter, and often painless. Infantile digital fibromatosis exhibits an indolent progression followed by a rapid growth phase during several months, which may lead to functional impairment and joint deformities.^4,5 Histopathology displays spindle cells with eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions that range from round to oval with uneven distribution, lack of refraction, and a large size difference (3–15 μm).6 The inclusions are deep red with Masson trichrome staining and can express smooth muscle actin and calponin. Tumor cells usually express vimentin, smooth muscle actin, calponin, and desmin but fail to express S-100 protein. The Ki67 proliferation index is 2% to 15%.^6,7

Nonsurgical treatments for IDF include topical imiquimod, topical or intradermal injection of glucocorticoids, and intradermal injection of 5-fluorouracil. Complete resection should be reserved for cases with invasive growth that may lead to joint deformities, tendon or ligament involvement, digit or contracture deformity, and complications such as decreased joint mobility. Although there is a recurrence rate of up to 50% after excision, most lesions eventually will spontaneously regress and will leave no scar.^8-10

The clinical and histopathologic differential diagnoses of IDF include other cutaneous diseases that occur in the digits. A dermatofibroma is a round, firm, fibrohistiocytic nodule that mainly occurs on the extensor limbs. Histopathology includes both fibrous and cellular types.¹¹ Histologic analysis shows an ill-defined dermal proliferation of spindled fibroblasts with pale eosinophilic cytoplasm and bland fusiform nuclei growing in bands or fascicles that trap collagen fibers at the periphery (Figure 1). Generally, dermatofibromas have marked epidermal hyperplasia, which differs from IDF.

A digital myxoid cyst is characterized by a fleshcolored, hemispherical, and translucent cystic nodule that arises from the dorsum of the distal interphalangeal joint.¹² It commonly is associated with injury and chronic pressure. Translucent viscous liquid may flow out when the cyst is punctured, a hallmark feature of this entity. Clinical variants of myxoid cyst include myxomatous and ganglion types. Histopathology reveals excessive mucin deposited in the dermis, and the surrounding collagen is compressed to form the pseudocyst (Figure 2).

A giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath presents with asymptomatic nodules or lumps. Lesions frequently are localized to the tendon sheath, especially on the fingers and wrists, with no malignant tendency or propensity for spontaneous regression.¹³ The local recurrence rate is as high as 45%, which is related to surgical resection insufficiency.¹⁴ Histopathologic examination shows lobulated tumor tissue surrounded by dense fibrosis. The tumor cells are histiocytic with scattered giant cells (Figure 3). The characteristic osteoclastlike giant cells have eosinophilic cytoplasm and irregularly arranged nuclei in varying numbers.

Keloids are connective tissue hyperplasias caused by skin injury. Histopathologically, keloids are characterized by nodules of thick hyalinized collagen bundles and whorled fibroblasts (Figure 4). No inclusions in the fibroblasts and a history of trauma can differentiate keloids from IDF.

Topical medications frequently are prescribed in dermatology and provide the advantages of direct skin penetration and targeted application while typically sparing patients from systemic effects. Adverse cutaneous effects include allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), photosensitivity, urticaria, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, atrophy, periorificial dermatitis, and acneform eruptions. Allergic contact dermatitis can develop from the active drug or vehicle components.

Patients with medicament ACD often present with symptoms of pruritus and dermatitis at the site of topical application. They may express concern that the medication is no longer working or seems to be making things worse. Certain sites are more prone to developing medicament dermatitis, including the face, groin, and lower legs. Older adults may be more at risk. Other risk factors include pre-existing skin diseases such as stasis dermatitis, acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and genital dermatoses.¹ A review of 14,911 patch-tested patients from a single referral clinic revealed that 17.4% had iatrogenic contact dermatitis, with the most common culprits being topical antibiotics, antiseptics, and steroids.²

In this 2-part series, we will focus on the active drug as a source of ACD. Part 1 explores ACD associated with acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations.

Acne and Rosacea Medications

Retinoids—Topical retinoids are first-line acne treatments that help normalize skin keratinization. Irritant contact dermatitis from retinoids is a well-known and common side effect. Although far less common than ICD, ACD from topical retinoid use has been reported.^3,4 Reactions to tretinoin are most frequently reported in the literature compared to adapalene gel⁵ and tazarotene foam, which have lower potential for sensitization.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis also has been reported from retinyl palmitate^7,8 in cosmetic creams and from occupational exposure in settings of industrial vitamin A production.⁹ Both ICD and ACD from topical retinoids can present with pruritus, erythema, and scaling. Given this clinical overlap between ACD and ICD, patch testing is crucial in differentiating the underlying etiology of the dermatitis.

Benzoyl Peroxide—Benzoyl peroxide (BP) is another popular topical acne treatment that targets Cutibacterium acnes, a bacterium often implicated in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Similar to retinoids, ICD is more common than ACD. Several cases of ACD to BP have been reported.^10-14 Occasionally, honey-colored crusting associated with ACD to BP can mimic impetigo.¹⁰ Aside from use of BP as an acne treatment, other potential exposures to BP include bleached flour¹³ and orthopedic bone cement. Occupations at risk for potential BP exposure include dental technicians¹⁵ and those working in plastic manufacturing.

Brimonidine—Brimonidine tartrate is a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist initially used to treat open-angle glaucoma and also is used as a topical treatment for rosacea. Allergic reactions to brimonidine eye drops may present with periorbital hyperpigmentation and pruritic bullous lesions.¹⁶ Case reports of topical brimonidine ACD have demonstrated mixed patch test results, with positive patch tests to Mirvaso (Galderma) as is but negative patch tests to pure brimonidine tartrate 0.33%.^17,18 Ringuet and Houle¹⁹ reported the first known positive patch test reaction to pure topical brimonidine, testing with brimonidine tartrate 1% in petrolatum.^20,21 Clinicians should be attuned to ACD to topical brimonidine in patients previously treated for glaucoma, as prior use of ophthalmic preparations may result in sensitization.^18,20

Antimicrobials

Clindamycin—Clindamycin targets bacterial protein synthesis and is an effective adjunct in the treatment of acne. Despite its widespread and often long-term use, topical clindamycin is a weak sensitizer.²² To date, limited case reports on ACD to topical clindamycin exist.^23-28 Rare clinical patterns of ACD to clindamycin include mimickers of irritant retinoid dermatitis, erythema multiforme, or pustular rosacea.^25,26,29

Metronidazole—Metronidazole is a bactericidal agent that disrupts nucleic acid synthesis with additional anti-inflammatory properties used in the treatment of rosacea. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole has been reported.^30-34 In 2006, Beutner at al³⁵ patch tested 215 patients using metronidazole gel 1%, which revealed no positive reactions to indicate contact sensitization. Similarly, Jappe et al³⁶ found no positive reactions to metronidazole 2% in petrolatum in their prospective analysis of 78 rosacea patients, further highlighting the exceptionally low incidence of ACD. Cross-reaction with isothiazolinone, which shares structurally similar properties to metronidazole, has been speculated.^31,34 One patient developed an acute reaction to metronidazole gel 0.75% within 24 hours of application, suggesting that isothiazolinone may act as a sensitizer, though this relationship has not been proven.³¹

Neomycin—Neomycin blocks bacterial protein synthesis and is available in both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) formulations. It commonly is used to treat and prevent superficial wound infections as an OTC antibiotic and also has otic, ophthalmologic, gastroenterologic, urologic, and peritoneal formulations. It also can be used in the dental and veterinary fields and is present in some animal feeds and in trace amounts in some vaccines for humans. Neomycin is a common antibiotic contact allergen, and the most recently reported 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle placed it at number 12 with 5.4% positivity.³⁷ Co-reactions with bacitracin can occur, substantially limiting OTC topical antibiotic options for allergic patients. A safe alternative for patients with neomycin (and bacitracin and polymyxin) contact allergy is prescription mupirocin.

Bacitracin—Bacitracin interferes with peptidoglycan and cell-wall synthesis to treat superficial cutaneous infections. Similar to neomycin, it also can be found in OTC antibiotic ointments as well as in antibacterial bandages. There are several case reports of patients with both type IV delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) and type I anaphylactic reactions to bacitracin^38-40; patch testers should be aware of this rare association. Bacitracin was positive in 5.5% of patch tested patients in the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle,³⁷ and as with neomycin, bacitracin also is commonly patch tested in most screening patch test series.

Polymyxin—Polymyxin is a polypeptide topical antibiotic that is used to treat superficial wound infections and can be used in combination with neomycin and/or bacitracin. Historically, it is a less common antibiotic allergen; however, it is now frequently included in comprehensive patch test series, as the frequency of positive reactions seems to be increasing, probably due to polysensitization with neomycin and bacitracin.

Nystatin—Nystatin is an antifungal that binds to ergosterol and disrupts the cell wall. Cases exist of ACD to topical nystatin as well as systemic ACD from oral exposure, though both are quite rare. Authors have surmised that the overall low rates of ACD may be due to poor skin absorption of nystatin, which also can confound patch testing.^41,42 For patients with suspected ACD to nystatin, repeat open application testing also can be performed to confirm allergy.

Imidazole Antifungals—Similar to nystatins, imidazole antifungals also work by disrupting the fungal cell wall. Imidazole antifungal preparations that have been reported to cause ACD include clotrimazole, miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole, and although cross-reactivity patterns have been described, they are not always reproducible with patch testing.⁴³ In one reported case, tioconazole found in an antifungal nail lacquer triggered ACD involving not only the fingers and toes but also the trunk.⁴⁴ Erythema multiforme–like reactions also have been described from topical use.⁴⁵ Commercial patch test preparations of the most common imidazole allergens do exist. Nonimidazole antifungals remain a safe option for allergic patients.

Antihistamines

Antihistamines, or H1-receptor antagonists, are marketed to be applied topically for relief of pruritus associated with allergic cutaneous reactions. Ironically, they are known to be potent sensitizers themselves. There are 6 main chemical classes of antihistamines: phenothiazines, ethylenediamines, ethanolamines, alkylamines, piperazines, and piperidines. Goossens and Linsen⁴⁶ patch tested 12,460 patients from 1978 to 1997 and found the most positive reactions to promethazine (phenothiazine)(n=12), followed by diphenhydramine (ethanolamine)(n=8) and clemizole (benzimidazole)(n=6). The authors also noted cross-reactions between diphenhydramine derivatives and between promethazine and chlorpromazine.⁴⁶

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant with antihistamine activity and is a well-documented sensitizer.^47-52 Taylor et al⁴⁷ evaluated 97 patients with chronic dermatoses, and patch testing revealed 17 (17.5%) positive reactions to doxepin cream, 13 (76.5%) of which were positive reactions to both the commercial cream and the active ingredient. Patch testing using doxepin dilution as low as 0.5% in petrolatum is sufficient to provoke a strong (++) allergic reaction.^50,51 Early-onset ACD following the use of doxepin cream suggests the possibility of prior sensitization, perhaps with a structurally similar phenothiazine drug.⁵¹ A keen suspicion for ACD in patients using doxepin cream for longer than the recommended duration can help make the diagnosis.^49,52

Topical Analgesics

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs—Ketoprofen is one of the most frequent culprits of photoallergic contact dermatitis. Pruritic, papulovesicular, and bullous lesions typically develop acutely weeks after exposure. Prolonged photosensitivity is common and can last years after discontinuation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁵³ Cases of cross-reactions and co-sensitization to structurally similar substances have been reported, including to benzophenone-related chemicals in sunscreen and aldehyde groups in fragrance mix.^53,54

Diclofenac gel generally is well tolerated in the topical treatment of joint pain and inflammation. In the setting of ACD, patients typically present with dermatitis localized to the area of application.⁵⁵ Immediate cessation and avoidance of topical diclofenac are crucial components of management. Although systemic contact dermatitis has been reported with oral diclofenac use,⁵⁶ a recent report suggested that oral diclofenac may be well tolerated for some patients with topical ACD.⁵⁷

Publications on bufexamac-induced ACD mainly consist of international reports, as this medication has been discontinued in the United States. Bufexamac is a highly sensitizing agent that can lead to severe polymorphic eruptions requiring treatment with prednisolone and even hospitalization.⁵⁸ In one Australian case report, a mother developed an edematous, erythematous, papulovesicular eruption on the breast while breastfeeding her baby, who was being treated with bufexamac cream 5% for infantile eczema.⁵⁹ Carprofen-induced photoallergic contact dermatitis is associated with occupational exposure in pharmaceutical workers.^60,61 A few case reports on other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including etofenamate and aceclofenac, have been published.^62,63

Compounded Medications—Compounded topical analgesics, which help to control pain via multiple combined effects, have gained increasing popularity in the management of chronic neuropathic pain disorders. Only a few recent retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of these medications have mentioned suspected allergic cutaneous reactions.^62,63 In 2015, Turrentine et al⁶⁴ reported a case of ACD to cyclobenzaprine in a compound containing ketamine 10%, diclofenac 5%, baclofen 2%, bupivacaine 1%, cyclobenzaprine 2%, gabapentin 6%, ibuprofen 3%, and pentoxifylline 3% in a proprietary cream base. When patients present with suspected ACD to a compounded pain medication, obtaining individual components for patch testing is key to determining the allergic ingredient(s). We suspect that we will see a rise in reports of ACD as these topical compounds become readily adopted in clinical practices.

Patch Testing for Diagnosis

When patients present with symptoms concerning for ACD to medicaments, the astute clinician should promptly stop the suspected topical medication and consider patch testing. For common allergens such as neomycin, bacitracin, or ethylenediamine, commercial patch test preparations exist and should be used; however, for drugs that do not have a commercial patch test preparation, the patient’s product can be applied as is, keeping in mind that certain preparations (such as retinoids) can cause irritant patch test reactions, which may confound the reading. Alternatively, individual ingredients in the medication’s formulation can be requested from the manufacturer or a compounding pharmacy for targeted testing. Suggested concentrations for patch testing based on the literature and expert reference are listed in the Table. The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) frequently rely on an expert reference⁶⁶ to determine ideal concentrations for patch testing. Referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be appropriate.

Final Interpretation

Although their intent is to heal, topical medicaments also can be a source of ACD. The astute clinician should consider ACD when topicals either no longer seem to help the patient or trigger new-onset dermatitis. Patch testing directly with the culprit medicament, or individual medication ingredients when needed, can lead to the diagnosis, though caution is advised. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will discuss ACD to topical steroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetic medications.

Topical medications frequently are prescribed in dermatology and provide the advantages of direct skin penetration and targeted application while typically sparing patients from systemic effects. Adverse cutaneous effects include allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), photosensitivity, urticaria, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, atrophy, periorificial dermatitis, and acneform eruptions. Allergic contact dermatitis can develop from the active drug or vehicle components.

Patients with medicament ACD often present with symptoms of pruritus and dermatitis at the site of topical application. They may express concern that the medication is no longer working or seems to be making things worse. Certain sites are more prone to developing medicament dermatitis, including the face, groin, and lower legs. Older adults may be more at risk. Other risk factors include pre-existing skin diseases such as stasis dermatitis, acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and genital dermatoses.¹ A review of 14,911 patch-tested patients from a single referral clinic revealed that 17.4% had iatrogenic contact dermatitis, with the most common culprits being topical antibiotics, antiseptics, and steroids.²

In this 2-part series, we will focus on the active drug as a source of ACD. Part 1 explores ACD associated with acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations.

Acne and Rosacea Medications

Retinoids—Topical retinoids are first-line acne treatments that help normalize skin keratinization. Irritant contact dermatitis from retinoids is a well-known and common side effect. Although far less common than ICD, ACD from topical retinoid use has been reported.^3,4 Reactions to tretinoin are most frequently reported in the literature compared to adapalene gel⁵ and tazarotene foam, which have lower potential for sensitization.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis also has been reported from retinyl palmitate^7,8 in cosmetic creams and from occupational exposure in settings of industrial vitamin A production.⁹ Both ICD and ACD from topical retinoids can present with pruritus, erythema, and scaling. Given this clinical overlap between ACD and ICD, patch testing is crucial in differentiating the underlying etiology of the dermatitis.

Benzoyl Peroxide—Benzoyl peroxide (BP) is another popular topical acne treatment that targets Cutibacterium acnes, a bacterium often implicated in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Similar to retinoids, ICD is more common than ACD. Several cases of ACD to BP have been reported.^10-14 Occasionally, honey-colored crusting associated with ACD to BP can mimic impetigo.¹⁰ Aside from use of BP as an acne treatment, other potential exposures to BP include bleached flour¹³ and orthopedic bone cement. Occupations at risk for potential BP exposure include dental technicians¹⁵ and those working in plastic manufacturing.

Brimonidine—Brimonidine tartrate is a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist initially used to treat open-angle glaucoma and also is used as a topical treatment for rosacea. Allergic reactions to brimonidine eye drops may present with periorbital hyperpigmentation and pruritic bullous lesions.¹⁶ Case reports of topical brimonidine ACD have demonstrated mixed patch test results, with positive patch tests to Mirvaso (Galderma) as is but negative patch tests to pure brimonidine tartrate 0.33%.^17,18 Ringuet and Houle¹⁹ reported the first known positive patch test reaction to pure topical brimonidine, testing with brimonidine tartrate 1% in petrolatum.^20,21 Clinicians should be attuned to ACD to topical brimonidine in patients previously treated for glaucoma, as prior use of ophthalmic preparations may result in sensitization.^18,20

Antimicrobials

Clindamycin—Clindamycin targets bacterial protein synthesis and is an effective adjunct in the treatment of acne. Despite its widespread and often long-term use, topical clindamycin is a weak sensitizer.²² To date, limited case reports on ACD to topical clindamycin exist.^23-28 Rare clinical patterns of ACD to clindamycin include mimickers of irritant retinoid dermatitis, erythema multiforme, or pustular rosacea.^25,26,29

Metronidazole—Metronidazole is a bactericidal agent that disrupts nucleic acid synthesis with additional anti-inflammatory properties used in the treatment of rosacea. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole has been reported.^30-34 In 2006, Beutner at al³⁵ patch tested 215 patients using metronidazole gel 1%, which revealed no positive reactions to indicate contact sensitization. Similarly, Jappe et al³⁶ found no positive reactions to metronidazole 2% in petrolatum in their prospective analysis of 78 rosacea patients, further highlighting the exceptionally low incidence of ACD. Cross-reaction with isothiazolinone, which shares structurally similar properties to metronidazole, has been speculated.^31,34 One patient developed an acute reaction to metronidazole gel 0.75% within 24 hours of application, suggesting that isothiazolinone may act as a sensitizer, though this relationship has not been proven.³¹

Neomycin—Neomycin blocks bacterial protein synthesis and is available in both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) formulations. It commonly is used to treat and prevent superficial wound infections as an OTC antibiotic and also has otic, ophthalmologic, gastroenterologic, urologic, and peritoneal formulations. It also can be used in the dental and veterinary fields and is present in some animal feeds and in trace amounts in some vaccines for humans. Neomycin is a common antibiotic contact allergen, and the most recently reported 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle placed it at number 12 with 5.4% positivity.³⁷ Co-reactions with bacitracin can occur, substantially limiting OTC topical antibiotic options for allergic patients. A safe alternative for patients with neomycin (and bacitracin and polymyxin) contact allergy is prescription mupirocin.

Bacitracin—Bacitracin interferes with peptidoglycan and cell-wall synthesis to treat superficial cutaneous infections. Similar to neomycin, it also can be found in OTC antibiotic ointments as well as in antibacterial bandages. There are several case reports of patients with both type IV delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) and type I anaphylactic reactions to bacitracin^38-40; patch testers should be aware of this rare association. Bacitracin was positive in 5.5% of patch tested patients in the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle,³⁷ and as with neomycin, bacitracin also is commonly patch tested in most screening patch test series.

Polymyxin—Polymyxin is a polypeptide topical antibiotic that is used to treat superficial wound infections and can be used in combination with neomycin and/or bacitracin. Historically, it is a less common antibiotic allergen; however, it is now frequently included in comprehensive patch test series, as the frequency of positive reactions seems to be increasing, probably due to polysensitization with neomycin and bacitracin.

Nystatin—Nystatin is an antifungal that binds to ergosterol and disrupts the cell wall. Cases exist of ACD to topical nystatin as well as systemic ACD from oral exposure, though both are quite rare. Authors have surmised that the overall low rates of ACD may be due to poor skin absorption of nystatin, which also can confound patch testing.^41,42 For patients with suspected ACD to nystatin, repeat open application testing also can be performed to confirm allergy.

Imidazole Antifungals—Similar to nystatins, imidazole antifungals also work by disrupting the fungal cell wall. Imidazole antifungal preparations that have been reported to cause ACD include clotrimazole, miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole, and although cross-reactivity patterns have been described, they are not always reproducible with patch testing.⁴³ In one reported case, tioconazole found in an antifungal nail lacquer triggered ACD involving not only the fingers and toes but also the trunk.⁴⁴ Erythema multiforme–like reactions also have been described from topical use.⁴⁵ Commercial patch test preparations of the most common imidazole allergens do exist. Nonimidazole antifungals remain a safe option for allergic patients.

Antihistamines

Antihistamines, or H1-receptor antagonists, are marketed to be applied topically for relief of pruritus associated with allergic cutaneous reactions. Ironically, they are known to be potent sensitizers themselves. There are 6 main chemical classes of antihistamines: phenothiazines, ethylenediamines, ethanolamines, alkylamines, piperazines, and piperidines. Goossens and Linsen⁴⁶ patch tested 12,460 patients from 1978 to 1997 and found the most positive reactions to promethazine (phenothiazine)(n=12), followed by diphenhydramine (ethanolamine)(n=8) and clemizole (benzimidazole)(n=6). The authors also noted cross-reactions between diphenhydramine derivatives and between promethazine and chlorpromazine.⁴⁶

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant with antihistamine activity and is a well-documented sensitizer.^47-52 Taylor et al⁴⁷ evaluated 97 patients with chronic dermatoses, and patch testing revealed 17 (17.5%) positive reactions to doxepin cream, 13 (76.5%) of which were positive reactions to both the commercial cream and the active ingredient. Patch testing using doxepin dilution as low as 0.5% in petrolatum is sufficient to provoke a strong (++) allergic reaction.^50,51 Early-onset ACD following the use of doxepin cream suggests the possibility of prior sensitization, perhaps with a structurally similar phenothiazine drug.⁵¹ A keen suspicion for ACD in patients using doxepin cream for longer than the recommended duration can help make the diagnosis.^49,52

Topical Analgesics

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs—Ketoprofen is one of the most frequent culprits of photoallergic contact dermatitis. Pruritic, papulovesicular, and bullous lesions typically develop acutely weeks after exposure. Prolonged photosensitivity is common and can last years after discontinuation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁵³ Cases of cross-reactions and co-sensitization to structurally similar substances have been reported, including to benzophenone-related chemicals in sunscreen and aldehyde groups in fragrance mix.^53,54

Diclofenac gel generally is well tolerated in the topical treatment of joint pain and inflammation. In the setting of ACD, patients typically present with dermatitis localized to the area of application.⁵⁵ Immediate cessation and avoidance of topical diclofenac are crucial components of management. Although systemic contact dermatitis has been reported with oral diclofenac use,⁵⁶ a recent report suggested that oral diclofenac may be well tolerated for some patients with topical ACD.⁵⁷

Publications on bufexamac-induced ACD mainly consist of international reports, as this medication has been discontinued in the United States. Bufexamac is a highly sensitizing agent that can lead to severe polymorphic eruptions requiring treatment with prednisolone and even hospitalization.⁵⁸ In one Australian case report, a mother developed an edematous, erythematous, papulovesicular eruption on the breast while breastfeeding her baby, who was being treated with bufexamac cream 5% for infantile eczema.⁵⁹ Carprofen-induced photoallergic contact dermatitis is associated with occupational exposure in pharmaceutical workers.^60,61 A few case reports on other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including etofenamate and aceclofenac, have been published.^62,63

Compounded Medications—Compounded topical analgesics, which help to control pain via multiple combined effects, have gained increasing popularity in the management of chronic neuropathic pain disorders. Only a few recent retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of these medications have mentioned suspected allergic cutaneous reactions.^62,63 In 2015, Turrentine et al⁶⁴ reported a case of ACD to cyclobenzaprine in a compound containing ketamine 10%, diclofenac 5%, baclofen 2%, bupivacaine 1%, cyclobenzaprine 2%, gabapentin 6%, ibuprofen 3%, and pentoxifylline 3% in a proprietary cream base. When patients present with suspected ACD to a compounded pain medication, obtaining individual components for patch testing is key to determining the allergic ingredient(s). We suspect that we will see a rise in reports of ACD as these topical compounds become readily adopted in clinical practices.

Patch Testing for Diagnosis

When patients present with symptoms concerning for ACD to medicaments, the astute clinician should promptly stop the suspected topical medication and consider patch testing. For common allergens such as neomycin, bacitracin, or ethylenediamine, commercial patch test preparations exist and should be used; however, for drugs that do not have a commercial patch test preparation, the patient’s product can be applied as is, keeping in mind that certain preparations (such as retinoids) can cause irritant patch test reactions, which may confound the reading. Alternatively, individual ingredients in the medication’s formulation can be requested from the manufacturer or a compounding pharmacy for targeted testing. Suggested concentrations for patch testing based on the literature and expert reference are listed in the Table. The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) frequently rely on an expert reference⁶⁶ to determine ideal concentrations for patch testing. Referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be appropriate.

Final Interpretation

Although their intent is to heal, topical medicaments also can be a source of ACD. The astute clinician should consider ACD when topicals either no longer seem to help the patient or trigger new-onset dermatitis. Patch testing directly with the culprit medicament, or individual medication ingredients when needed, can lead to the diagnosis, though caution is advised. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will discuss ACD to topical steroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetic medications.

Topical medications frequently are prescribed in dermatology and provide the advantages of direct skin penetration and targeted application while typically sparing patients from systemic effects. Adverse cutaneous effects include allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), photosensitivity, urticaria, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation, atrophy, periorificial dermatitis, and acneform eruptions. Allergic contact dermatitis can develop from the active drug or vehicle components.

Patients with medicament ACD often present with symptoms of pruritus and dermatitis at the site of topical application. They may express concern that the medication is no longer working or seems to be making things worse. Certain sites are more prone to developing medicament dermatitis, including the face, groin, and lower legs. Older adults may be more at risk. Other risk factors include pre-existing skin diseases such as stasis dermatitis, acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and genital dermatoses.¹ A review of 14,911 patch-tested patients from a single referral clinic revealed that 17.4% had iatrogenic contact dermatitis, with the most common culprits being topical antibiotics, antiseptics, and steroids.²

In this 2-part series, we will focus on the active drug as a source of ACD. Part 1 explores ACD associated with acne and rosacea medications, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and topical pain preparations.

Acne and Rosacea Medications

Retinoids—Topical retinoids are first-line acne treatments that help normalize skin keratinization. Irritant contact dermatitis from retinoids is a well-known and common side effect. Although far less common than ICD, ACD from topical retinoid use has been reported.^3,4 Reactions to tretinoin are most frequently reported in the literature compared to adapalene gel⁵ and tazarotene foam, which have lower potential for sensitization.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis also has been reported from retinyl palmitate^7,8 in cosmetic creams and from occupational exposure in settings of industrial vitamin A production.⁹ Both ICD and ACD from topical retinoids can present with pruritus, erythema, and scaling. Given this clinical overlap between ACD and ICD, patch testing is crucial in differentiating the underlying etiology of the dermatitis.

Benzoyl Peroxide—Benzoyl peroxide (BP) is another popular topical acne treatment that targets Cutibacterium acnes, a bacterium often implicated in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Similar to retinoids, ICD is more common than ACD. Several cases of ACD to BP have been reported.^10-14 Occasionally, honey-colored crusting associated with ACD to BP can mimic impetigo.¹⁰ Aside from use of BP as an acne treatment, other potential exposures to BP include bleached flour¹³ and orthopedic bone cement. Occupations at risk for potential BP exposure include dental technicians¹⁵ and those working in plastic manufacturing.

Brimonidine—Brimonidine tartrate is a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist initially used to treat open-angle glaucoma and also is used as a topical treatment for rosacea. Allergic reactions to brimonidine eye drops may present with periorbital hyperpigmentation and pruritic bullous lesions.¹⁶ Case reports of topical brimonidine ACD have demonstrated mixed patch test results, with positive patch tests to Mirvaso (Galderma) as is but negative patch tests to pure brimonidine tartrate 0.33%.^17,18 Ringuet and Houle¹⁹ reported the first known positive patch test reaction to pure topical brimonidine, testing with brimonidine tartrate 1% in petrolatum.^20,21 Clinicians should be attuned to ACD to topical brimonidine in patients previously treated for glaucoma, as prior use of ophthalmic preparations may result in sensitization.^18,20

Antimicrobials

Clindamycin—Clindamycin targets bacterial protein synthesis and is an effective adjunct in the treatment of acne. Despite its widespread and often long-term use, topical clindamycin is a weak sensitizer.²² To date, limited case reports on ACD to topical clindamycin exist.^23-28 Rare clinical patterns of ACD to clindamycin include mimickers of irritant retinoid dermatitis, erythema multiforme, or pustular rosacea.^25,26,29

Metronidazole—Metronidazole is a bactericidal agent that disrupts nucleic acid synthesis with additional anti-inflammatory properties used in the treatment of rosacea. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical metronidazole has been reported.^30-34 In 2006, Beutner at al³⁵ patch tested 215 patients using metronidazole gel 1%, which revealed no positive reactions to indicate contact sensitization. Similarly, Jappe et al³⁶ found no positive reactions to metronidazole 2% in petrolatum in their prospective analysis of 78 rosacea patients, further highlighting the exceptionally low incidence of ACD. Cross-reaction with isothiazolinone, which shares structurally similar properties to metronidazole, has been speculated.^31,34 One patient developed an acute reaction to metronidazole gel 0.75% within 24 hours of application, suggesting that isothiazolinone may act as a sensitizer, though this relationship has not been proven.³¹

Neomycin—Neomycin blocks bacterial protein synthesis and is available in both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) formulations. It commonly is used to treat and prevent superficial wound infections as an OTC antibiotic and also has otic, ophthalmologic, gastroenterologic, urologic, and peritoneal formulations. It also can be used in the dental and veterinary fields and is present in some animal feeds and in trace amounts in some vaccines for humans. Neomycin is a common antibiotic contact allergen, and the most recently reported 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle placed it at number 12 with 5.4% positivity.³⁷ Co-reactions with bacitracin can occur, substantially limiting OTC topical antibiotic options for allergic patients. A safe alternative for patients with neomycin (and bacitracin and polymyxin) contact allergy is prescription mupirocin.

Bacitracin—Bacitracin interferes with peptidoglycan and cell-wall synthesis to treat superficial cutaneous infections. Similar to neomycin, it also can be found in OTC antibiotic ointments as well as in antibacterial bandages. There are several case reports of patients with both type IV delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) and type I anaphylactic reactions to bacitracin^38-40; patch testers should be aware of this rare association. Bacitracin was positive in 5.5% of patch tested patients in the 2017-2018 North American Contact Dermatitis Group data cycle,³⁷ and as with neomycin, bacitracin also is commonly patch tested in most screening patch test series.

Polymyxin—Polymyxin is a polypeptide topical antibiotic that is used to treat superficial wound infections and can be used in combination with neomycin and/or bacitracin. Historically, it is a less common antibiotic allergen; however, it is now frequently included in comprehensive patch test series, as the frequency of positive reactions seems to be increasing, probably due to polysensitization with neomycin and bacitracin.

Nystatin—Nystatin is an antifungal that binds to ergosterol and disrupts the cell wall. Cases exist of ACD to topical nystatin as well as systemic ACD from oral exposure, though both are quite rare. Authors have surmised that the overall low rates of ACD may be due to poor skin absorption of nystatin, which also can confound patch testing.^41,42 For patients with suspected ACD to nystatin, repeat open application testing also can be performed to confirm allergy.

Imidazole Antifungals—Similar to nystatins, imidazole antifungals also work by disrupting the fungal cell wall. Imidazole antifungal preparations that have been reported to cause ACD include clotrimazole, miconazole, econazole, and isoconazole, and although cross-reactivity patterns have been described, they are not always reproducible with patch testing.⁴³ In one reported case, tioconazole found in an antifungal nail lacquer triggered ACD involving not only the fingers and toes but also the trunk.⁴⁴ Erythema multiforme–like reactions also have been described from topical use.⁴⁵ Commercial patch test preparations of the most common imidazole allergens do exist. Nonimidazole antifungals remain a safe option for allergic patients.

Antihistamines

Antihistamines, or H1-receptor antagonists, are marketed to be applied topically for relief of pruritus associated with allergic cutaneous reactions. Ironically, they are known to be potent sensitizers themselves. There are 6 main chemical classes of antihistamines: phenothiazines, ethylenediamines, ethanolamines, alkylamines, piperazines, and piperidines. Goossens and Linsen⁴⁶ patch tested 12,460 patients from 1978 to 1997 and found the most positive reactions to promethazine (phenothiazine)(n=12), followed by diphenhydramine (ethanolamine)(n=8) and clemizole (benzimidazole)(n=6). The authors also noted cross-reactions between diphenhydramine derivatives and between promethazine and chlorpromazine.⁴⁶

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant with antihistamine activity and is a well-documented sensitizer.^47-52 Taylor et al⁴⁷ evaluated 97 patients with chronic dermatoses, and patch testing revealed 17 (17.5%) positive reactions to doxepin cream, 13 (76.5%) of which were positive reactions to both the commercial cream and the active ingredient. Patch testing using doxepin dilution as low as 0.5% in petrolatum is sufficient to provoke a strong (++) allergic reaction.^50,51 Early-onset ACD following the use of doxepin cream suggests the possibility of prior sensitization, perhaps with a structurally similar phenothiazine drug.⁵¹ A keen suspicion for ACD in patients using doxepin cream for longer than the recommended duration can help make the diagnosis.^49,52

Topical Analgesics

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs—Ketoprofen is one of the most frequent culprits of photoallergic contact dermatitis. Pruritic, papulovesicular, and bullous lesions typically develop acutely weeks after exposure. Prolonged photosensitivity is common and can last years after discontinuation of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.⁵³ Cases of cross-reactions and co-sensitization to structurally similar substances have been reported, including to benzophenone-related chemicals in sunscreen and aldehyde groups in fragrance mix.^53,54

Diclofenac gel generally is well tolerated in the topical treatment of joint pain and inflammation. In the setting of ACD, patients typically present with dermatitis localized to the area of application.⁵⁵ Immediate cessation and avoidance of topical diclofenac are crucial components of management. Although systemic contact dermatitis has been reported with oral diclofenac use,⁵⁶ a recent report suggested that oral diclofenac may be well tolerated for some patients with topical ACD.⁵⁷

Publications on bufexamac-induced ACD mainly consist of international reports, as this medication has been discontinued in the United States. Bufexamac is a highly sensitizing agent that can lead to severe polymorphic eruptions requiring treatment with prednisolone and even hospitalization.⁵⁸ In one Australian case report, a mother developed an edematous, erythematous, papulovesicular eruption on the breast while breastfeeding her baby, who was being treated with bufexamac cream 5% for infantile eczema.⁵⁹ Carprofen-induced photoallergic contact dermatitis is associated with occupational exposure in pharmaceutical workers.^60,61 A few case reports on other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including etofenamate and aceclofenac, have been published.^62,63

Compounded Medications—Compounded topical analgesics, which help to control pain via multiple combined effects, have gained increasing popularity in the management of chronic neuropathic pain disorders. Only a few recent retrospective studies assessing the efficacy and safety of these medications have mentioned suspected allergic cutaneous reactions.^62,63 In 2015, Turrentine et al⁶⁴ reported a case of ACD to cyclobenzaprine in a compound containing ketamine 10%, diclofenac 5%, baclofen 2%, bupivacaine 1%, cyclobenzaprine 2%, gabapentin 6%, ibuprofen 3%, and pentoxifylline 3% in a proprietary cream base. When patients present with suspected ACD to a compounded pain medication, obtaining individual components for patch testing is key to determining the allergic ingredient(s). We suspect that we will see a rise in reports of ACD as these topical compounds become readily adopted in clinical practices.

Patch Testing for Diagnosis

When patients present with symptoms concerning for ACD to medicaments, the astute clinician should promptly stop the suspected topical medication and consider patch testing. For common allergens such as neomycin, bacitracin, or ethylenediamine, commercial patch test preparations exist and should be used; however, for drugs that do not have a commercial patch test preparation, the patient’s product can be applied as is, keeping in mind that certain preparations (such as retinoids) can cause irritant patch test reactions, which may confound the reading. Alternatively, individual ingredients in the medication’s formulation can be requested from the manufacturer or a compounding pharmacy for targeted testing. Suggested concentrations for patch testing based on the literature and expert reference are listed in the Table. The authors (M.R., A.R.A.) frequently rely on an expert reference⁶⁶ to determine ideal concentrations for patch testing. Referral to a specialized patch test clinic may be appropriate.

Final Interpretation

Although their intent is to heal, topical medicaments also can be a source of ACD. The astute clinician should consider ACD when topicals either no longer seem to help the patient or trigger new-onset dermatitis. Patch testing directly with the culprit medicament, or individual medication ingredients when needed, can lead to the diagnosis, though caution is advised. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will discuss ACD to topical steroids, immunomodulators, and anesthetic medications.