Paul Wirth, MD

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Dupilumab is a novel medication that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients 6 years and older. Dupilumab is an injectable fully human monoclonal antibody. It provides a giant leap toward a better quality of life for patients with AD. Dupilumab works by binding to the shared α subunit of the IL-4 receptor (IL-4R), thus inhibiting IL-4 and IL-13 from using that signaling pathway. The documented side-effect profile includes injection-site reaction, keratitis, nasopharyngitis, and headache.¹

We initiated off-label treatment with dupilumab in 3 adult patients who had a history of long-standing adult-onset dermatitis confirmed by histopathology. The 3 patients received a loading dose of 600 mg subcutaneously, followed by 300 mg every other week. Following treatment, the patients had expansion of their disease, with features consistent with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) on subsequent biopsies. These 3 cases demonstrate the well-known adage that the diagnosis of CTCL often requires multiple biopsies performed over time. Although dupilumab has proved efficacious and safe for treating AD, dermatologists should be cautious before starting this medication in an adult who has new-onset dermatitis and no history of atopy.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 61-year-old man presented to dermatology after being lost to follow-up for several years and was started on dupilumab for long-standing nonspecific eczematous dermatitis based on histopathology. He had a pruritic rash of 10 years’ duration that had been biopsied multiple times and was found to be consistent with dermatitis and lichen simplex chronicus (Figure 1). He had been treated with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and narrowband UVB as often as 3 times weekly over many years. The patient also had a history of idiopathic CD4 lymphopenia with consistently negative tests for human immunodeficiency virus.

At approximately the same time as dupilumab was initiated, he was started on 60 mg daily of prednisone by his pulmonologist because of a history of restrictive lung disease of unknown cause. While taking prednisone, he experienced notable improvement in his skin condition; however, as he was slowly tapered off prednisone, he noted remarkable worsening of the dermatitis. Dupilumab was discontinued. Two more biopsies were performed; findings on both were consistent with mycosis fungoides (MF)(Figure 2).

Upon initial evaluation in our clinic, there was concern for Sézary syndrome; however, peripheral blood studies were normal, and there was no monoclonal spike or irregularity in the patient’s Sézary flow cytometry panel. A biopsy demonstrated lichenoid dermatitis, possibly consistent with drug eruption. All supplements and likely medication culprits were discontinued without improvement.

Prior to follow-up in our clinic, the patient was again evaluated by an outside dermatologist and started on dupilumab. After 3 doses, she discontinued the medication because there was no improvement in the cutaneous symptoms. Findings on repeat biopsy following dupilumab treatment were consistent with MF.

Comment

Mycosis fungoides is a rare chronic T-cell lymphoma that can smolder for decades as nonspecific dermatitis before declaring itself fully on skin biopsy.² In many cases, MF masquerades as eczema, psoriasis, contact dermatitis, or other dermatitides, and it often responds to the same medications, making diagnosis even more challenging. Treatment options include topical steroids, narrowband UVB, topical nitrogen mustard, topical carmustine, and bexarotene gel for early-stage disease.³ Although it cannot be determined which patients will progress, some do, and therapies must then be upgraded.

We reported 3 patients with adult-onset dermatitis and multiple biopsies demonstrating nondiagnostic findings, which, in retrospect, likely represented early smoldering CTCL. Each of these patients was treated with dupilumab because multiple biopsies demonstrated findings consistent with nondiagnostic dermatitis, along with a lack of response to standard therapies. In all 3 cases, however, the patients had no history of eczema or atopy. After starting dupilumab, each patient had an acute exacerbation of dermatitis; immediately thereafter, biopsies were consistent with CTCL.

These patients most likely had smoldering CTCL that expressed itself fully after dupilumab was started. Biologic medications and their effects on the immune system have been shown to have multiple unanticipated effects on the skin.^4-6 We are not insinuating that dupilumab was the cause of our patients having developed CTCL, but we do propose that the underlying interplay of dupilumab with the immune system might have accelerated progression of underlying CTCL, resulting in the lymphoma presenting itself clinically and histopathologically. We also must mention that all 3 cases could represent a “true, true, and unrelated” phenomenon.

A proposed mechanism for how dupilumab might hasten progression of CTCL is based on a functional increase of IL-13 available for binding at the IL-13 receptor (IL-13R) α2 site following blockade of the IL-13Rα1 site by dupilumab (Figure 3). The pathway that is blocked by dupilumab provides improvement in AD by blocking the α subunit of the IL-4R, making it a receptor antagonist for both IL-4 and IL-13. The IL-4R forms a heterodimer with both γ c and separately with IL-13Rα1. As a result, IL-4 and IL-13 cannot bind to their respective targets; thus, downstream signaling that is required for AD is halted.⁷ IL-13, in addition to IL-4R, also binds to an IL-13Rα2. IL-13 and both of its receptors are upregulated in CTCL, particularly IL-13Rα2.⁸

Dupilumab is a novel medication that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients 6 years and older. Dupilumab is an injectable fully human monoclonal antibody. It provides a giant leap toward a better quality of life for patients with AD. Dupilumab works by binding to the shared α subunit of the IL-4 receptor (IL-4R), thus inhibiting IL-4 and IL-13 from using that signaling pathway. The documented side-effect profile includes injection-site reaction, keratitis, nasopharyngitis, and headache.¹

We initiated off-label treatment with dupilumab in 3 adult patients who had a history of long-standing adult-onset dermatitis confirmed by histopathology. The 3 patients received a loading dose of 600 mg subcutaneously, followed by 300 mg every other week. Following treatment, the patients had expansion of their disease, with features consistent with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) on subsequent biopsies. These 3 cases demonstrate the well-known adage that the diagnosis of CTCL often requires multiple biopsies performed over time. Although dupilumab has proved efficacious and safe for treating AD, dermatologists should be cautious before starting this medication in an adult who has new-onset dermatitis and no history of atopy.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 61-year-old man presented to dermatology after being lost to follow-up for several years and was started on dupilumab for long-standing nonspecific eczematous dermatitis based on histopathology. He had a pruritic rash of 10 years’ duration that had been biopsied multiple times and was found to be consistent with dermatitis and lichen simplex chronicus (Figure 1). He had been treated with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and narrowband UVB as often as 3 times weekly over many years. The patient also had a history of idiopathic CD4 lymphopenia with consistently negative tests for human immunodeficiency virus.

At approximately the same time as dupilumab was initiated, he was started on 60 mg daily of prednisone by his pulmonologist because of a history of restrictive lung disease of unknown cause. While taking prednisone, he experienced notable improvement in his skin condition; however, as he was slowly tapered off prednisone, he noted remarkable worsening of the dermatitis. Dupilumab was discontinued. Two more biopsies were performed; findings on both were consistent with mycosis fungoides (MF)(Figure 2).

Upon initial evaluation in our clinic, there was concern for Sézary syndrome; however, peripheral blood studies were normal, and there was no monoclonal spike or irregularity in the patient’s Sézary flow cytometry panel. A biopsy demonstrated lichenoid dermatitis, possibly consistent with drug eruption. All supplements and likely medication culprits were discontinued without improvement.

Prior to follow-up in our clinic, the patient was again evaluated by an outside dermatologist and started on dupilumab. After 3 doses, she discontinued the medication because there was no improvement in the cutaneous symptoms. Findings on repeat biopsy following dupilumab treatment were consistent with MF.

Comment

Mycosis fungoides is a rare chronic T-cell lymphoma that can smolder for decades as nonspecific dermatitis before declaring itself fully on skin biopsy.² In many cases, MF masquerades as eczema, psoriasis, contact dermatitis, or other dermatitides, and it often responds to the same medications, making diagnosis even more challenging. Treatment options include topical steroids, narrowband UVB, topical nitrogen mustard, topical carmustine, and bexarotene gel for early-stage disease.³ Although it cannot be determined which patients will progress, some do, and therapies must then be upgraded.

We reported 3 patients with adult-onset dermatitis and multiple biopsies demonstrating nondiagnostic findings, which, in retrospect, likely represented early smoldering CTCL. Each of these patients was treated with dupilumab because multiple biopsies demonstrated findings consistent with nondiagnostic dermatitis, along with a lack of response to standard therapies. In all 3 cases, however, the patients had no history of eczema or atopy. After starting dupilumab, each patient had an acute exacerbation of dermatitis; immediately thereafter, biopsies were consistent with CTCL.

These patients most likely had smoldering CTCL that expressed itself fully after dupilumab was started. Biologic medications and their effects on the immune system have been shown to have multiple unanticipated effects on the skin.^4-6 We are not insinuating that dupilumab was the cause of our patients having developed CTCL, but we do propose that the underlying interplay of dupilumab with the immune system might have accelerated progression of underlying CTCL, resulting in the lymphoma presenting itself clinically and histopathologically. We also must mention that all 3 cases could represent a “true, true, and unrelated” phenomenon.

A proposed mechanism for how dupilumab might hasten progression of CTCL is based on a functional increase of IL-13 available for binding at the IL-13 receptor (IL-13R) α2 site following blockade of the IL-13Rα1 site by dupilumab (Figure 3). The pathway that is blocked by dupilumab provides improvement in AD by blocking the α subunit of the IL-4R, making it a receptor antagonist for both IL-4 and IL-13. The IL-4R forms a heterodimer with both γ c and separately with IL-13Rα1. As a result, IL-4 and IL-13 cannot bind to their respective targets; thus, downstream signaling that is required for AD is halted.⁷ IL-13, in addition to IL-4R, also binds to an IL-13Rα2. IL-13 and both of its receptors are upregulated in CTCL, particularly IL-13Rα2.⁸

Dupilumab is a novel medication that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients 6 years and older. Dupilumab is an injectable fully human monoclonal antibody. It provides a giant leap toward a better quality of life for patients with AD. Dupilumab works by binding to the shared α subunit of the IL-4 receptor (IL-4R), thus inhibiting IL-4 and IL-13 from using that signaling pathway. The documented side-effect profile includes injection-site reaction, keratitis, nasopharyngitis, and headache.¹

We initiated off-label treatment with dupilumab in 3 adult patients who had a history of long-standing adult-onset dermatitis confirmed by histopathology. The 3 patients received a loading dose of 600 mg subcutaneously, followed by 300 mg every other week. Following treatment, the patients had expansion of their disease, with features consistent with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) on subsequent biopsies. These 3 cases demonstrate the well-known adage that the diagnosis of CTCL often requires multiple biopsies performed over time. Although dupilumab has proved efficacious and safe for treating AD, dermatologists should be cautious before starting this medication in an adult who has new-onset dermatitis and no history of atopy.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 61-year-old man presented to dermatology after being lost to follow-up for several years and was started on dupilumab for long-standing nonspecific eczematous dermatitis based on histopathology. He had a pruritic rash of 10 years’ duration that had been biopsied multiple times and was found to be consistent with dermatitis and lichen simplex chronicus (Figure 1). He had been treated with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% and narrowband UVB as often as 3 times weekly over many years. The patient also had a history of idiopathic CD4 lymphopenia with consistently negative tests for human immunodeficiency virus.

At approximately the same time as dupilumab was initiated, he was started on 60 mg daily of prednisone by his pulmonologist because of a history of restrictive lung disease of unknown cause. While taking prednisone, he experienced notable improvement in his skin condition; however, as he was slowly tapered off prednisone, he noted remarkable worsening of the dermatitis. Dupilumab was discontinued. Two more biopsies were performed; findings on both were consistent with mycosis fungoides (MF)(Figure 2).

Upon initial evaluation in our clinic, there was concern for Sézary syndrome; however, peripheral blood studies were normal, and there was no monoclonal spike or irregularity in the patient’s Sézary flow cytometry panel. A biopsy demonstrated lichenoid dermatitis, possibly consistent with drug eruption. All supplements and likely medication culprits were discontinued without improvement.

Prior to follow-up in our clinic, the patient was again evaluated by an outside dermatologist and started on dupilumab. After 3 doses, she discontinued the medication because there was no improvement in the cutaneous symptoms. Findings on repeat biopsy following dupilumab treatment were consistent with MF.

Comment

Mycosis fungoides is a rare chronic T-cell lymphoma that can smolder for decades as nonspecific dermatitis before declaring itself fully on skin biopsy.² In many cases, MF masquerades as eczema, psoriasis, contact dermatitis, or other dermatitides, and it often responds to the same medications, making diagnosis even more challenging. Treatment options include topical steroids, narrowband UVB, topical nitrogen mustard, topical carmustine, and bexarotene gel for early-stage disease.³ Although it cannot be determined which patients will progress, some do, and therapies must then be upgraded.

We reported 3 patients with adult-onset dermatitis and multiple biopsies demonstrating nondiagnostic findings, which, in retrospect, likely represented early smoldering CTCL. Each of these patients was treated with dupilumab because multiple biopsies demonstrated findings consistent with nondiagnostic dermatitis, along with a lack of response to standard therapies. In all 3 cases, however, the patients had no history of eczema or atopy. After starting dupilumab, each patient had an acute exacerbation of dermatitis; immediately thereafter, biopsies were consistent with CTCL.

These patients most likely had smoldering CTCL that expressed itself fully after dupilumab was started. Biologic medications and their effects on the immune system have been shown to have multiple unanticipated effects on the skin.^4-6 We are not insinuating that dupilumab was the cause of our patients having developed CTCL, but we do propose that the underlying interplay of dupilumab with the immune system might have accelerated progression of underlying CTCL, resulting in the lymphoma presenting itself clinically and histopathologically. We also must mention that all 3 cases could represent a “true, true, and unrelated” phenomenon.

A proposed mechanism for how dupilumab might hasten progression of CTCL is based on a functional increase of IL-13 available for binding at the IL-13 receptor (IL-13R) α2 site following blockade of the IL-13Rα1 site by dupilumab (Figure 3). The pathway that is blocked by dupilumab provides improvement in AD by blocking the α subunit of the IL-4R, making it a receptor antagonist for both IL-4 and IL-13. The IL-4R forms a heterodimer with both γ c and separately with IL-13Rα1. As a result, IL-4 and IL-13 cannot bind to their respective targets; thus, downstream signaling that is required for AD is halted.⁷ IL-13, in addition to IL-4R, also binds to an IL-13Rα2. IL-13 and both of its receptors are upregulated in CTCL, particularly IL-13Rα2.⁸