Wounds

With the growing popularity of water sports and a proliferation of invasive species, human injuries from marine animal envenomation continue to rise.^1-3 Members of the scorpionfish family Scorpaenidae are second only to stingrays as the leading cause of the 40,000 to 50,000 injuries annually from marine life worldwide.⁴ Because scorpionfish represent a growing threat and competition with native species, it has been suggested that they could replace endangered species on restaurant menus.^5-8 Scorpionfish have been introduced by humans from tropical to temperate seas and are now common off the coast of California and the eastern coast from New York to Florida, as well as in the Caribbean, the Bahamas, and off the southern coast of Brazil. Victims of scorpionfish stings experience considerable pain and may require days to weeks to fully recover, highlighting the socioeconomic costs and burden of scorpionfish envenomation.^9,10 Fishers, divers, swimmers, and aquarium owners are most often affected.

Family

The common term scorpionfish refers to both the family Scorpaenidae and the genus Scorpaena. Members of this family possess similar dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins, though they vary between genera in their size and the potency of the venom they insulate. Other familiar members include the genus Pterois (lionfish) and Synanceja (stonefish). Synanceja are the most venomous within the group, but scorpionfish stings more commonly arise from Pterois and Scorpaena.⁸ Because of the rare shapes and vibrant colors of scorpionfish, some traders and aquarium owners will seek and pay high prices for these fish, providing further opportunity for envenomation.^11,12

Characteristics

Scorpionfish have with a high variation in color, ranging from lighter grays to intense reds depending on their geographic location and habitat. Synanceja are bland in coloration, blending in with rocks and gravel, but the more dramatic-appearing Scorpaena exhibit a large cranium and wide range of multicolored patterns (Figure 1).¹³Pterois serve as the most conspicuous member of the group with brightly colored red and white stripes (Figure 2). Scorpionfish commonly grow up to 19 inches long and boast 12 dorsal, 2 pelvic, and 3 anal spines housing 5 to 10 mg of venom.¹⁴ An integumentary sheath encapsulates each spine housing the glandular tissue that produces the potent venom.

Afvari_scorpionfish_1.jpg

Toxin Properties

Unlike Pterois and Synanceja, Scorpaena do not have venom ducts around their glands, complicating the work of marine biologists aiming to extract and study the venomous toxins. Several studies have managed to isolate scorpionfish venom and overcome its unstable heat-labile nature to investigate its biologic properties.^15-20 Several high-molecular-weight proteins (50–800 kDa) comprise the venom, including hyaluronidase, integrin-inhibiting factors, capillary permeability factor, proteases, and some less-understood cytolytic toxins. These factors provoke the inflammatory, proteolytic, hemorrhagic, cardiovascular, and hemolytic biologic activities at both the local and systemic levels, directing damage to wounded tissues and inducing vascular and tissue permeability to reach cellular processes far and wide. Mediators of inflammation include tumor necrosis factor, IL-6, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, followed by neutrophils and other mononuclear cells, initiating the immune response at the wound site. Toxin potency remains for up to 2 days after fish death.¹

Afvari_scorpionfish_2.jpg

Clinical Manifestation

Physicians may be guided by clinical symptoms in identifying scorpionfish stings, as the patient may not know the identity of their marine assailant. Initially, individuals punctured by scorpionfish spikes will experience an acute pain and burning sensation at the puncture site that may be accompanied by systemic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tachycardia, hypotension, loss of consciousness, difficulty breathing, and delirium.^9,21-23 The pain will intensify and radiate distal to the site of envenomation, and the wound may exhibit vesiculation, erythema, bruising, pallor, and notable edema.^4,24 Pain intensity peaks at 30 to 90 minutes after envenomation, and other systemic symptoms generally last for 24 to 48 hours.²⁵ If patients do not seek prompt treatment, secondary infection may ensue, and the lingering venom in the blister may cause dermal necrosis, paresthesia, and anesthesia. Chronic sequelae may include joint contractures, compartment syndrome, necrotic ulcers, and chronic neuropathy.¹

Management

Treatment of scorpionfish stings primarily is palliative and aimed at symptom reduction. Patients should immediately treat wounds with hot but not scalding water immersion.^26,27 Given the thermolabile components of scorpionfish venom, the most effective treatment is to soak the affected limb in water 42 °C to 45 °C for 30 to 90 minutes. Any higher temperature may pose risk for scalding burns. Children should be monitored throughout treatment.²⁸ If hot water immersion does not provide relief, oral analgesics may be considered. Stonefish antivenom is available and may be used for any scorpionfish sting given the shared biologic properties between genera. Providers evaluating stings could use sterile irrigation to clean wounds and search for foreign bodies including spine fragments; probing should be accomplished by instruments rather than a gloved finger. Providers should consider culturing wounds and prescribing antibiotics for suspected secondary infections. A tetanus toxoid history also should be elicited, and patients may have a booster administered, as indicated.²⁹

With the growing popularity of water sports and a proliferation of invasive species, human injuries from marine animal envenomation continue to rise.^1-3 Members of the scorpionfish family Scorpaenidae are second only to stingrays as the leading cause of the 40,000 to 50,000 injuries annually from marine life worldwide.⁴ Because scorpionfish represent a growing threat and competition with native species, it has been suggested that they could replace endangered species on restaurant menus.^5-8 Scorpionfish have been introduced by humans from tropical to temperate seas and are now common off the coast of California and the eastern coast from New York to Florida, as well as in the Caribbean, the Bahamas, and off the southern coast of Brazil. Victims of scorpionfish stings experience considerable pain and may require days to weeks to fully recover, highlighting the socioeconomic costs and burden of scorpionfish envenomation.^9,10 Fishers, divers, swimmers, and aquarium owners are most often affected.

Family

The common term scorpionfish refers to both the family Scorpaenidae and the genus Scorpaena. Members of this family possess similar dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins, though they vary between genera in their size and the potency of the venom they insulate. Other familiar members include the genus Pterois (lionfish) and Synanceja (stonefish). Synanceja are the most venomous within the group, but scorpionfish stings more commonly arise from Pterois and Scorpaena.⁸ Because of the rare shapes and vibrant colors of scorpionfish, some traders and aquarium owners will seek and pay high prices for these fish, providing further opportunity for envenomation.^11,12

Characteristics

Scorpionfish have with a high variation in color, ranging from lighter grays to intense reds depending on their geographic location and habitat. Synanceja are bland in coloration, blending in with rocks and gravel, but the more dramatic-appearing Scorpaena exhibit a large cranium and wide range of multicolored patterns (Figure 1).¹³Pterois serve as the most conspicuous member of the group with brightly colored red and white stripes (Figure 2). Scorpionfish commonly grow up to 19 inches long and boast 12 dorsal, 2 pelvic, and 3 anal spines housing 5 to 10 mg of venom.¹⁴ An integumentary sheath encapsulates each spine housing the glandular tissue that produces the potent venom.

Afvari_scorpionfish_1.jpg

Toxin Properties

Unlike Pterois and Synanceja, Scorpaena do not have venom ducts around their glands, complicating the work of marine biologists aiming to extract and study the venomous toxins. Several studies have managed to isolate scorpionfish venom and overcome its unstable heat-labile nature to investigate its biologic properties.^15-20 Several high-molecular-weight proteins (50–800 kDa) comprise the venom, including hyaluronidase, integrin-inhibiting factors, capillary permeability factor, proteases, and some less-understood cytolytic toxins. These factors provoke the inflammatory, proteolytic, hemorrhagic, cardiovascular, and hemolytic biologic activities at both the local and systemic levels, directing damage to wounded tissues and inducing vascular and tissue permeability to reach cellular processes far and wide. Mediators of inflammation include tumor necrosis factor, IL-6, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, followed by neutrophils and other mononuclear cells, initiating the immune response at the wound site. Toxin potency remains for up to 2 days after fish death.¹

Afvari_scorpionfish_2.jpg

Clinical Manifestation

Physicians may be guided by clinical symptoms in identifying scorpionfish stings, as the patient may not know the identity of their marine assailant. Initially, individuals punctured by scorpionfish spikes will experience an acute pain and burning sensation at the puncture site that may be accompanied by systemic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tachycardia, hypotension, loss of consciousness, difficulty breathing, and delirium.^9,21-23 The pain will intensify and radiate distal to the site of envenomation, and the wound may exhibit vesiculation, erythema, bruising, pallor, and notable edema.^4,24 Pain intensity peaks at 30 to 90 minutes after envenomation, and other systemic symptoms generally last for 24 to 48 hours.²⁵ If patients do not seek prompt treatment, secondary infection may ensue, and the lingering venom in the blister may cause dermal necrosis, paresthesia, and anesthesia. Chronic sequelae may include joint contractures, compartment syndrome, necrotic ulcers, and chronic neuropathy.¹

Management

Treatment of scorpionfish stings primarily is palliative and aimed at symptom reduction. Patients should immediately treat wounds with hot but not scalding water immersion.^26,27 Given the thermolabile components of scorpionfish venom, the most effective treatment is to soak the affected limb in water 42 °C to 45 °C for 30 to 90 minutes. Any higher temperature may pose risk for scalding burns. Children should be monitored throughout treatment.²⁸ If hot water immersion does not provide relief, oral analgesics may be considered. Stonefish antivenom is available and may be used for any scorpionfish sting given the shared biologic properties between genera. Providers evaluating stings could use sterile irrigation to clean wounds and search for foreign bodies including spine fragments; probing should be accomplished by instruments rather than a gloved finger. Providers should consider culturing wounds and prescribing antibiotics for suspected secondary infections. A tetanus toxoid history also should be elicited, and patients may have a booster administered, as indicated.²⁹

With the growing popularity of water sports and a proliferation of invasive species, human injuries from marine animal envenomation continue to rise.^1-3 Members of the scorpionfish family Scorpaenidae are second only to stingrays as the leading cause of the 40,000 to 50,000 injuries annually from marine life worldwide.⁴ Because scorpionfish represent a growing threat and competition with native species, it has been suggested that they could replace endangered species on restaurant menus.^5-8 Scorpionfish have been introduced by humans from tropical to temperate seas and are now common off the coast of California and the eastern coast from New York to Florida, as well as in the Caribbean, the Bahamas, and off the southern coast of Brazil. Victims of scorpionfish stings experience considerable pain and may require days to weeks to fully recover, highlighting the socioeconomic costs and burden of scorpionfish envenomation.^9,10 Fishers, divers, swimmers, and aquarium owners are most often affected.

Family

The common term scorpionfish refers to both the family Scorpaenidae and the genus Scorpaena. Members of this family possess similar dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins, though they vary between genera in their size and the potency of the venom they insulate. Other familiar members include the genus Pterois (lionfish) and Synanceja (stonefish). Synanceja are the most venomous within the group, but scorpionfish stings more commonly arise from Pterois and Scorpaena.⁸ Because of the rare shapes and vibrant colors of scorpionfish, some traders and aquarium owners will seek and pay high prices for these fish, providing further opportunity for envenomation.^11,12

Characteristics

Scorpionfish have with a high variation in color, ranging from lighter grays to intense reds depending on their geographic location and habitat. Synanceja are bland in coloration, blending in with rocks and gravel, but the more dramatic-appearing Scorpaena exhibit a large cranium and wide range of multicolored patterns (Figure 1).¹³Pterois serve as the most conspicuous member of the group with brightly colored red and white stripes (Figure 2). Scorpionfish commonly grow up to 19 inches long and boast 12 dorsal, 2 pelvic, and 3 anal spines housing 5 to 10 mg of venom.¹⁴ An integumentary sheath encapsulates each spine housing the glandular tissue that produces the potent venom.

Afvari_scorpionfish_1.jpg

Toxin Properties

Unlike Pterois and Synanceja, Scorpaena do not have venom ducts around their glands, complicating the work of marine biologists aiming to extract and study the venomous toxins. Several studies have managed to isolate scorpionfish venom and overcome its unstable heat-labile nature to investigate its biologic properties.^15-20 Several high-molecular-weight proteins (50–800 kDa) comprise the venom, including hyaluronidase, integrin-inhibiting factors, capillary permeability factor, proteases, and some less-understood cytolytic toxins. These factors provoke the inflammatory, proteolytic, hemorrhagic, cardiovascular, and hemolytic biologic activities at both the local and systemic levels, directing damage to wounded tissues and inducing vascular and tissue permeability to reach cellular processes far and wide. Mediators of inflammation include tumor necrosis factor, IL-6, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, followed by neutrophils and other mononuclear cells, initiating the immune response at the wound site. Toxin potency remains for up to 2 days after fish death.¹

Afvari_scorpionfish_2.jpg

Clinical Manifestation

Physicians may be guided by clinical symptoms in identifying scorpionfish stings, as the patient may not know the identity of their marine assailant. Initially, individuals punctured by scorpionfish spikes will experience an acute pain and burning sensation at the puncture site that may be accompanied by systemic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tachycardia, hypotension, loss of consciousness, difficulty breathing, and delirium.^9,21-23 The pain will intensify and radiate distal to the site of envenomation, and the wound may exhibit vesiculation, erythema, bruising, pallor, and notable edema.^4,24 Pain intensity peaks at 30 to 90 minutes after envenomation, and other systemic symptoms generally last for 24 to 48 hours.²⁵ If patients do not seek prompt treatment, secondary infection may ensue, and the lingering venom in the blister may cause dermal necrosis, paresthesia, and anesthesia. Chronic sequelae may include joint contractures, compartment syndrome, necrotic ulcers, and chronic neuropathy.¹

Management

Treatment of scorpionfish stings primarily is palliative and aimed at symptom reduction. Patients should immediately treat wounds with hot but not scalding water immersion.^26,27 Given the thermolabile components of scorpionfish venom, the most effective treatment is to soak the affected limb in water 42 °C to 45 °C for 30 to 90 minutes. Any higher temperature may pose risk for scalding burns. Children should be monitored throughout treatment.²⁸ If hot water immersion does not provide relief, oral analgesics may be considered. Stonefish antivenom is available and may be used for any scorpionfish sting given the shared biologic properties between genera. Providers evaluating stings could use sterile irrigation to clean wounds and search for foreign bodies including spine fragments; probing should be accomplished by instruments rather than a gloved finger. Providers should consider culturing wounds and prescribing antibiotics for suspected secondary infections. A tetanus toxoid history also should be elicited, and patients may have a booster administered, as indicated.²⁹

Restoring skin integrity and balance after injury is vital for survival, serving as a crucial defense mechanism against potential infections by preventing the entry of harmful pathogens. Moreover, proper healing is essential for restoring normal tissue function, allowing damaged tissues to repair and, in an ideal scenario, regenerate. Timely healing helps reduce the risk for complications, such as chronic wounds, which could lead to more severe issues if left untreated. Additionally, pain relief often is associated with effective wound healing as inflammatory responses diminish during the repair process.

The immune system plays a pivotal role in wound healing, influencing various repair mechanisms and ultimately determining the extent of scarring. Although inflammation is present throughout the repair response, recent studies have challenged the conventional belief of an inverse correlation between the intensity of inflammation and regenerative capacity. Inflammatory signals were found to be crucial for timely repair and fundamental processes in regeneration, possibly presenting a paradigm shift in the understanding of immunology.^1-4 The complexities of wound healing are exemplified when evaluating and treating postamputation wounds. To address such a task, one needs a firm understanding of the science behind healing wounds and what can go wrong along the way.

Phases of Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process that involves a series of sequential yet overlapping phases, including hemostasis/inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.

Hemostasis/Inflammation—The initial stage of wound healing involves hemostasis, in which the primary objective is to prevent blood loss and initiate inflammation. Platelets arrive at the wound site, forming a provisional clot that is crucial for subsequent healing phases.^4-6 Platelets halt bleeding as well as act as a medium for cell migration and adhesion; they also are a source of growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines that herald the inflammatory response.^4-7

Inflammation is characterized by the infiltration of immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages. Neutrophils act as the first line of defense, clearing debris and preventing infection. Macrophages follow, phagocytizing apoptotic cells and releasing growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor α, vascular endothelial growth factor, and matrix metalloprotease 9, which stimulate the next phase.^4-6,8 Typically, the hemostasis and inflammatory phase starts approximately 6 to 8 hours after wound origin and lasts 3 to 4 days.^4,6,7

Proliferation—Following hemostasis and inflammation, the wound transitions into the proliferation phase, which is marked by the development of granulation tissue—a dynamic amalgamation of fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and inflammatory cells.^1,4-8 Fibroblasts play a central role in synthesizing collagen, the primary structural protein in connective tissue. They also orchestrate synthesis of vitronectin, fibronectin, fibrin, and tenascin.^4-6,8 Simultaneously, angiogenesis takes place, involving the creation of new blood vessels to supply essential nutrients and oxygen to the healing tissue.^4,7,9 Growth factors such as transforming growth factor β and vascular endothelial growth factor coordinate cellular activities and foster tissue repair.^4-6,8 The proliferation phase extends over days to weeks, laying the groundwork for subsequent tissue restructuring.

Remodeling—The final stage of wound healing is remodeling, an extended process that may persist for several months or, in some cases, years. Throughout this phase, the initially deposited collagen, predominantly type III collagen, undergoes transformation into mature type I collagen.^4-6,8 This transformation is critical for reinstating the tissue’s strength and functionality. The balance between collagen synthesis and degradation is delicate, regulated by matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors of metalloproteinases.^4-8 Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and other cells coordinate this intricate process of tissue reorganization.^4-7

The eventual outcome of the remodeling phase determines the appearance and functionality of the healed tissue. Any disruption in this phase can lead to complications, such as chronic wounds and hypertrophic scars/keloids.^4-6 These abnormal healing processes are characterized by localized inflammation, heightened fibroblast function, and excessive accumulation of the extracellular matrix.^4-8

Molecular Mechanisms

Comprehensive investigations—both in vivo and in vitro—have explored the intricate molecular mechanisms involved in heightened wound healing. Transforming growth factor β takes center stage as a crucial factor, prompting the transformation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts and contributing to the deposition of extracellular matrix.^2,4-8,10 Transforming growth factor β activates non-Smad signaling pathways, such as MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), influencing processes associated with fibrosis.^5,11 Furthermore, microRNAs play a pivotal role in posttranscriptional regulation, influencing both transforming growth factor β signaling and fibroblast behavior.^12-16

The involvement of prostaglandins is crucial in wound healing. Prostaglandin E2 plays a notable role and is positively correlated with the rate of wound healing.⁵ The cyclooxygenase pathway, pivotal for prostaglandin synthesis, becomes a target for inflammation control.^4,5,10 Although aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly are employed, their impact on wound healing remains controversial, as inhibition of cyclooxygenase may disrupt normal repair processes.^5,17,18

Wound healing exhibits variations depending on age. Fetal skin regeneration is marked by the restoration of normal dermal architecture, including adnexal structures, nerves, vessels, and muscle.^4-6 The distinctive characteristics of fetal wound healing include a unique profile of growth factors, a diminished inflammatory response, reduced biomechanical stress, and a distinct extracellular matrix composition.¹⁹ These factors contribute to a lower propensity for scar formation compared to the healing processes observed in adults. Fetal and adult wound healing differ fundamentally in their extracellular matrix composition, inflammatory cells, and cytokine levels.^4-6,19 Adult wounds feature myofibroblasts, which are absent in fetal wounds, contributing to heightened mechanical tension.⁵ Delving deeper into the biochemical basis of fetal wound healing holds promise for mitigating scar formation in adults.

Takeaways From Other Species

Much of the biochemical knowledge of wound healing, especially regenerative wound healing, is known from other species. Geckos provide a unique model for studying regenerative repair in tails and nonregenerative healing in limbs after amputation. Scar-free wound healing is characterized by rapid wound closure, delayed blood vessel development, and collagen deposition, which contrasts with the hypervascular granulation tissue seen in scarring wounds.²⁰ Scar-free wound healing and regeneration are intrinsic properties of the lizard tail and are unaffected by the location or method of detachment.²¹

Compared to amphibians with extraordinary regenerative capacity, data suggest the lack of regenerative capacity in mammals may come from a desynchronization of the fine-tuned interplay of progenitor cells such as blastema and differentiated cells.^22,23 In mice, the response to amputation is specific to the level: cutting through the distal third of the terminal phalanx elicits a regeneration response, yielding a new digit tip resembling the lost one, while an amputation through the distal third of the intermediate phalanx triggers a wound healing and scarring response.²⁴

Wound Healing Following Limb Amputation

Limb amputation represents a profound change in an individual’s life, impacting daily activities and overall well-being. There are many causes of amputation, but the most common include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and trauma.^25-27 Trauma represents a relatively common cause within the US Military due to the overall young population as well as inherent risks of uniformed service.^25,27 Advances in protective gear and combat casualty care have led to an increased number of individuals surviving with extremity injuries requiring amputation, particularly among younger service members, with a subgroup experiencing multiple amputations.^27-29

Numerous factors play a crucial role in the healing and function of postamputation wounds. The level of amputation is a key determinant influencing both functional outcomes and the healing process. Achieving a balance between preserving function and removing damaged tissue is essential. A study investigating cardiac function and oxygen consumption in 25 patients with peripheral vascular disease found higher-level amputations resulted in decreased walking speed and cadence, along with increased oxygen consumption per meter walked.³⁰

Selecting the appropriate amputation level is vital to optimize functional outcomes without compromising wound healing. Successful prosthetic limb fitting depends largely on the length of the residual stump to support the body load and suspend the prosthesis. For long bone amputations, maintaining at least 12-cm clearance above the knee joint in transfemoral amputees and 10-cm below the knee joint in transtibial amputees is critical for maximizing functional outcomes.³¹

Surgical technique also is paramount. The goal is to minimize the risk for pressure ulcers by avoiding bony spurs and muscle imbalances. Shaping the muscle and residual limb is essential for proper prosthesis fitting. Attention to neurovascular structures, such as burying nerve ends to prevent neuropathic pain during prosthesis wear, is crucial.³² In extremity amputations, surgeons often resort to free flap transfer techniques for stump reconstruction. In a study of 31 patients with severe lower extremity injuries undergoing various amputations, the use of latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps, alone or in combination with serratus anterior muscle flaps, resulted in fewer instances of deep ulceration and allowed for earlier prosthesis wear.³³

Addressing Barriers to Wound Healing

Multiple barriers to successful wound healing are encountered in the amputee population. Amputations from trauma have a less-controlled initiation, which carries with it a higher risk for infection, poor wound healing, and other complications.

Infection—Infection often is one of the first hurdles encountered in postamputation wound healing. Critical first steps in infection prevention include thorough cleaning of soiled traumatic wounds and appropriate tissue debridement coupled with scrupulous sterile technique and postoperative monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection.

In a retrospective study of 223 combat-related major lower extremity amputations (initial and revision) between 2009 and 2015, the use of intrawound antibiotic powder at the time of closure demonstrated a 13% absolute risk reduction in deep infection rates, which was particularly notable in revision amputations, with a number needed to treat of 8 for initial amputations and 4 for revision amputations on previously infected limbs.³⁴ Intra-operative antibiotic powder may represent a cheap and easy consideration for this special population of amputees. Postamputation antibiotic prophylaxis for infection prevention is an area of controversy. For nontraumatic infections, data suggest antibiotic prophylaxis may not decrease infection rates in these patients.^35,36

Interestingly, a study by Azarbal et al³⁷ aimed to investigate the correlation between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with wound occurrence following major lower extremity amputation. The study found MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall wound occurrence as well as wound occurrence due to wound infection. These data suggest nasal MRSA eradication may improve postoperative wound outcomes after major lower extremity amputation.³⁷

Dressing Choice—The dressing chosen for a residual limb also is of paramount importance following amputation. The personalized and dynamic management of postamputation wounds and skin involves achieving optimal healing through a dressing that sustains appropriate moisture levels, addresses edema, helps prevent contractures, and safeguards the limb.³⁸ From the start, using negative pressure wound dressings after surgical amputation can decrease wound-related complications.³⁹

Topical oxygen therapy following amputation also shows promise. In a retrospective case series by Kalliainen et al,⁴⁰ topical oxygen therapy applied to 58 wounds in 32 patients over 9 months demonstrated positive outcomes in promoting wound healing, with 38 wounds (66%) healing completely with the use of topical oxygen. Minimal complications and no detrimental effects were observed.⁴⁰

Current recommendations suggest that non–weight-bearing removable rigid dressings are the superior postoperative management for transtibial amputations compared to soft dressings, offering benefits such as faster healing, reduced limb edema, earlier ambulation, preparatory shaping for prosthetic use, and prevention of knee flexion contractures.^41-46 Similarly, adding a silicone liner following amputation significantly reduced the duration of prosthetic rehabilitation compared with a conventional soft dressing program in one study (P<.05).⁴⁷

Specifically targeting wound edema, a case series by Hoskins et al⁴⁸ investigated the impact of prostheses with vacuum-assisted suspension on the size of residual limb wounds in individuals with transtibial amputation. Well-fitting sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension did not impede wound healing, and the results suggest the potential for continued prosthesis use during the healing process.⁴⁸ However, a study by Johannesson et al⁴⁹ compared the outcomes of transtibial amputation patients using a vacuum-formed rigid dressing and a conventional rigid plaster dressing, finding no significant differences in wound healing, time to prosthetic fitting, or functional outcomes with the prosthesis between the 2 groups. When comparing elastic bandaging, pneumatic prosthesis, and temporary prosthesis on postoperative stump management, temporary prosthesis led to a decrease in stump volume, quicker transition to a permanent prosthesis, and improved quality of life compared with elastic bandaging and pneumatic prosthetics.⁵⁰

The type of material in dressings may contribute to utility in amputation wounds. Keratin-based wound dressings show promise for wound healing, especially in recalcitrant vascular wounds.⁵¹ There also are numerous proprietary wound dressings available for patients, at least one of which has particularly thorough data. In a retrospective study of more than 2 million lower extremity wounds across 644 institutions, a proprietary bioactive human skin allograft (TheraSkin [LifeNet Health]) demonstrated higher healing rates, greater percentage area reductions, lower amputations, reduced recidivism, higher treatment completion, and fewer medical transfers compared with standard of care alone.⁵²

Postamputation Dermatologic Concerns

After the postamputation wound heals, a notable concern is the prevalence of skin diseases affecting residual limbs. The stump site in amputees, marked by a delicate cutaneous landscape vulnerable to skin diseases, faces challenges arising from amputation-induced damage to various structures.⁵³

When integrated into a prosthesis socket, the altered skin must acclimate to a humid environment and endure forces for which it is not well suited, especially during movement.⁵³ Amputation remarkably alters normal tissue perfusion, which can lead to aberrant blood and lymphatic circulation in residual limbs.^27,53 This compromised skin, often associated with a history of vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignancy, becomes immunocompromised, heightening the risk for dermatologic issues such as inflammation, infection, and malignancies.⁵³ Unlike the resilient volar skin on palms and soles, stump skin lacks adaptation to withstand the compressive forces generated during ambulation, sometimes leading to skin disease and pain that result in abandonment of the prosthesis.^53,54 Mechanical forces on the skin, especially in active patients eager to resume pre-injury lifestyles, contribute to skin breakdown. The dynamic nature of the residual limb, including muscle atrophy, gait changes, and weight fluctuations, complicates the prosthetic fitting process. Prosthesis abandonment remains a challenge, despite modern technologic advancements.

The occurrence of heterotopic ossification (extraskeletal bone formation) is another notable issue in military amputees.^27,55-57 Poor prosthetic fit can lead to skin degradation, necessitating further surgery to address mispositioned bone formations. Orthopedic monitoring supplemented by appropriate imaging studies can benefit postamputation patients by detecting and preventing heterotopic ossification in its early stages.

Dermatologic issues, especially among lower limb amputees, are noteworthy, with a substantial percentage experiencing complications related to socket prosthetics, such as heat, sweating, sores, and skin irritation. Up to 41% of patients are seen regularly for a secondary skin disorder following amputation.⁵⁸ As one might expect, persistent wounds, blisters, ulcers, and abscesses are some of the most typical cutaneous abnormalities affecting residual limbs with prostheses.^27,58 More rare skin conditions also are documented in residual limbs, including cutaneous granuloma, verrucous carcinoma, bullous pemphigoid, and angiodermatitis.^27,59-61

Treatments offered in the dermatology clinic often are similar to patients who have not had an amputation. For instance, hyperhidrosis can be treated with prescription antiperspirant, topical aluminum chloride, topical glycopyrronium, botulinum toxin, and iontophoresis, which can greatly decrease skin irritation and malodor. Subcutaneous neurotoxins such as botulinum toxin are especially useful for hyperhidrosis following amputation because a single treatment can last 3 to 6 months, whereas topicals must be applied multiple times per day and can be inherently irritating to the skin.^27,62 Furthermore, ablative fractional resurfacing lasers also can help stimulate new collagen growth, increase skin mobility on residual limbs, smooth jagged scars, and aid prosthetic fitting.^27,63 Perforated prosthetic liners also may be useful to address issues such as excessive sweating, demonstrating improvements in skin health, reduced sweating problems, and potential avoidance of surgical interventions.⁶⁴

When comorbid skin conditions are at bay, preventive measures for excessive wound healing necessitate early recognition and timely intervention for residual limbs. Preventive techniques encompass the use of silicone gel sheeting, hypoallergenic microporous tape, and intralesional steroid injections.

Psychological Concerns—An overarching issue following amputation is the psychological toll the process imposes on the patient. Psychological concerns, including anxiety and depression, present additional challenges impacting residual limb hygiene and prosthetic maintenance. Chronic wounds are devastating to patients. These patients consistently express feeling ostracized from their community and anxious about unemployment, leaking fluid, or odor from the wound, as well as other social stigmata.⁶² Depression and anxiety can hinder a patient’s ability to care for their wound and make them more susceptible to the myriad issues that can ensue.

Recent Developments in Wound Healing

Wound healing is ripe for innovation that could assuage ailments that impact patients following amputation. A 2022 study by Abu El Hawa et al⁶⁵ illustrated advanced progression in wound healing for patients taking statins, even though the statin group had increased age and number of comorbidities compared with patients not taking statins.

Nasseri and Sharifi⁶⁶ showed the potential of antimicrobial peptides—small proteins with cationic charges and amphipathic structures exhibiting electrostatic interaction with microbial cell membranes—in promoting wound healing, particularly defensins and cathelicidin LL-37.They also discussed innovative delivery systems, such as nanoparticles and electrospun fibrous scaffolds, highlighting their potential as possibly more effective therapeutics than antibiotics, especially in the context of diabetic wound closure.⁶⁶ Aimed at increased angiogenesis in the proliferative phase, there is evidence that N-acetylcysteine can increase amputation stump perfusion with the goal of better long-term wound healing and more efficient scar formation.⁶⁷

Stem cell therapy, particularly employing cells from the human amniotic membrane, represents an auspicious avenue for antifibrotic treatment. Amniotic epithelial cells and amniotic mesenchymal cells, with their self-renewal and multilineage differentiation capabilities, exhibit anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.^4,5 A study by Dong et al⁶⁸ aimed to assess the efficacy of cell therapy, particularly differentiated progenitor cell–based graft transplantation or autologous stem cell injection, in treating refractory skin injuries such as nonrevascularizable critical limb ischemic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and diabetic lower limb ulcers. The findings demonstrated cell therapy effectively reduced the size of ulcers, improved wound closure rates, and decreased major amputation rates compared with standard therapy. Of note, cell therapy had limited impact on alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischemia-related cutaneous ulcers.⁶⁸

Final Thoughts

Wound care following amputation is a multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration between many health care professionals. Dermatologists play a crucial role in providing routine care as well as addressing wound healing and related skin issues among amputation patients. As the field progresses, dermatologists are well positioned to make notable contributions and ensure enhanced outcomes, resulting in a better quality of life for patients facing the challenges of limb amputation and prosthetic use.

Restoring skin integrity and balance after injury is vital for survival, serving as a crucial defense mechanism against potential infections by preventing the entry of harmful pathogens. Moreover, proper healing is essential for restoring normal tissue function, allowing damaged tissues to repair and, in an ideal scenario, regenerate. Timely healing helps reduce the risk for complications, such as chronic wounds, which could lead to more severe issues if left untreated. Additionally, pain relief often is associated with effective wound healing as inflammatory responses diminish during the repair process.

The immune system plays a pivotal role in wound healing, influencing various repair mechanisms and ultimately determining the extent of scarring. Although inflammation is present throughout the repair response, recent studies have challenged the conventional belief of an inverse correlation between the intensity of inflammation and regenerative capacity. Inflammatory signals were found to be crucial for timely repair and fundamental processes in regeneration, possibly presenting a paradigm shift in the understanding of immunology.^1-4 The complexities of wound healing are exemplified when evaluating and treating postamputation wounds. To address such a task, one needs a firm understanding of the science behind healing wounds and what can go wrong along the way.

Phases of Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process that involves a series of sequential yet overlapping phases, including hemostasis/inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.

Hemostasis/Inflammation—The initial stage of wound healing involves hemostasis, in which the primary objective is to prevent blood loss and initiate inflammation. Platelets arrive at the wound site, forming a provisional clot that is crucial for subsequent healing phases.^4-6 Platelets halt bleeding as well as act as a medium for cell migration and adhesion; they also are a source of growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines that herald the inflammatory response.^4-7

Inflammation is characterized by the infiltration of immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages. Neutrophils act as the first line of defense, clearing debris and preventing infection. Macrophages follow, phagocytizing apoptotic cells and releasing growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor α, vascular endothelial growth factor, and matrix metalloprotease 9, which stimulate the next phase.^4-6,8 Typically, the hemostasis and inflammatory phase starts approximately 6 to 8 hours after wound origin and lasts 3 to 4 days.^4,6,7

Proliferation—Following hemostasis and inflammation, the wound transitions into the proliferation phase, which is marked by the development of granulation tissue—a dynamic amalgamation of fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and inflammatory cells.^1,4-8 Fibroblasts play a central role in synthesizing collagen, the primary structural protein in connective tissue. They also orchestrate synthesis of vitronectin, fibronectin, fibrin, and tenascin.^4-6,8 Simultaneously, angiogenesis takes place, involving the creation of new blood vessels to supply essential nutrients and oxygen to the healing tissue.^4,7,9 Growth factors such as transforming growth factor β and vascular endothelial growth factor coordinate cellular activities and foster tissue repair.^4-6,8 The proliferation phase extends over days to weeks, laying the groundwork for subsequent tissue restructuring.

Remodeling—The final stage of wound healing is remodeling, an extended process that may persist for several months or, in some cases, years. Throughout this phase, the initially deposited collagen, predominantly type III collagen, undergoes transformation into mature type I collagen.^4-6,8 This transformation is critical for reinstating the tissue’s strength and functionality. The balance between collagen synthesis and degradation is delicate, regulated by matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors of metalloproteinases.^4-8 Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and other cells coordinate this intricate process of tissue reorganization.^4-7

The eventual outcome of the remodeling phase determines the appearance and functionality of the healed tissue. Any disruption in this phase can lead to complications, such as chronic wounds and hypertrophic scars/keloids.^4-6 These abnormal healing processes are characterized by localized inflammation, heightened fibroblast function, and excessive accumulation of the extracellular matrix.^4-8

Molecular Mechanisms

Comprehensive investigations—both in vivo and in vitro—have explored the intricate molecular mechanisms involved in heightened wound healing. Transforming growth factor β takes center stage as a crucial factor, prompting the transformation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts and contributing to the deposition of extracellular matrix.^2,4-8,10 Transforming growth factor β activates non-Smad signaling pathways, such as MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), influencing processes associated with fibrosis.^5,11 Furthermore, microRNAs play a pivotal role in posttranscriptional regulation, influencing both transforming growth factor β signaling and fibroblast behavior.^12-16

The involvement of prostaglandins is crucial in wound healing. Prostaglandin E2 plays a notable role and is positively correlated with the rate of wound healing.⁵ The cyclooxygenase pathway, pivotal for prostaglandin synthesis, becomes a target for inflammation control.^4,5,10 Although aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly are employed, their impact on wound healing remains controversial, as inhibition of cyclooxygenase may disrupt normal repair processes.^5,17,18

Wound healing exhibits variations depending on age. Fetal skin regeneration is marked by the restoration of normal dermal architecture, including adnexal structures, nerves, vessels, and muscle.^4-6 The distinctive characteristics of fetal wound healing include a unique profile of growth factors, a diminished inflammatory response, reduced biomechanical stress, and a distinct extracellular matrix composition.¹⁹ These factors contribute to a lower propensity for scar formation compared to the healing processes observed in adults. Fetal and adult wound healing differ fundamentally in their extracellular matrix composition, inflammatory cells, and cytokine levels.^4-6,19 Adult wounds feature myofibroblasts, which are absent in fetal wounds, contributing to heightened mechanical tension.⁵ Delving deeper into the biochemical basis of fetal wound healing holds promise for mitigating scar formation in adults.

Takeaways From Other Species

Much of the biochemical knowledge of wound healing, especially regenerative wound healing, is known from other species. Geckos provide a unique model for studying regenerative repair in tails and nonregenerative healing in limbs after amputation. Scar-free wound healing is characterized by rapid wound closure, delayed blood vessel development, and collagen deposition, which contrasts with the hypervascular granulation tissue seen in scarring wounds.²⁰ Scar-free wound healing and regeneration are intrinsic properties of the lizard tail and are unaffected by the location or method of detachment.²¹

Compared to amphibians with extraordinary regenerative capacity, data suggest the lack of regenerative capacity in mammals may come from a desynchronization of the fine-tuned interplay of progenitor cells such as blastema and differentiated cells.^22,23 In mice, the response to amputation is specific to the level: cutting through the distal third of the terminal phalanx elicits a regeneration response, yielding a new digit tip resembling the lost one, while an amputation through the distal third of the intermediate phalanx triggers a wound healing and scarring response.²⁴

Wound Healing Following Limb Amputation

Limb amputation represents a profound change in an individual’s life, impacting daily activities and overall well-being. There are many causes of amputation, but the most common include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and trauma.^25-27 Trauma represents a relatively common cause within the US Military due to the overall young population as well as inherent risks of uniformed service.^25,27 Advances in protective gear and combat casualty care have led to an increased number of individuals surviving with extremity injuries requiring amputation, particularly among younger service members, with a subgroup experiencing multiple amputations.^27-29

Numerous factors play a crucial role in the healing and function of postamputation wounds. The level of amputation is a key determinant influencing both functional outcomes and the healing process. Achieving a balance between preserving function and removing damaged tissue is essential. A study investigating cardiac function and oxygen consumption in 25 patients with peripheral vascular disease found higher-level amputations resulted in decreased walking speed and cadence, along with increased oxygen consumption per meter walked.³⁰

Selecting the appropriate amputation level is vital to optimize functional outcomes without compromising wound healing. Successful prosthetic limb fitting depends largely on the length of the residual stump to support the body load and suspend the prosthesis. For long bone amputations, maintaining at least 12-cm clearance above the knee joint in transfemoral amputees and 10-cm below the knee joint in transtibial amputees is critical for maximizing functional outcomes.³¹

Surgical technique also is paramount. The goal is to minimize the risk for pressure ulcers by avoiding bony spurs and muscle imbalances. Shaping the muscle and residual limb is essential for proper prosthesis fitting. Attention to neurovascular structures, such as burying nerve ends to prevent neuropathic pain during prosthesis wear, is crucial.³² In extremity amputations, surgeons often resort to free flap transfer techniques for stump reconstruction. In a study of 31 patients with severe lower extremity injuries undergoing various amputations, the use of latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps, alone or in combination with serratus anterior muscle flaps, resulted in fewer instances of deep ulceration and allowed for earlier prosthesis wear.³³

Addressing Barriers to Wound Healing

Multiple barriers to successful wound healing are encountered in the amputee population. Amputations from trauma have a less-controlled initiation, which carries with it a higher risk for infection, poor wound healing, and other complications.

Infection—Infection often is one of the first hurdles encountered in postamputation wound healing. Critical first steps in infection prevention include thorough cleaning of soiled traumatic wounds and appropriate tissue debridement coupled with scrupulous sterile technique and postoperative monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection.

In a retrospective study of 223 combat-related major lower extremity amputations (initial and revision) between 2009 and 2015, the use of intrawound antibiotic powder at the time of closure demonstrated a 13% absolute risk reduction in deep infection rates, which was particularly notable in revision amputations, with a number needed to treat of 8 for initial amputations and 4 for revision amputations on previously infected limbs.³⁴ Intra-operative antibiotic powder may represent a cheap and easy consideration for this special population of amputees. Postamputation antibiotic prophylaxis for infection prevention is an area of controversy. For nontraumatic infections, data suggest antibiotic prophylaxis may not decrease infection rates in these patients.^35,36

Interestingly, a study by Azarbal et al³⁷ aimed to investigate the correlation between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with wound occurrence following major lower extremity amputation. The study found MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall wound occurrence as well as wound occurrence due to wound infection. These data suggest nasal MRSA eradication may improve postoperative wound outcomes after major lower extremity amputation.³⁷

Dressing Choice—The dressing chosen for a residual limb also is of paramount importance following amputation. The personalized and dynamic management of postamputation wounds and skin involves achieving optimal healing through a dressing that sustains appropriate moisture levels, addresses edema, helps prevent contractures, and safeguards the limb.³⁸ From the start, using negative pressure wound dressings after surgical amputation can decrease wound-related complications.³⁹

Topical oxygen therapy following amputation also shows promise. In a retrospective case series by Kalliainen et al,⁴⁰ topical oxygen therapy applied to 58 wounds in 32 patients over 9 months demonstrated positive outcomes in promoting wound healing, with 38 wounds (66%) healing completely with the use of topical oxygen. Minimal complications and no detrimental effects were observed.⁴⁰

Current recommendations suggest that non–weight-bearing removable rigid dressings are the superior postoperative management for transtibial amputations compared to soft dressings, offering benefits such as faster healing, reduced limb edema, earlier ambulation, preparatory shaping for prosthetic use, and prevention of knee flexion contractures.^41-46 Similarly, adding a silicone liner following amputation significantly reduced the duration of prosthetic rehabilitation compared with a conventional soft dressing program in one study (P<.05).⁴⁷

Specifically targeting wound edema, a case series by Hoskins et al⁴⁸ investigated the impact of prostheses with vacuum-assisted suspension on the size of residual limb wounds in individuals with transtibial amputation. Well-fitting sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension did not impede wound healing, and the results suggest the potential for continued prosthesis use during the healing process.⁴⁸ However, a study by Johannesson et al⁴⁹ compared the outcomes of transtibial amputation patients using a vacuum-formed rigid dressing and a conventional rigid plaster dressing, finding no significant differences in wound healing, time to prosthetic fitting, or functional outcomes with the prosthesis between the 2 groups. When comparing elastic bandaging, pneumatic prosthesis, and temporary prosthesis on postoperative stump management, temporary prosthesis led to a decrease in stump volume, quicker transition to a permanent prosthesis, and improved quality of life compared with elastic bandaging and pneumatic prosthetics.⁵⁰

The type of material in dressings may contribute to utility in amputation wounds. Keratin-based wound dressings show promise for wound healing, especially in recalcitrant vascular wounds.⁵¹ There also are numerous proprietary wound dressings available for patients, at least one of which has particularly thorough data. In a retrospective study of more than 2 million lower extremity wounds across 644 institutions, a proprietary bioactive human skin allograft (TheraSkin [LifeNet Health]) demonstrated higher healing rates, greater percentage area reductions, lower amputations, reduced recidivism, higher treatment completion, and fewer medical transfers compared with standard of care alone.⁵²

Postamputation Dermatologic Concerns

After the postamputation wound heals, a notable concern is the prevalence of skin diseases affecting residual limbs. The stump site in amputees, marked by a delicate cutaneous landscape vulnerable to skin diseases, faces challenges arising from amputation-induced damage to various structures.⁵³

When integrated into a prosthesis socket, the altered skin must acclimate to a humid environment and endure forces for which it is not well suited, especially during movement.⁵³ Amputation remarkably alters normal tissue perfusion, which can lead to aberrant blood and lymphatic circulation in residual limbs.^27,53 This compromised skin, often associated with a history of vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignancy, becomes immunocompromised, heightening the risk for dermatologic issues such as inflammation, infection, and malignancies.⁵³ Unlike the resilient volar skin on palms and soles, stump skin lacks adaptation to withstand the compressive forces generated during ambulation, sometimes leading to skin disease and pain that result in abandonment of the prosthesis.^53,54 Mechanical forces on the skin, especially in active patients eager to resume pre-injury lifestyles, contribute to skin breakdown. The dynamic nature of the residual limb, including muscle atrophy, gait changes, and weight fluctuations, complicates the prosthetic fitting process. Prosthesis abandonment remains a challenge, despite modern technologic advancements.

The occurrence of heterotopic ossification (extraskeletal bone formation) is another notable issue in military amputees.^27,55-57 Poor prosthetic fit can lead to skin degradation, necessitating further surgery to address mispositioned bone formations. Orthopedic monitoring supplemented by appropriate imaging studies can benefit postamputation patients by detecting and preventing heterotopic ossification in its early stages.

Dermatologic issues, especially among lower limb amputees, are noteworthy, with a substantial percentage experiencing complications related to socket prosthetics, such as heat, sweating, sores, and skin irritation. Up to 41% of patients are seen regularly for a secondary skin disorder following amputation.⁵⁸ As one might expect, persistent wounds, blisters, ulcers, and abscesses are some of the most typical cutaneous abnormalities affecting residual limbs with prostheses.^27,58 More rare skin conditions also are documented in residual limbs, including cutaneous granuloma, verrucous carcinoma, bullous pemphigoid, and angiodermatitis.^27,59-61

Treatments offered in the dermatology clinic often are similar to patients who have not had an amputation. For instance, hyperhidrosis can be treated with prescription antiperspirant, topical aluminum chloride, topical glycopyrronium, botulinum toxin, and iontophoresis, which can greatly decrease skin irritation and malodor. Subcutaneous neurotoxins such as botulinum toxin are especially useful for hyperhidrosis following amputation because a single treatment can last 3 to 6 months, whereas topicals must be applied multiple times per day and can be inherently irritating to the skin.^27,62 Furthermore, ablative fractional resurfacing lasers also can help stimulate new collagen growth, increase skin mobility on residual limbs, smooth jagged scars, and aid prosthetic fitting.^27,63 Perforated prosthetic liners also may be useful to address issues such as excessive sweating, demonstrating improvements in skin health, reduced sweating problems, and potential avoidance of surgical interventions.⁶⁴

When comorbid skin conditions are at bay, preventive measures for excessive wound healing necessitate early recognition and timely intervention for residual limbs. Preventive techniques encompass the use of silicone gel sheeting, hypoallergenic microporous tape, and intralesional steroid injections.

Psychological Concerns—An overarching issue following amputation is the psychological toll the process imposes on the patient. Psychological concerns, including anxiety and depression, present additional challenges impacting residual limb hygiene and prosthetic maintenance. Chronic wounds are devastating to patients. These patients consistently express feeling ostracized from their community and anxious about unemployment, leaking fluid, or odor from the wound, as well as other social stigmata.⁶² Depression and anxiety can hinder a patient’s ability to care for their wound and make them more susceptible to the myriad issues that can ensue.

Recent Developments in Wound Healing

Wound healing is ripe for innovation that could assuage ailments that impact patients following amputation. A 2022 study by Abu El Hawa et al⁶⁵ illustrated advanced progression in wound healing for patients taking statins, even though the statin group had increased age and number of comorbidities compared with patients not taking statins.

Nasseri and Sharifi⁶⁶ showed the potential of antimicrobial peptides—small proteins with cationic charges and amphipathic structures exhibiting electrostatic interaction with microbial cell membranes—in promoting wound healing, particularly defensins and cathelicidin LL-37.They also discussed innovative delivery systems, such as nanoparticles and electrospun fibrous scaffolds, highlighting their potential as possibly more effective therapeutics than antibiotics, especially in the context of diabetic wound closure.⁶⁶ Aimed at increased angiogenesis in the proliferative phase, there is evidence that N-acetylcysteine can increase amputation stump perfusion with the goal of better long-term wound healing and more efficient scar formation.⁶⁷

Stem cell therapy, particularly employing cells from the human amniotic membrane, represents an auspicious avenue for antifibrotic treatment. Amniotic epithelial cells and amniotic mesenchymal cells, with their self-renewal and multilineage differentiation capabilities, exhibit anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.^4,5 A study by Dong et al⁶⁸ aimed to assess the efficacy of cell therapy, particularly differentiated progenitor cell–based graft transplantation or autologous stem cell injection, in treating refractory skin injuries such as nonrevascularizable critical limb ischemic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and diabetic lower limb ulcers. The findings demonstrated cell therapy effectively reduced the size of ulcers, improved wound closure rates, and decreased major amputation rates compared with standard therapy. Of note, cell therapy had limited impact on alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischemia-related cutaneous ulcers.⁶⁸

Final Thoughts

Wound care following amputation is a multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration between many health care professionals. Dermatologists play a crucial role in providing routine care as well as addressing wound healing and related skin issues among amputation patients. As the field progresses, dermatologists are well positioned to make notable contributions and ensure enhanced outcomes, resulting in a better quality of life for patients facing the challenges of limb amputation and prosthetic use.

Restoring skin integrity and balance after injury is vital for survival, serving as a crucial defense mechanism against potential infections by preventing the entry of harmful pathogens. Moreover, proper healing is essential for restoring normal tissue function, allowing damaged tissues to repair and, in an ideal scenario, regenerate. Timely healing helps reduce the risk for complications, such as chronic wounds, which could lead to more severe issues if left untreated. Additionally, pain relief often is associated with effective wound healing as inflammatory responses diminish during the repair process.

The immune system plays a pivotal role in wound healing, influencing various repair mechanisms and ultimately determining the extent of scarring. Although inflammation is present throughout the repair response, recent studies have challenged the conventional belief of an inverse correlation between the intensity of inflammation and regenerative capacity. Inflammatory signals were found to be crucial for timely repair and fundamental processes in regeneration, possibly presenting a paradigm shift in the understanding of immunology.^1-4 The complexities of wound healing are exemplified when evaluating and treating postamputation wounds. To address such a task, one needs a firm understanding of the science behind healing wounds and what can go wrong along the way.

Phases of Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process that involves a series of sequential yet overlapping phases, including hemostasis/inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.

Hemostasis/Inflammation—The initial stage of wound healing involves hemostasis, in which the primary objective is to prevent blood loss and initiate inflammation. Platelets arrive at the wound site, forming a provisional clot that is crucial for subsequent healing phases.^4-6 Platelets halt bleeding as well as act as a medium for cell migration and adhesion; they also are a source of growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines that herald the inflammatory response.^4-7

Inflammation is characterized by the infiltration of immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages. Neutrophils act as the first line of defense, clearing debris and preventing infection. Macrophages follow, phagocytizing apoptotic cells and releasing growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor α, vascular endothelial growth factor, and matrix metalloprotease 9, which stimulate the next phase.^4-6,8 Typically, the hemostasis and inflammatory phase starts approximately 6 to 8 hours after wound origin and lasts 3 to 4 days.^4,6,7

Proliferation—Following hemostasis and inflammation, the wound transitions into the proliferation phase, which is marked by the development of granulation tissue—a dynamic amalgamation of fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and inflammatory cells.^1,4-8 Fibroblasts play a central role in synthesizing collagen, the primary structural protein in connective tissue. They also orchestrate synthesis of vitronectin, fibronectin, fibrin, and tenascin.^4-6,8 Simultaneously, angiogenesis takes place, involving the creation of new blood vessels to supply essential nutrients and oxygen to the healing tissue.^4,7,9 Growth factors such as transforming growth factor β and vascular endothelial growth factor coordinate cellular activities and foster tissue repair.^4-6,8 The proliferation phase extends over days to weeks, laying the groundwork for subsequent tissue restructuring.

Remodeling—The final stage of wound healing is remodeling, an extended process that may persist for several months or, in some cases, years. Throughout this phase, the initially deposited collagen, predominantly type III collagen, undergoes transformation into mature type I collagen.^4-6,8 This transformation is critical for reinstating the tissue’s strength and functionality. The balance between collagen synthesis and degradation is delicate, regulated by matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors of metalloproteinases.^4-8 Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and other cells coordinate this intricate process of tissue reorganization.^4-7

The eventual outcome of the remodeling phase determines the appearance and functionality of the healed tissue. Any disruption in this phase can lead to complications, such as chronic wounds and hypertrophic scars/keloids.^4-6 These abnormal healing processes are characterized by localized inflammation, heightened fibroblast function, and excessive accumulation of the extracellular matrix.^4-8

Molecular Mechanisms

Comprehensive investigations—both in vivo and in vitro—have explored the intricate molecular mechanisms involved in heightened wound healing. Transforming growth factor β takes center stage as a crucial factor, prompting the transformation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts and contributing to the deposition of extracellular matrix.^2,4-8,10 Transforming growth factor β activates non-Smad signaling pathways, such as MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), influencing processes associated with fibrosis.^5,11 Furthermore, microRNAs play a pivotal role in posttranscriptional regulation, influencing both transforming growth factor β signaling and fibroblast behavior.^12-16

The involvement of prostaglandins is crucial in wound healing. Prostaglandin E2 plays a notable role and is positively correlated with the rate of wound healing.⁵ The cyclooxygenase pathway, pivotal for prostaglandin synthesis, becomes a target for inflammation control.^4,5,10 Although aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly are employed, their impact on wound healing remains controversial, as inhibition of cyclooxygenase may disrupt normal repair processes.^5,17,18

Wound healing exhibits variations depending on age. Fetal skin regeneration is marked by the restoration of normal dermal architecture, including adnexal structures, nerves, vessels, and muscle.^4-6 The distinctive characteristics of fetal wound healing include a unique profile of growth factors, a diminished inflammatory response, reduced biomechanical stress, and a distinct extracellular matrix composition.¹⁹ These factors contribute to a lower propensity for scar formation compared to the healing processes observed in adults. Fetal and adult wound healing differ fundamentally in their extracellular matrix composition, inflammatory cells, and cytokine levels.^4-6,19 Adult wounds feature myofibroblasts, which are absent in fetal wounds, contributing to heightened mechanical tension.⁵ Delving deeper into the biochemical basis of fetal wound healing holds promise for mitigating scar formation in adults.

Takeaways From Other Species

Much of the biochemical knowledge of wound healing, especially regenerative wound healing, is known from other species. Geckos provide a unique model for studying regenerative repair in tails and nonregenerative healing in limbs after amputation. Scar-free wound healing is characterized by rapid wound closure, delayed blood vessel development, and collagen deposition, which contrasts with the hypervascular granulation tissue seen in scarring wounds.²⁰ Scar-free wound healing and regeneration are intrinsic properties of the lizard tail and are unaffected by the location or method of detachment.²¹

Compared to amphibians with extraordinary regenerative capacity, data suggest the lack of regenerative capacity in mammals may come from a desynchronization of the fine-tuned interplay of progenitor cells such as blastema and differentiated cells.^22,23 In mice, the response to amputation is specific to the level: cutting through the distal third of the terminal phalanx elicits a regeneration response, yielding a new digit tip resembling the lost one, while an amputation through the distal third of the intermediate phalanx triggers a wound healing and scarring response.²⁴

Wound Healing Following Limb Amputation

Limb amputation represents a profound change in an individual’s life, impacting daily activities and overall well-being. There are many causes of amputation, but the most common include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and trauma.^25-27 Trauma represents a relatively common cause within the US Military due to the overall young population as well as inherent risks of uniformed service.^25,27 Advances in protective gear and combat casualty care have led to an increased number of individuals surviving with extremity injuries requiring amputation, particularly among younger service members, with a subgroup experiencing multiple amputations.^27-29

Numerous factors play a crucial role in the healing and function of postamputation wounds. The level of amputation is a key determinant influencing both functional outcomes and the healing process. Achieving a balance between preserving function and removing damaged tissue is essential. A study investigating cardiac function and oxygen consumption in 25 patients with peripheral vascular disease found higher-level amputations resulted in decreased walking speed and cadence, along with increased oxygen consumption per meter walked.³⁰

Selecting the appropriate amputation level is vital to optimize functional outcomes without compromising wound healing. Successful prosthetic limb fitting depends largely on the length of the residual stump to support the body load and suspend the prosthesis. For long bone amputations, maintaining at least 12-cm clearance above the knee joint in transfemoral amputees and 10-cm below the knee joint in transtibial amputees is critical for maximizing functional outcomes.³¹

Surgical technique also is paramount. The goal is to minimize the risk for pressure ulcers by avoiding bony spurs and muscle imbalances. Shaping the muscle and residual limb is essential for proper prosthesis fitting. Attention to neurovascular structures, such as burying nerve ends to prevent neuropathic pain during prosthesis wear, is crucial.³² In extremity amputations, surgeons often resort to free flap transfer techniques for stump reconstruction. In a study of 31 patients with severe lower extremity injuries undergoing various amputations, the use of latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps, alone or in combination with serratus anterior muscle flaps, resulted in fewer instances of deep ulceration and allowed for earlier prosthesis wear.³³

Addressing Barriers to Wound Healing

Multiple barriers to successful wound healing are encountered in the amputee population. Amputations from trauma have a less-controlled initiation, which carries with it a higher risk for infection, poor wound healing, and other complications.

Infection—Infection often is one of the first hurdles encountered in postamputation wound healing. Critical first steps in infection prevention include thorough cleaning of soiled traumatic wounds and appropriate tissue debridement coupled with scrupulous sterile technique and postoperative monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection.

In a retrospective study of 223 combat-related major lower extremity amputations (initial and revision) between 2009 and 2015, the use of intrawound antibiotic powder at the time of closure demonstrated a 13% absolute risk reduction in deep infection rates, which was particularly notable in revision amputations, with a number needed to treat of 8 for initial amputations and 4 for revision amputations on previously infected limbs.³⁴ Intra-operative antibiotic powder may represent a cheap and easy consideration for this special population of amputees. Postamputation antibiotic prophylaxis for infection prevention is an area of controversy. For nontraumatic infections, data suggest antibiotic prophylaxis may not decrease infection rates in these patients.^35,36

Interestingly, a study by Azarbal et al³⁷ aimed to investigate the correlation between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with wound occurrence following major lower extremity amputation. The study found MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall wound occurrence as well as wound occurrence due to wound infection. These data suggest nasal MRSA eradication may improve postoperative wound outcomes after major lower extremity amputation.³⁷

Dressing Choice—The dressing chosen for a residual limb also is of paramount importance following amputation. The personalized and dynamic management of postamputation wounds and skin involves achieving optimal healing through a dressing that sustains appropriate moisture levels, addresses edema, helps prevent contractures, and safeguards the limb.³⁸ From the start, using negative pressure wound dressings after surgical amputation can decrease wound-related complications.³⁹

Topical oxygen therapy following amputation also shows promise. In a retrospective case series by Kalliainen et al,⁴⁰ topical oxygen therapy applied to 58 wounds in 32 patients over 9 months demonstrated positive outcomes in promoting wound healing, with 38 wounds (66%) healing completely with the use of topical oxygen. Minimal complications and no detrimental effects were observed.⁴⁰

Current recommendations suggest that non–weight-bearing removable rigid dressings are the superior postoperative management for transtibial amputations compared to soft dressings, offering benefits such as faster healing, reduced limb edema, earlier ambulation, preparatory shaping for prosthetic use, and prevention of knee flexion contractures.^41-46 Similarly, adding a silicone liner following amputation significantly reduced the duration of prosthetic rehabilitation compared with a conventional soft dressing program in one study (P<.05).⁴⁷

Specifically targeting wound edema, a case series by Hoskins et al⁴⁸ investigated the impact of prostheses with vacuum-assisted suspension on the size of residual limb wounds in individuals with transtibial amputation. Well-fitting sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension did not impede wound healing, and the results suggest the potential for continued prosthesis use during the healing process.⁴⁸ However, a study by Johannesson et al⁴⁹ compared the outcomes of transtibial amputation patients using a vacuum-formed rigid dressing and a conventional rigid plaster dressing, finding no significant differences in wound healing, time to prosthetic fitting, or functional outcomes with the prosthesis between the 2 groups. When comparing elastic bandaging, pneumatic prosthesis, and temporary prosthesis on postoperative stump management, temporary prosthesis led to a decrease in stump volume, quicker transition to a permanent prosthesis, and improved quality of life compared with elastic bandaging and pneumatic prosthetics.⁵⁰

The type of material in dressings may contribute to utility in amputation wounds. Keratin-based wound dressings show promise for wound healing, especially in recalcitrant vascular wounds.⁵¹ There also are numerous proprietary wound dressings available for patients, at least one of which has particularly thorough data. In a retrospective study of more than 2 million lower extremity wounds across 644 institutions, a proprietary bioactive human skin allograft (TheraSkin [LifeNet Health]) demonstrated higher healing rates, greater percentage area reductions, lower amputations, reduced recidivism, higher treatment completion, and fewer medical transfers compared with standard of care alone.⁵²

Postamputation Dermatologic Concerns

After the postamputation wound heals, a notable concern is the prevalence of skin diseases affecting residual limbs. The stump site in amputees, marked by a delicate cutaneous landscape vulnerable to skin diseases, faces challenges arising from amputation-induced damage to various structures.⁵³

When integrated into a prosthesis socket, the altered skin must acclimate to a humid environment and endure forces for which it is not well suited, especially during movement.⁵³ Amputation remarkably alters normal tissue perfusion, which can lead to aberrant blood and lymphatic circulation in residual limbs.^27,53 This compromised skin, often associated with a history of vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignancy, becomes immunocompromised, heightening the risk for dermatologic issues such as inflammation, infection, and malignancies.⁵³ Unlike the resilient volar skin on palms and soles, stump skin lacks adaptation to withstand the compressive forces generated during ambulation, sometimes leading to skin disease and pain that result in abandonment of the prosthesis.^53,54 Mechanical forces on the skin, especially in active patients eager to resume pre-injury lifestyles, contribute to skin breakdown. The dynamic nature of the residual limb, including muscle atrophy, gait changes, and weight fluctuations, complicates the prosthetic fitting process. Prosthesis abandonment remains a challenge, despite modern technologic advancements.

The occurrence of heterotopic ossification (extraskeletal bone formation) is another notable issue in military amputees.^27,55-57 Poor prosthetic fit can lead to skin degradation, necessitating further surgery to address mispositioned bone formations. Orthopedic monitoring supplemented by appropriate imaging studies can benefit postamputation patients by detecting and preventing heterotopic ossification in its early stages.

Dermatologic issues, especially among lower limb amputees, are noteworthy, with a substantial percentage experiencing complications related to socket prosthetics, such as heat, sweating, sores, and skin irritation. Up to 41% of patients are seen regularly for a secondary skin disorder following amputation.⁵⁸ As one might expect, persistent wounds, blisters, ulcers, and abscesses are some of the most typical cutaneous abnormalities affecting residual limbs with prostheses.^27,58 More rare skin conditions also are documented in residual limbs, including cutaneous granuloma, verrucous carcinoma, bullous pemphigoid, and angiodermatitis.^27,59-61

Treatments offered in the dermatology clinic often are similar to patients who have not had an amputation. For instance, hyperhidrosis can be treated with prescription antiperspirant, topical aluminum chloride, topical glycopyrronium, botulinum toxin, and iontophoresis, which can greatly decrease skin irritation and malodor. Subcutaneous neurotoxins such as botulinum toxin are especially useful for hyperhidrosis following amputation because a single treatment can last 3 to 6 months, whereas topicals must be applied multiple times per day and can be inherently irritating to the skin.^27,62 Furthermore, ablative fractional resurfacing lasers also can help stimulate new collagen growth, increase skin mobility on residual limbs, smooth jagged scars, and aid prosthetic fitting.^27,63 Perforated prosthetic liners also may be useful to address issues such as excessive sweating, demonstrating improvements in skin health, reduced sweating problems, and potential avoidance of surgical interventions.⁶⁴

When comorbid skin conditions are at bay, preventive measures for excessive wound healing necessitate early recognition and timely intervention for residual limbs. Preventive techniques encompass the use of silicone gel sheeting, hypoallergenic microporous tape, and intralesional steroid injections.

Psychological Concerns—An overarching issue following amputation is the psychological toll the process imposes on the patient. Psychological concerns, including anxiety and depression, present additional challenges impacting residual limb hygiene and prosthetic maintenance. Chronic wounds are devastating to patients. These patients consistently express feeling ostracized from their community and anxious about unemployment, leaking fluid, or odor from the wound, as well as other social stigmata.⁶² Depression and anxiety can hinder a patient’s ability to care for their wound and make them more susceptible to the myriad issues that can ensue.

Recent Developments in Wound Healing

Wound healing is ripe for innovation that could assuage ailments that impact patients following amputation. A 2022 study by Abu El Hawa et al⁶⁵ illustrated advanced progression in wound healing for patients taking statins, even though the statin group had increased age and number of comorbidities compared with patients not taking statins.

Nasseri and Sharifi⁶⁶ showed the potential of antimicrobial peptides—small proteins with cationic charges and amphipathic structures exhibiting electrostatic interaction with microbial cell membranes—in promoting wound healing, particularly defensins and cathelicidin LL-37.They also discussed innovative delivery systems, such as nanoparticles and electrospun fibrous scaffolds, highlighting their potential as possibly more effective therapeutics than antibiotics, especially in the context of diabetic wound closure.⁶⁶ Aimed at increased angiogenesis in the proliferative phase, there is evidence that N-acetylcysteine can increase amputation stump perfusion with the goal of better long-term wound healing and more efficient scar formation.⁶⁷

Stem cell therapy, particularly employing cells from the human amniotic membrane, represents an auspicious avenue for antifibrotic treatment. Amniotic epithelial cells and amniotic mesenchymal cells, with their self-renewal and multilineage differentiation capabilities, exhibit anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.^4,5 A study by Dong et al⁶⁸ aimed to assess the efficacy of cell therapy, particularly differentiated progenitor cell–based graft transplantation or autologous stem cell injection, in treating refractory skin injuries such as nonrevascularizable critical limb ischemic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and diabetic lower limb ulcers. The findings demonstrated cell therapy effectively reduced the size of ulcers, improved wound closure rates, and decreased major amputation rates compared with standard therapy. Of note, cell therapy had limited impact on alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischemia-related cutaneous ulcers.⁶⁸

Final Thoughts

Wound care following amputation is a multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration between many health care professionals. Dermatologists play a crucial role in providing routine care as well as addressing wound healing and related skin issues among amputation patients. As the field progresses, dermatologists are well positioned to make notable contributions and ensure enhanced outcomes, resulting in a better quality of life for patients facing the challenges of limb amputation and prosthetic use.

The lifetime cost of the new topical gene therapy Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC) could be as much as $15-$22 million per patient, a figure that may give payers, especially federal programs like Medicaid, pause, according to the authors of a new study.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.

Raymakers_Adam_Boston_web.jpg

CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program

The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.

“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.

Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.

The lifetime cost of the new topical gene therapy Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC) could be as much as $15-$22 million per patient, a figure that may give payers, especially federal programs like Medicaid, pause, according to the authors of a new study.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.

Raymakers_Adam_Boston_web.jpg

CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program

The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.

“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.

Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.

The lifetime cost of the new topical gene therapy Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC) could be as much as $15-$22 million per patient, a figure that may give payers, especially federal programs like Medicaid, pause, according to the authors of a new study.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.

Raymakers_Adam_Boston_web.jpg

CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program

The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.

“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.

Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.

A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.^1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.⁴ In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.⁵ Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.³ It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.^2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.⁷In part 1 of this update on rosemary, the focus will be on chemical constituents, wound healing, anticancer activity, and hair care potential.

Chemical Constituents

The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).¹⁰ Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.⁹ Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.¹⁰

Wound Healing

In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.¹¹

Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.

Rosemary_Oil_1316967048_web.jpg

The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.¹²

A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.¹³

Anticancer Activity

Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.¹⁴ Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.⁸

The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.¹⁵

Hair Health

Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.¹

Baumann_Leslie_S_USE_web.jpg

In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.¹⁶

A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.¹⁷

Conclusion

Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.

2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.

3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.

4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.

5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.

6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.

7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.

8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.

9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.

10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.

11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.

12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.

13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.

14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.

15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.

16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.

17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.

*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.

A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.^1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.⁴ In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.⁵ Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.³ It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.^2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.⁷In part 1 of this update on rosemary, the focus will be on chemical constituents, wound healing, anticancer activity, and hair care potential.

Chemical Constituents

The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).¹⁰ Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.⁹ Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.¹⁰

Wound Healing

In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.¹¹

Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.

Rosemary_Oil_1316967048_web.jpg

The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.¹²

A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.¹³

Anticancer Activity

Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.¹⁴ Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.⁸

The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.¹⁵

Hair Health

Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.¹

Baumann_Leslie_S_USE_web.jpg

In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.¹⁶

A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.¹⁷

Conclusion

Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.

2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.

3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.

4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.

5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.

6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.

7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.

8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.

9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.

10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.

11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.

12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.

13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.

14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.

15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.

16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.

17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.

*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.

A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.^1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.⁴ In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.⁵ Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.³ It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.^2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.⁷In part 1 of this update on rosemary, the focus will be on chemical constituents, wound healing, anticancer activity, and hair care potential.

Chemical Constituents

The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).¹⁰ Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.⁹ Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.¹⁰

Wound Healing

In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.¹¹

Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.

Rosemary_Oil_1316967048_web.jpg

The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.¹²

A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.¹³

Anticancer Activity

Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.¹⁴ Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.⁸

The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.¹⁵

Hair Health

Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.¹

Baumann_Leslie_S_USE_web.jpg

In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.¹⁶

A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.¹⁷

Conclusion

Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.

2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.

3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.

4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.

5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.

6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.

7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.

8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.

9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.

10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.

11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.

12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.

13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.

14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.

15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.

16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.

17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.

*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

[embed:render:related:node:264410]

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

[embed:render:related:node:264410]

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

[embed:render:related:node:264410]

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

Practice Gap

In low-resource settings, dermatologists may not have the preferred tools to evaluate a patient or perform a procedure. Commonplace affordable supplies can be substituted when needed.

Traditionally, tools readily available for comedone extraction in dermatology clinics include sterile disposable hypodermic needles to open the skin and either a comedone extractor or 2 cotton-tip applicators to apply pressure for extraction. However, when these tools are not available, resourceful techniques have been utilized. Ashique and Srinivas¹ described a less-painful method for extracting conchae comedones that they called “pen punching,” which involved using the rim of the tip of a ballpoint pen to apply pressure to extract lesions. Mukhtar and Gupta² used a 3-mL disposable syringe as a comedone extractor; the syringe was cut at the needle hub using a surgical blade, with one half at 30° to 45°. Kaya et al³ used sharp-tipped cautery to puncture closed macrocomedones. Cvancara and Meffert⁴ described how an autoclaved paper clip could be fashioned into a disposable comedone extractor, highlighting its potential use in humanitarian work or military deployments. A sterilized safety pin has been demonstrated to be an inexpensive tool to extract open and closed comedones without a surgical blade.⁵ We describe the use of a blood glucose testing lancet and a paper clip for comedone extraction.

Tools and Technique

A patient presented to a satellite clinic requesting extraction of multiple bothersome milia. A comedone extractor was unavailable at that location, and the patient’s access to care elsewhere was limited.

To perform extraction of milia in this case, we used a sterile, twist-top, stainless steel, 30-gauge blood glucose testing lancet and a paper clip sterilized with an isopropyl alcohol wipe (Figure). The beveled edge of the lancet was used to make a superficial opening to the skin, and the end loop of the paper clip was used as a comedone extractor. Applying moderate vertical pressure, 15 milia were expressed from the forearms. The patient tolerated the procedure well and reported minimal pain.

Haller.jpg

Practical Implications

The cost of the paper clip and lancet for our technique was $0.07. These materials are affordable, easy to use, and readily found in a variety of settings, making them a feasible option for performing this procedure. 

Practice Gap

In low-resource settings, dermatologists may not have the preferred tools to evaluate a patient or perform a procedure. Commonplace affordable supplies can be substituted when needed.

Traditionally, tools readily available for comedone extraction in dermatology clinics include sterile disposable hypodermic needles to open the skin and either a comedone extractor or 2 cotton-tip applicators to apply pressure for extraction. However, when these tools are not available, resourceful techniques have been utilized. Ashique and Srinivas¹ described a less-painful method for extracting conchae comedones that they called “pen punching,” which involved using the rim of the tip of a ballpoint pen to apply pressure to extract lesions. Mukhtar and Gupta² used a 3-mL disposable syringe as a comedone extractor; the syringe was cut at the needle hub using a surgical blade, with one half at 30° to 45°. Kaya et al³ used sharp-tipped cautery to puncture closed macrocomedones. Cvancara and Meffert⁴ described how an autoclaved paper clip could be fashioned into a disposable comedone extractor, highlighting its potential use in humanitarian work or military deployments. A sterilized safety pin has been demonstrated to be an inexpensive tool to extract open and closed comedones without a surgical blade.⁵ We describe the use of a blood glucose testing lancet and a paper clip for comedone extraction.

Tools and Technique

A patient presented to a satellite clinic requesting extraction of multiple bothersome milia. A comedone extractor was unavailable at that location, and the patient’s access to care elsewhere was limited.

To perform extraction of milia in this case, we used a sterile, twist-top, stainless steel, 30-gauge blood glucose testing lancet and a paper clip sterilized with an isopropyl alcohol wipe (Figure). The beveled edge of the lancet was used to make a superficial opening to the skin, and the end loop of the paper clip was used as a comedone extractor. Applying moderate vertical pressure, 15 milia were expressed from the forearms. The patient tolerated the procedure well and reported minimal pain.

Haller.jpg

Practical Implications

The cost of the paper clip and lancet for our technique was $0.07. These materials are affordable, easy to use, and readily found in a variety of settings, making them a feasible option for performing this procedure. 

Practice Gap

In low-resource settings, dermatologists may not have the preferred tools to evaluate a patient or perform a procedure. Commonplace affordable supplies can be substituted when needed.

Traditionally, tools readily available for comedone extraction in dermatology clinics include sterile disposable hypodermic needles to open the skin and either a comedone extractor or 2 cotton-tip applicators to apply pressure for extraction. However, when these tools are not available, resourceful techniques have been utilized. Ashique and Srinivas¹ described a less-painful method for extracting conchae comedones that they called “pen punching,” which involved using the rim of the tip of a ballpoint pen to apply pressure to extract lesions. Mukhtar and Gupta² used a 3-mL disposable syringe as a comedone extractor; the syringe was cut at the needle hub using a surgical blade, with one half at 30° to 45°. Kaya et al³ used sharp-tipped cautery to puncture closed macrocomedones. Cvancara and Meffert⁴ described how an autoclaved paper clip could be fashioned into a disposable comedone extractor, highlighting its potential use in humanitarian work or military deployments. A sterilized safety pin has been demonstrated to be an inexpensive tool to extract open and closed comedones without a surgical blade.⁵ We describe the use of a blood glucose testing lancet and a paper clip for comedone extraction.

Tools and Technique

A patient presented to a satellite clinic requesting extraction of multiple bothersome milia. A comedone extractor was unavailable at that location, and the patient’s access to care elsewhere was limited.

To perform extraction of milia in this case, we used a sterile, twist-top, stainless steel, 30-gauge blood glucose testing lancet and a paper clip sterilized with an isopropyl alcohol wipe (Figure). The beveled edge of the lancet was used to make a superficial opening to the skin, and the end loop of the paper clip was used as a comedone extractor. Applying moderate vertical pressure, 15 milia were expressed from the forearms. The patient tolerated the procedure well and reported minimal pain.

Haller.jpg

Practical Implications

The cost of the paper clip and lancet for our technique was $0.07. These materials are affordable, easy to use, and readily found in a variety of settings, making them a feasible option for performing this procedure. 

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

Mank_1.jpg

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

CT112005040_e_Fig2_AB.jpg

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

Mank_1.jpg

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

CT112005040_e_Fig2_AB.jpg

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

Mank_1.jpg

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

CT112005040_e_Fig2_AB.jpg

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

TOPLINE:

An international expert consensus offers guidance to diagnose, assess, and treat adult patients experiencing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

METHODOLOGY:

Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.

To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.

An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.

After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.

TAKEAWAY:

The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.

[embed:render:related:node:260973]

The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.

Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”

SOURCE:

The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.

DISCLOSURES:

The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An international expert consensus offers guidance to diagnose, assess, and treat adult patients experiencing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

METHODOLOGY:

Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.

To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.

An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.

After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.

TAKEAWAY:

The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.

[embed:render:related:node:260973]

The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.

Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”

SOURCE:

The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.

DISCLOSURES:

The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An international expert consensus offers guidance to diagnose, assess, and treat adult patients experiencing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

METHODOLOGY:

Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.

To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.

An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.

After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.

TAKEAWAY:

The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.

[embed:render:related:node:260973]

The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.

Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”

SOURCE:

The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.

DISCLOSURES:

The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nemolizumab is gearing up to be a potential new treatment for prurigo nodularis, with further phase 3 data supporting its efficacy and safety reported at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the OLYMPIA 1 study, clinically significant improvements in both itch and skin lesions were seen after 16 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab compared with placebo (P < .0001).

Indeed, among the 286 patients who participated in the trial (190 on nemolizumab and 96 on placebo), 58.4% of those treated with nemolizumab and 16.7% of those who received placebo had an improvement of 4 points or more in the weekly average peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) at week 16 (P < .0001).

Skin lesions were assessed using an investigators general assessment (IGA) score, where IGA success was defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear skin or where there had been at least a 2-point change from baseline values. Over a quarter (26.3%) of nemolizumab-treated patients met these criteria versus 7.3% for those on placebo (P = .0001).

“These results confirm the results of the OLYMPIA 2 study, the other phase 3 study, and now I hope you understand why we are so excited,” lead investigator Sonja Ständer, MD, of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster, Germany, said at the meeting, where she presented the data.

The OLYMPIA 2 study included 274 patients and the results showed a weekly average PP-NRS score improvement of 56.3% vs. 20.9% for placebo and IGA success in 37.7% and 11% of patients, respectively, at 16 weeks.
 

First-in-class therapy

“We know how difficult it is to treat patients; they are refractory to treatment, frustrated, and this really impacts them regarding their quality of life,” said Dr. Ständer. New options are needed to help patients, and nemolizumab, a first-in-class interleukin-31 (IL-31) receptor alpha antagonist, is one treatment that may answer this call.

[embed:render:related:node:262864]

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic neuroimmune skin condition characterized by severe itch and multiple nodular skin lesions, Dr. Ständer explained. She added that there is evidence that IL-31 has a key role to play in the development of itch, and in differentiation of keratinocytes, type 2 and type 17 immune responses, and fibrosis associated with the condition.

The OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials are part of a large developmental program that includes two ongoing trials. One is assessing the durability of response over 24 weeks in 40 patients and the other is a long-term extension trial involving 450 patients from the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials.
 

Inclusion criteria and additional results

For inclusion in the study, adults with prurigo nodularis for at least 6 months had to have 20 or more nodules on the body with a bilateral distribution, an IGA score of 3 or more, and an average PP-NRS of 7 or higher. The latter “was really a high bar for them to qualify for the trial,” said Dr. Ständer.

After an initial 4-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab or placebo given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. An 8-week “off-treatment” period followed.

The nemolizumab dose was based on the patient’s body weight, with patients weighing less than 90 kg (198 pounds) getting a loading dose of 60 mg followed by further doses of 30 mg; while patients weighing 90 kg or more receiving 50 mg of nemolizumab. 

Dr. Ständer reported that nemolizumab met all of the trials’ secondary endpoints; this included at least a 4-point improvement in sleep disturbance. She noted that changes in itch and subsequent sleep disturbance occurred early, at 4 weeks of treatment – after just one injection of nemolizumab.

The response rates seen in the moderate to severe prurigo nodularis population studies are quite unique when compared with conventional therapies, Dr. Ständer maintained. “We’ve never seen something like this before.”
 

No safety concerns

No significant difference in tolerability was seen between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, Dr. Ständer observed. Any adverse event occurred in 71.7% and 65.3% of patients, respectively, and serious adverse events in 8.6% and 10.5%.

There was a similar rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively (4.8% vs. 4.2%).

Headache was seen more frequently among those on nemolizumab than those on placebo (7.0% vs. 2.1%), and there was a higher number of eczema cases among those on nemolizumab (5.3% vs. 1.1%). The latter is somewhat paradoxical because nemolizumab is also being studied as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, with good results seen in phase 3 trials. Asked about this finding after her presentation, Dr. Ständer said “we are following up on that to know exactly what is going on; this is a side effect of nemolizumab that is seen also with other biologics.”
 

JAK inhibitor trial for PN, CPUO

Nemolizumab is not the only promising new approach to treating prurigo nodularis. During a separate late-breaking news session at the meeting, Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center in Baltimore, presented “dramatic” data from a “proof-of-concept” phase 2 study with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (Cibinqo), which is approved for atopic dermatitis in the United States and Europe.

Kwatra_Sean_2020_web.jpg

The investigator-initiated trial took a different approach from most other trials, Dr. Kwatra said. The starting point was to look at studying multiple rather than single dermatologic diseases that were perhaps being left a little by the wayside but may share some common ground. Those two diseases were prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO).

“They’re actually very analogous conditions in the way we treat, so I thought those would be a good pair,” Dr. Kwatra said, noting that there were several studies that made him think that JAK inhibition “would be an interesting concept to try.”

On that basis, 10 women with prurigo nodularis (mean age, 58 years) and two women and eight men with CPUO (mean age, 70 years) were recruited and all were treated with abrocitinib at a once-daily oral dose of 200 mg for 12 weeks.

“They all had really intense itch,” before treatment, Dr. Kwatra said. The mean baseline PP-NRS was 9.2 and 8.2 in the prurigo nodularis and CPUO groups, respectively. By the end of treatment, however, “the improvement in itch was pretty dramatic,” especially for prurigo nodularis, he said.

At 12 weeks, the PP-NRS score had fallen to 2.0 in the prurigo nodularis group, equating to a significant 78% change from baseline (P < .001). And, in the CPUO group, the 12-week PP-NRS score was 3.8, nearly a 54% drop from baseline (P = .01).

Sleep disturbance was improved for both conditions, and in the patients with prurigo nodularis, there were improvements in skin lesions. Looking at the patients who responded to treatment, Dr. Kwatra noted that “if you responded, you respond fast, and you respond almost entirely.”

Additional findings from cutaneous transcriptome analysis showed that JAK inhibition with abrocitinib was modulating Th1-, Th2-, Th17-, and Th22-mediated pathways in both groups of patients.

The overall frequency of adverse events was low, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Commenting on the potential use of abrocitinib in managing patients with PN and CPUO, Tiago dos Reis Matos, MD, PhD, MSc, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization that JAK1 inhibitors “are showing promising results in treating several diseases.”

Dr. Matos, who was not involved in the study, added that JAK inhibition was “of special interest in prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus, since these are some of the most difficult diseases to treat with limited therapeutic options.”

Dr. Kwatra observed: “Obviously, we need further development. But we also have clues here about how to design phase 3 trials.”

Galderma funded the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 studies. Dr. Ständer was an investigator for the trial and reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

Johns Hopkins University supported the abrocitinib study with funding from Pfizer. Dr. Kwatra is an advisory board member or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and is an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Nemolizumab is gearing up to be a potential new treatment for prurigo nodularis, with further phase 3 data supporting its efficacy and safety reported at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the OLYMPIA 1 study, clinically significant improvements in both itch and skin lesions were seen after 16 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab compared with placebo (P < .0001).

Indeed, among the 286 patients who participated in the trial (190 on nemolizumab and 96 on placebo), 58.4% of those treated with nemolizumab and 16.7% of those who received placebo had an improvement of 4 points or more in the weekly average peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) at week 16 (P < .0001).

Skin lesions were assessed using an investigators general assessment (IGA) score, where IGA success was defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear skin or where there had been at least a 2-point change from baseline values. Over a quarter (26.3%) of nemolizumab-treated patients met these criteria versus 7.3% for those on placebo (P = .0001).

“These results confirm the results of the OLYMPIA 2 study, the other phase 3 study, and now I hope you understand why we are so excited,” lead investigator Sonja Ständer, MD, of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster, Germany, said at the meeting, where she presented the data.

The OLYMPIA 2 study included 274 patients and the results showed a weekly average PP-NRS score improvement of 56.3% vs. 20.9% for placebo and IGA success in 37.7% and 11% of patients, respectively, at 16 weeks.
 

First-in-class therapy

“We know how difficult it is to treat patients; they are refractory to treatment, frustrated, and this really impacts them regarding their quality of life,” said Dr. Ständer. New options are needed to help patients, and nemolizumab, a first-in-class interleukin-31 (IL-31) receptor alpha antagonist, is one treatment that may answer this call.

[embed:render:related:node:262864]

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic neuroimmune skin condition characterized by severe itch and multiple nodular skin lesions, Dr. Ständer explained. She added that there is evidence that IL-31 has a key role to play in the development of itch, and in differentiation of keratinocytes, type 2 and type 17 immune responses, and fibrosis associated with the condition.

The OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials are part of a large developmental program that includes two ongoing trials. One is assessing the durability of response over 24 weeks in 40 patients and the other is a long-term extension trial involving 450 patients from the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials.
 

Inclusion criteria and additional results

For inclusion in the study, adults with prurigo nodularis for at least 6 months had to have 20 or more nodules on the body with a bilateral distribution, an IGA score of 3 or more, and an average PP-NRS of 7 or higher. The latter “was really a high bar for them to qualify for the trial,” said Dr. Ständer.

After an initial 4-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab or placebo given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. An 8-week “off-treatment” period followed.

The nemolizumab dose was based on the patient’s body weight, with patients weighing less than 90 kg (198 pounds) getting a loading dose of 60 mg followed by further doses of 30 mg; while patients weighing 90 kg or more receiving 50 mg of nemolizumab. 

Dr. Ständer reported that nemolizumab met all of the trials’ secondary endpoints; this included at least a 4-point improvement in sleep disturbance. She noted that changes in itch and subsequent sleep disturbance occurred early, at 4 weeks of treatment – after just one injection of nemolizumab.

The response rates seen in the moderate to severe prurigo nodularis population studies are quite unique when compared with conventional therapies, Dr. Ständer maintained. “We’ve never seen something like this before.”
 

No safety concerns

No significant difference in tolerability was seen between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, Dr. Ständer observed. Any adverse event occurred in 71.7% and 65.3% of patients, respectively, and serious adverse events in 8.6% and 10.5%.

There was a similar rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively (4.8% vs. 4.2%).

Headache was seen more frequently among those on nemolizumab than those on placebo (7.0% vs. 2.1%), and there was a higher number of eczema cases among those on nemolizumab (5.3% vs. 1.1%). The latter is somewhat paradoxical because nemolizumab is also being studied as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, with good results seen in phase 3 trials. Asked about this finding after her presentation, Dr. Ständer said “we are following up on that to know exactly what is going on; this is a side effect of nemolizumab that is seen also with other biologics.”
 

JAK inhibitor trial for PN, CPUO

Nemolizumab is not the only promising new approach to treating prurigo nodularis. During a separate late-breaking news session at the meeting, Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center in Baltimore, presented “dramatic” data from a “proof-of-concept” phase 2 study with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (Cibinqo), which is approved for atopic dermatitis in the United States and Europe.

Kwatra_Sean_2020_web.jpg

The investigator-initiated trial took a different approach from most other trials, Dr. Kwatra said. The starting point was to look at studying multiple rather than single dermatologic diseases that were perhaps being left a little by the wayside but may share some common ground. Those two diseases were prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO).

“They’re actually very analogous conditions in the way we treat, so I thought those would be a good pair,” Dr. Kwatra said, noting that there were several studies that made him think that JAK inhibition “would be an interesting concept to try.”

On that basis, 10 women with prurigo nodularis (mean age, 58 years) and two women and eight men with CPUO (mean age, 70 years) were recruited and all were treated with abrocitinib at a once-daily oral dose of 200 mg for 12 weeks.

“They all had really intense itch,” before treatment, Dr. Kwatra said. The mean baseline PP-NRS was 9.2 and 8.2 in the prurigo nodularis and CPUO groups, respectively. By the end of treatment, however, “the improvement in itch was pretty dramatic,” especially for prurigo nodularis, he said.

At 12 weeks, the PP-NRS score had fallen to 2.0 in the prurigo nodularis group, equating to a significant 78% change from baseline (P < .001). And, in the CPUO group, the 12-week PP-NRS score was 3.8, nearly a 54% drop from baseline (P = .01).

Sleep disturbance was improved for both conditions, and in the patients with prurigo nodularis, there were improvements in skin lesions. Looking at the patients who responded to treatment, Dr. Kwatra noted that “if you responded, you respond fast, and you respond almost entirely.”

Additional findings from cutaneous transcriptome analysis showed that JAK inhibition with abrocitinib was modulating Th1-, Th2-, Th17-, and Th22-mediated pathways in both groups of patients.

The overall frequency of adverse events was low, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Commenting on the potential use of abrocitinib in managing patients with PN and CPUO, Tiago dos Reis Matos, MD, PhD, MSc, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization that JAK1 inhibitors “are showing promising results in treating several diseases.”

Dr. Matos, who was not involved in the study, added that JAK inhibition was “of special interest in prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus, since these are some of the most difficult diseases to treat with limited therapeutic options.”

Dr. Kwatra observed: “Obviously, we need further development. But we also have clues here about how to design phase 3 trials.”

Galderma funded the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 studies. Dr. Ständer was an investigator for the trial and reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

Johns Hopkins University supported the abrocitinib study with funding from Pfizer. Dr. Kwatra is an advisory board member or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and is an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Nemolizumab is gearing up to be a potential new treatment for prurigo nodularis, with further phase 3 data supporting its efficacy and safety reported at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the OLYMPIA 1 study, clinically significant improvements in both itch and skin lesions were seen after 16 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab compared with placebo (P < .0001).

Indeed, among the 286 patients who participated in the trial (190 on nemolizumab and 96 on placebo), 58.4% of those treated with nemolizumab and 16.7% of those who received placebo had an improvement of 4 points or more in the weekly average peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) at week 16 (P < .0001).

Skin lesions were assessed using an investigators general assessment (IGA) score, where IGA success was defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear skin or where there had been at least a 2-point change from baseline values. Over a quarter (26.3%) of nemolizumab-treated patients met these criteria versus 7.3% for those on placebo (P = .0001).

“These results confirm the results of the OLYMPIA 2 study, the other phase 3 study, and now I hope you understand why we are so excited,” lead investigator Sonja Ständer, MD, of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster, Germany, said at the meeting, where she presented the data.

The OLYMPIA 2 study included 274 patients and the results showed a weekly average PP-NRS score improvement of 56.3% vs. 20.9% for placebo and IGA success in 37.7% and 11% of patients, respectively, at 16 weeks.
 

First-in-class therapy

“We know how difficult it is to treat patients; they are refractory to treatment, frustrated, and this really impacts them regarding their quality of life,” said Dr. Ständer. New options are needed to help patients, and nemolizumab, a first-in-class interleukin-31 (IL-31) receptor alpha antagonist, is one treatment that may answer this call.

[embed:render:related:node:262864]

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic neuroimmune skin condition characterized by severe itch and multiple nodular skin lesions, Dr. Ständer explained. She added that there is evidence that IL-31 has a key role to play in the development of itch, and in differentiation of keratinocytes, type 2 and type 17 immune responses, and fibrosis associated with the condition.

The OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials are part of a large developmental program that includes two ongoing trials. One is assessing the durability of response over 24 weeks in 40 patients and the other is a long-term extension trial involving 450 patients from the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials.
 

Inclusion criteria and additional results

For inclusion in the study, adults with prurigo nodularis for at least 6 months had to have 20 or more nodules on the body with a bilateral distribution, an IGA score of 3 or more, and an average PP-NRS of 7 or higher. The latter “was really a high bar for them to qualify for the trial,” said Dr. Ständer.

After an initial 4-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab or placebo given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. An 8-week “off-treatment” period followed.

The nemolizumab dose was based on the patient’s body weight, with patients weighing less than 90 kg (198 pounds) getting a loading dose of 60 mg followed by further doses of 30 mg; while patients weighing 90 kg or more receiving 50 mg of nemolizumab. 

Dr. Ständer reported that nemolizumab met all of the trials’ secondary endpoints; this included at least a 4-point improvement in sleep disturbance. She noted that changes in itch and subsequent sleep disturbance occurred early, at 4 weeks of treatment – after just one injection of nemolizumab.

The response rates seen in the moderate to severe prurigo nodularis population studies are quite unique when compared with conventional therapies, Dr. Ständer maintained. “We’ve never seen something like this before.”
 

No safety concerns

No significant difference in tolerability was seen between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, Dr. Ständer observed. Any adverse event occurred in 71.7% and 65.3% of patients, respectively, and serious adverse events in 8.6% and 10.5%.

There was a similar rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively (4.8% vs. 4.2%).

Headache was seen more frequently among those on nemolizumab than those on placebo (7.0% vs. 2.1%), and there was a higher number of eczema cases among those on nemolizumab (5.3% vs. 1.1%). The latter is somewhat paradoxical because nemolizumab is also being studied as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, with good results seen in phase 3 trials. Asked about this finding after her presentation, Dr. Ständer said “we are following up on that to know exactly what is going on; this is a side effect of nemolizumab that is seen also with other biologics.”
 

JAK inhibitor trial for PN, CPUO

Nemolizumab is not the only promising new approach to treating prurigo nodularis. During a separate late-breaking news session at the meeting, Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center in Baltimore, presented “dramatic” data from a “proof-of-concept” phase 2 study with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (Cibinqo), which is approved for atopic dermatitis in the United States and Europe.

Kwatra_Sean_2020_web.jpg

The investigator-initiated trial took a different approach from most other trials, Dr. Kwatra said. The starting point was to look at studying multiple rather than single dermatologic diseases that were perhaps being left a little by the wayside but may share some common ground. Those two diseases were prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO).

“They’re actually very analogous conditions in the way we treat, so I thought those would be a good pair,” Dr. Kwatra said, noting that there were several studies that made him think that JAK inhibition “would be an interesting concept to try.”

On that basis, 10 women with prurigo nodularis (mean age, 58 years) and two women and eight men with CPUO (mean age, 70 years) were recruited and all were treated with abrocitinib at a once-daily oral dose of 200 mg for 12 weeks.

“They all had really intense itch,” before treatment, Dr. Kwatra said. The mean baseline PP-NRS was 9.2 and 8.2 in the prurigo nodularis and CPUO groups, respectively. By the end of treatment, however, “the improvement in itch was pretty dramatic,” especially for prurigo nodularis, he said.

At 12 weeks, the PP-NRS score had fallen to 2.0 in the prurigo nodularis group, equating to a significant 78% change from baseline (P < .001). And, in the CPUO group, the 12-week PP-NRS score was 3.8, nearly a 54% drop from baseline (P = .01).

Sleep disturbance was improved for both conditions, and in the patients with prurigo nodularis, there were improvements in skin lesions. Looking at the patients who responded to treatment, Dr. Kwatra noted that “if you responded, you respond fast, and you respond almost entirely.”

Additional findings from cutaneous transcriptome analysis showed that JAK inhibition with abrocitinib was modulating Th1-, Th2-, Th17-, and Th22-mediated pathways in both groups of patients.

The overall frequency of adverse events was low, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Commenting on the potential use of abrocitinib in managing patients with PN and CPUO, Tiago dos Reis Matos, MD, PhD, MSc, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization that JAK1 inhibitors “are showing promising results in treating several diseases.”

Dr. Matos, who was not involved in the study, added that JAK inhibition was “of special interest in prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus, since these are some of the most difficult diseases to treat with limited therapeutic options.”

Dr. Kwatra observed: “Obviously, we need further development. But we also have clues here about how to design phase 3 trials.”

Galderma funded the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 studies. Dr. Ständer was an investigator for the trial and reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

Johns Hopkins University supported the abrocitinib study with funding from Pfizer. Dr. Kwatra is an advisory board member or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and is an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.