Terri Shih, BS

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by transient hair loss with preservation of the hair follicle (HF). The lifetime incidence risk of AA is approximately 2%,¹ with a mean age of onset of 25 to 36 years and with no clinically relevant significant differences between sex or ethnicity.² Most commonly, it presents as round, well-demarcated patches of alopecia on the scalp and spontaneously resolves in nearly 30% of patients. However, severe disease is associated with younger age of presentation and can progress to a total loss of scalp or body hair—referred to as alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, respectively—thus severely impacting quality of life.^3,4

First-line treatment options for AA include potent topical steroids^5,6 and intralesional (IL) steroids, most commonly IL triamcinolone acetonide (ILTA). Intralesional steroids have been found to be more effective than topicals in stimulating hair growth at the injection site.^7,8 A recent systemic therapy—the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib—was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for AA.⁹ Other systemic therapies such as oral corticosteroids have been studied in small trials with promising results.¹⁰ However, the risks of systemic therapies may outweigh the benefits.^9,10

Another less common topical therapy is contact immunotherapy, which involves topical application of an unlicensed non–pharmaceutical-grade agent to areas affected with AA. It is reported to have a wide range of response rates (29%–87%).¹¹

We report 2 cases of extensive AA that were treated with a novel combination regimen— 2.5 mg/mL of ILTA diluted with lidocaine 1% and epinephrine 1:100,000 in place of normal saline (NS)— which is a modification to an already widely used first-line treatment.

Case Reports

Patient 1—An 11-year-old girl presented with nonscarring alopecia of the vertex and occipital scalp. Three years prior she was treated with topical and IL corticosteroids by a different provider. Physical examination revealed almost complete alopecia involving the bottom two-thirds of the occipital scalp as well as the medial eyebrows (Figures 1A and 1B). Over the span of 1 year she was treated with betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% and several rounds of ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with NS, with minimal improvement. A year after the initial presentation, the decision was made to initiate monthly injections of ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000. Some hair regrowth of the occipital scalp was noted by 3 months, with near-complete regrowth of the scalp hair and eyebrows by 7 months and 5 months, respectively (Figures 1C and 1D). During this period, the patient continued to develop new areas of alopecia of the scalp and eyebrows, which also were injected with this combination. In total, the patient received 8 rounds of IL injections 4 to 6 weeks apart in the scalp and 6 rounds in the eyebrows. The treated areas showed resolution over a follow-up period of 14 months, though there was recurrence at the right medial eyebrow at 5 months. No localized skin atrophy or other adverse effects were noted.

CT110002105_Fig1_ABCD.jpg

Patient 2—A 34-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with previously untreated AA involving the scalp of 2 months’ duration. Physical examination revealed the following areas of nonscarring alopecia: a 10×10-cm area of the right occipital scalp with some regrowth; a 10×14-cm area of the left parieto-occipital scalp; and a 1-cm area posterior to the vertex (Figure 2A). Given the extensive involvement, the decision was made to initiate ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 once monthly. Appreciable hair regrowth was noted within 1 month, mostly on the parietal scalp. Substantial improvement was noted after 3 months in all affected areas of the hair-bearing scalp, with near-complete regrowth on the left occipital scalp and greater than 50% regrowth on the right occipital scalp (Figure 2B). No adverse effects were noted. She currently has no alopecia.

CT110002105_Fig2_AB.jpg

Comment

Alopecia Pathogenesis—The most widely adopted theory of AA etiology implicates an aberrant immune response. The HF, which is a dynamic “mini-organ” with its own immune and hormonal microenvironment, is considered an “immune-privileged site”—meaning it is less exposed to immune responses than most other body areas. It is hypothesized that AA results from a breakdown in this immune privilege, with the subsequent attack on the peribulbar part of the follicle by CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. This lymphocytic infiltrate induces apoptosis in the HF keratinocytes, resulting in inhibition of hair shaft production.¹² Other theories suggest a link to the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.¹³

Therapies for Alopecia—Topical and IL corticosteroids are the first-line therapies for localized AA in patients with less than 50% scalp involvement. Triamcinolone acetonide generally is the IL steroid of choice because it is widely available and less atrophogenic than other steroids. Unlike topicals, ILTA bypasses the epidermis when injected, achieving direct access to the HF.¹⁴

High-quality controlled studies regarding the use of ILTA in AA are scarce. A meta-analysis concluded that 5 mg/mL and 10 mg/mL of ILTA diluted in NS were equally effective (80.9% [P<.05] vs 76.4% [P<.005], respectively). Concentrations of less than 5 mg/mL of ILTA resulted in lower rates of hair regrowth (62.3%; P=.04).¹⁵ The role of diluents other than NS has not been studied.

Benefits of Epinephrine in ILTA Therapy—The role of epinephrine 1:100,000 is to decrease the rate of clearance of triamcinolone acetonide from the HF, allowing for a better therapeutic effect. Laser Doppler blood flowmeter studies have shown that epinephrine 1:100,000 injected in the scalp causes vasoconstriction, thereby decreasing the blood flow rate of clearance of other substances in the same solution.¹⁶ Also, a more gradual systemic absorption is achieved, decreasing systemic side effects such as osteoporosis.¹⁷

Another potential benefit of epinephrine has been suggested in animal studies that demonstrate the important role of the sympathetic nervous system in HF growth. In a mouse study, chemical sympathectomy led to diminished norepinephrine levels in the skin, accompanied by a decreased keratinocyte proliferation and hair growth. Conversely, norepinephrine was found to promote HF growth in an organotypic skin culture model.¹⁸ Topically applied isoproterenol, a panadrenergic receptor agonist, accelerated HF growth in an organotypic skin culture. It also has been shown that external light and temperature changes stimulate hair growth via the sympathetic nervous system, promoting anagen HF growth in cultured skin explants, further linking HF activity with sympathetic nerve activity.¹⁹

In our experience, cases of AA that at first failed ILTA 5 mg/mL in NS have been successfully treated with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000. One such case was alopecia totalis, though we do not have high-quality photographs to present for this report. The 2 cases presented here are the ones with the best photographs to demonstrate our outcomes. Both were treated with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 administered using a 0.5-in long 30-gauge needle, with 0.05 to 0.1 mL per injection approximately 0.51-cm apart. The treatment intervals were 4 weeks, with a maximal dose of 20 mg per session. In addition to the 2 cases reported here, the Table includes 2 other patients in our practice who were successfully treated with this novel regimen.

CT110002105_Table.jpg

Prior to adopting this combination regimen, our standard therapy for AA was 5 mg/mL ILTA buffered with NS. Instead of NS, we now use the widely available 1% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and dilute the ILTA to 2.5 mg/mL. We postulate that epinephrine 1:100,000 enhances therapeutic efficacy via local vasoconstriction, thus keeping the ILTA in situ longer than NS. This effect allows for a lower concentration of ILTA (2.5 mg/mL) to be effective. Furthermore, epinephrine 1:100,000 may have an independent effect, as suggested in mouse studies.¹⁸

Our first case demonstrated the ophiasis subtype of AA (symmetric bandlike hair loss), which has a poorer prognosis and is less responsive to therapy.²⁰ In this patient, prior treatment with topical corticosteroids and ILTA in NS failed to induce a response. After a series of injections with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000, she entered remission. Our second case is one of alopecia subtotalis, which responded quickly, and the patient entered remission after just 3 months of treatment. These 2 cases are illustrative of the results that we regularly get and have come to expect with this treatment.

Conclusion

Our novel modified regimen of 2.5 mg/mL ILTA diluted with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 has yielded a series of excellent outcomes in many of our most challenging AA cases without any untoward effects. Two cases are presented here. Higher-powered studies are needed to validate this new yet simple approach. A split-scalp or split-lesion study comparing ILTA with and without epinephrine 1:100,000 would be warranted for further investigation.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by transient hair loss with preservation of the hair follicle (HF). The lifetime incidence risk of AA is approximately 2%,¹ with a mean age of onset of 25 to 36 years and with no clinically relevant significant differences between sex or ethnicity.² Most commonly, it presents as round, well-demarcated patches of alopecia on the scalp and spontaneously resolves in nearly 30% of patients. However, severe disease is associated with younger age of presentation and can progress to a total loss of scalp or body hair—referred to as alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, respectively—thus severely impacting quality of life.^3,4

First-line treatment options for AA include potent topical steroids^5,6 and intralesional (IL) steroids, most commonly IL triamcinolone acetonide (ILTA). Intralesional steroids have been found to be more effective than topicals in stimulating hair growth at the injection site.^7,8 A recent systemic therapy—the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib—was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for AA.⁹ Other systemic therapies such as oral corticosteroids have been studied in small trials with promising results.¹⁰ However, the risks of systemic therapies may outweigh the benefits.^9,10

Another less common topical therapy is contact immunotherapy, which involves topical application of an unlicensed non–pharmaceutical-grade agent to areas affected with AA. It is reported to have a wide range of response rates (29%–87%).¹¹

We report 2 cases of extensive AA that were treated with a novel combination regimen— 2.5 mg/mL of ILTA diluted with lidocaine 1% and epinephrine 1:100,000 in place of normal saline (NS)— which is a modification to an already widely used first-line treatment.

Case Reports

Patient 1—An 11-year-old girl presented with nonscarring alopecia of the vertex and occipital scalp. Three years prior she was treated with topical and IL corticosteroids by a different provider. Physical examination revealed almost complete alopecia involving the bottom two-thirds of the occipital scalp as well as the medial eyebrows (Figures 1A and 1B). Over the span of 1 year she was treated with betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% and several rounds of ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with NS, with minimal improvement. A year after the initial presentation, the decision was made to initiate monthly injections of ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000. Some hair regrowth of the occipital scalp was noted by 3 months, with near-complete regrowth of the scalp hair and eyebrows by 7 months and 5 months, respectively (Figures 1C and 1D). During this period, the patient continued to develop new areas of alopecia of the scalp and eyebrows, which also were injected with this combination. In total, the patient received 8 rounds of IL injections 4 to 6 weeks apart in the scalp and 6 rounds in the eyebrows. The treated areas showed resolution over a follow-up period of 14 months, though there was recurrence at the right medial eyebrow at 5 months. No localized skin atrophy or other adverse effects were noted.

CT110002105_Fig1_ABCD.jpg

Patient 2—A 34-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with previously untreated AA involving the scalp of 2 months’ duration. Physical examination revealed the following areas of nonscarring alopecia: a 10×10-cm area of the right occipital scalp with some regrowth; a 10×14-cm area of the left parieto-occipital scalp; and a 1-cm area posterior to the vertex (Figure 2A). Given the extensive involvement, the decision was made to initiate ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 once monthly. Appreciable hair regrowth was noted within 1 month, mostly on the parietal scalp. Substantial improvement was noted after 3 months in all affected areas of the hair-bearing scalp, with near-complete regrowth on the left occipital scalp and greater than 50% regrowth on the right occipital scalp (Figure 2B). No adverse effects were noted. She currently has no alopecia.

CT110002105_Fig2_AB.jpg

Comment

Alopecia Pathogenesis—The most widely adopted theory of AA etiology implicates an aberrant immune response. The HF, which is a dynamic “mini-organ” with its own immune and hormonal microenvironment, is considered an “immune-privileged site”—meaning it is less exposed to immune responses than most other body areas. It is hypothesized that AA results from a breakdown in this immune privilege, with the subsequent attack on the peribulbar part of the follicle by CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. This lymphocytic infiltrate induces apoptosis in the HF keratinocytes, resulting in inhibition of hair shaft production.¹² Other theories suggest a link to the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.¹³

Therapies for Alopecia—Topical and IL corticosteroids are the first-line therapies for localized AA in patients with less than 50% scalp involvement. Triamcinolone acetonide generally is the IL steroid of choice because it is widely available and less atrophogenic than other steroids. Unlike topicals, ILTA bypasses the epidermis when injected, achieving direct access to the HF.¹⁴

High-quality controlled studies regarding the use of ILTA in AA are scarce. A meta-analysis concluded that 5 mg/mL and 10 mg/mL of ILTA diluted in NS were equally effective (80.9% [P<.05] vs 76.4% [P<.005], respectively). Concentrations of less than 5 mg/mL of ILTA resulted in lower rates of hair regrowth (62.3%; P=.04).¹⁵ The role of diluents other than NS has not been studied.

Benefits of Epinephrine in ILTA Therapy—The role of epinephrine 1:100,000 is to decrease the rate of clearance of triamcinolone acetonide from the HF, allowing for a better therapeutic effect. Laser Doppler blood flowmeter studies have shown that epinephrine 1:100,000 injected in the scalp causes vasoconstriction, thereby decreasing the blood flow rate of clearance of other substances in the same solution.¹⁶ Also, a more gradual systemic absorption is achieved, decreasing systemic side effects such as osteoporosis.¹⁷

Another potential benefit of epinephrine has been suggested in animal studies that demonstrate the important role of the sympathetic nervous system in HF growth. In a mouse study, chemical sympathectomy led to diminished norepinephrine levels in the skin, accompanied by a decreased keratinocyte proliferation and hair growth. Conversely, norepinephrine was found to promote HF growth in an organotypic skin culture model.¹⁸ Topically applied isoproterenol, a panadrenergic receptor agonist, accelerated HF growth in an organotypic skin culture. It also has been shown that external light and temperature changes stimulate hair growth via the sympathetic nervous system, promoting anagen HF growth in cultured skin explants, further linking HF activity with sympathetic nerve activity.¹⁹

In our experience, cases of AA that at first failed ILTA 5 mg/mL in NS have been successfully treated with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000. One such case was alopecia totalis, though we do not have high-quality photographs to present for this report. The 2 cases presented here are the ones with the best photographs to demonstrate our outcomes. Both were treated with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 administered using a 0.5-in long 30-gauge needle, with 0.05 to 0.1 mL per injection approximately 0.51-cm apart. The treatment intervals were 4 weeks, with a maximal dose of 20 mg per session. In addition to the 2 cases reported here, the Table includes 2 other patients in our practice who were successfully treated with this novel regimen.

CT110002105_Table.jpg

Prior to adopting this combination regimen, our standard therapy for AA was 5 mg/mL ILTA buffered with NS. Instead of NS, we now use the widely available 1% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and dilute the ILTA to 2.5 mg/mL. We postulate that epinephrine 1:100,000 enhances therapeutic efficacy via local vasoconstriction, thus keeping the ILTA in situ longer than NS. This effect allows for a lower concentration of ILTA (2.5 mg/mL) to be effective. Furthermore, epinephrine 1:100,000 may have an independent effect, as suggested in mouse studies.¹⁸

Our first case demonstrated the ophiasis subtype of AA (symmetric bandlike hair loss), which has a poorer prognosis and is less responsive to therapy.²⁰ In this patient, prior treatment with topical corticosteroids and ILTA in NS failed to induce a response. After a series of injections with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000, she entered remission. Our second case is one of alopecia subtotalis, which responded quickly, and the patient entered remission after just 3 months of treatment. These 2 cases are illustrative of the results that we regularly get and have come to expect with this treatment.

Conclusion

Our novel modified regimen of 2.5 mg/mL ILTA diluted with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 has yielded a series of excellent outcomes in many of our most challenging AA cases without any untoward effects. Two cases are presented here. Higher-powered studies are needed to validate this new yet simple approach. A split-scalp or split-lesion study comparing ILTA with and without epinephrine 1:100,000 would be warranted for further investigation.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by transient hair loss with preservation of the hair follicle (HF). The lifetime incidence risk of AA is approximately 2%,¹ with a mean age of onset of 25 to 36 years and with no clinically relevant significant differences between sex or ethnicity.² Most commonly, it presents as round, well-demarcated patches of alopecia on the scalp and spontaneously resolves in nearly 30% of patients. However, severe disease is associated with younger age of presentation and can progress to a total loss of scalp or body hair—referred to as alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, respectively—thus severely impacting quality of life.^3,4

First-line treatment options for AA include potent topical steroids^5,6 and intralesional (IL) steroids, most commonly IL triamcinolone acetonide (ILTA). Intralesional steroids have been found to be more effective than topicals in stimulating hair growth at the injection site.^7,8 A recent systemic therapy—the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib—was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for AA.⁹ Other systemic therapies such as oral corticosteroids have been studied in small trials with promising results.¹⁰ However, the risks of systemic therapies may outweigh the benefits.^9,10

Another less common topical therapy is contact immunotherapy, which involves topical application of an unlicensed non–pharmaceutical-grade agent to areas affected with AA. It is reported to have a wide range of response rates (29%–87%).¹¹

We report 2 cases of extensive AA that were treated with a novel combination regimen— 2.5 mg/mL of ILTA diluted with lidocaine 1% and epinephrine 1:100,000 in place of normal saline (NS)— which is a modification to an already widely used first-line treatment.

Case Reports

Patient 1—An 11-year-old girl presented with nonscarring alopecia of the vertex and occipital scalp. Three years prior she was treated with topical and IL corticosteroids by a different provider. Physical examination revealed almost complete alopecia involving the bottom two-thirds of the occipital scalp as well as the medial eyebrows (Figures 1A and 1B). Over the span of 1 year she was treated with betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05% and several rounds of ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with NS, with minimal improvement. A year after the initial presentation, the decision was made to initiate monthly injections of ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000. Some hair regrowth of the occipital scalp was noted by 3 months, with near-complete regrowth of the scalp hair and eyebrows by 7 months and 5 months, respectively (Figures 1C and 1D). During this period, the patient continued to develop new areas of alopecia of the scalp and eyebrows, which also were injected with this combination. In total, the patient received 8 rounds of IL injections 4 to 6 weeks apart in the scalp and 6 rounds in the eyebrows. The treated areas showed resolution over a follow-up period of 14 months, though there was recurrence at the right medial eyebrow at 5 months. No localized skin atrophy or other adverse effects were noted.

CT110002105_Fig1_ABCD.jpg

Patient 2—A 34-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with previously untreated AA involving the scalp of 2 months’ duration. Physical examination revealed the following areas of nonscarring alopecia: a 10×10-cm area of the right occipital scalp with some regrowth; a 10×14-cm area of the left parieto-occipital scalp; and a 1-cm area posterior to the vertex (Figure 2A). Given the extensive involvement, the decision was made to initiate ILTA 2.5 mg/mL buffered with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 once monthly. Appreciable hair regrowth was noted within 1 month, mostly on the parietal scalp. Substantial improvement was noted after 3 months in all affected areas of the hair-bearing scalp, with near-complete regrowth on the left occipital scalp and greater than 50% regrowth on the right occipital scalp (Figure 2B). No adverse effects were noted. She currently has no alopecia.

CT110002105_Fig2_AB.jpg

Comment

Alopecia Pathogenesis—The most widely adopted theory of AA etiology implicates an aberrant immune response. The HF, which is a dynamic “mini-organ” with its own immune and hormonal microenvironment, is considered an “immune-privileged site”—meaning it is less exposed to immune responses than most other body areas. It is hypothesized that AA results from a breakdown in this immune privilege, with the subsequent attack on the peribulbar part of the follicle by CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. This lymphocytic infiltrate induces apoptosis in the HF keratinocytes, resulting in inhibition of hair shaft production.¹² Other theories suggest a link to the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.¹³

Therapies for Alopecia—Topical and IL corticosteroids are the first-line therapies for localized AA in patients with less than 50% scalp involvement. Triamcinolone acetonide generally is the IL steroid of choice because it is widely available and less atrophogenic than other steroids. Unlike topicals, ILTA bypasses the epidermis when injected, achieving direct access to the HF.¹⁴

High-quality controlled studies regarding the use of ILTA in AA are scarce. A meta-analysis concluded that 5 mg/mL and 10 mg/mL of ILTA diluted in NS were equally effective (80.9% [P<.05] vs 76.4% [P<.005], respectively). Concentrations of less than 5 mg/mL of ILTA resulted in lower rates of hair regrowth (62.3%; P=.04).¹⁵ The role of diluents other than NS has not been studied.

Benefits of Epinephrine in ILTA Therapy—The role of epinephrine 1:100,000 is to decrease the rate of clearance of triamcinolone acetonide from the HF, allowing for a better therapeutic effect. Laser Doppler blood flowmeter studies have shown that epinephrine 1:100,000 injected in the scalp causes vasoconstriction, thereby decreasing the blood flow rate of clearance of other substances in the same solution.¹⁶ Also, a more gradual systemic absorption is achieved, decreasing systemic side effects such as osteoporosis.¹⁷

Another potential benefit of epinephrine has been suggested in animal studies that demonstrate the important role of the sympathetic nervous system in HF growth. In a mouse study, chemical sympathectomy led to diminished norepinephrine levels in the skin, accompanied by a decreased keratinocyte proliferation and hair growth. Conversely, norepinephrine was found to promote HF growth in an organotypic skin culture model.¹⁸ Topically applied isoproterenol, a panadrenergic receptor agonist, accelerated HF growth in an organotypic skin culture. It also has been shown that external light and temperature changes stimulate hair growth via the sympathetic nervous system, promoting anagen HF growth in cultured skin explants, further linking HF activity with sympathetic nerve activity.¹⁹

In our experience, cases of AA that at first failed ILTA 5 mg/mL in NS have been successfully treated with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000. One such case was alopecia totalis, though we do not have high-quality photographs to present for this report. The 2 cases presented here are the ones with the best photographs to demonstrate our outcomes. Both were treated with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 administered using a 0.5-in long 30-gauge needle, with 0.05 to 0.1 mL per injection approximately 0.51-cm apart. The treatment intervals were 4 weeks, with a maximal dose of 20 mg per session. In addition to the 2 cases reported here, the Table includes 2 other patients in our practice who were successfully treated with this novel regimen.

CT110002105_Table.jpg

Prior to adopting this combination regimen, our standard therapy for AA was 5 mg/mL ILTA buffered with NS. Instead of NS, we now use the widely available 1% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and dilute the ILTA to 2.5 mg/mL. We postulate that epinephrine 1:100,000 enhances therapeutic efficacy via local vasoconstriction, thus keeping the ILTA in situ longer than NS. This effect allows for a lower concentration of ILTA (2.5 mg/mL) to be effective. Furthermore, epinephrine 1:100,000 may have an independent effect, as suggested in mouse studies.¹⁸

Our first case demonstrated the ophiasis subtype of AA (symmetric bandlike hair loss), which has a poorer prognosis and is less responsive to therapy.²⁰ In this patient, prior treatment with topical corticosteroids and ILTA in NS failed to induce a response. After a series of injections with 2.5 mg/mL ILTA in 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000, she entered remission. Our second case is one of alopecia subtotalis, which responded quickly, and the patient entered remission after just 3 months of treatment. These 2 cases are illustrative of the results that we regularly get and have come to expect with this treatment.

Conclusion

Our novel modified regimen of 2.5 mg/mL ILTA diluted with 1% lidocaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 has yielded a series of excellent outcomes in many of our most challenging AA cases without any untoward effects. Two cases are presented here. Higher-powered studies are needed to validate this new yet simple approach. A split-scalp or split-lesion study comparing ILTA with and without epinephrine 1:100,000 would be warranted for further investigation.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

CT108004176_figure.JPG

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

CT108004176_figure.JPG

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating chronic condition that often is recalcitrant to first-line treatments, and mechanisms underlying its pathology remain unclear. Existing data suggest a multifactorial etiology with different pathophysiologic contributors, including genetic, hormonal, and immune dysregulation factors. At this time, only one medication (adalimumab) is US Food and Drug Administration approved for HS, but multiple medical and procedural therapies are available.¹ Herein, we discuss the concept of treatment stacking, or the combination of unique therapeutic modalities—an approach we believe is key to optimizing management of HS patients.

Stacking Treatments for HS

Unlike psoriasis, in which a single biologic agent may provide 100% clearance (psoriasis area and severity index 100 [PASI 100]) without adjuvant treatment,^2,3 the field of HS currently lacks medications that are efficacious to that degree of success as monotherapy. In HS, the benchmark for a positive treatment outcome is Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response 50 (HiSCR50),⁴ a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count—a far less stringent marker for disease improvement. Thus, providers should design HS treatment regimens with a model of combining therapies and shift away from monotherapy. Targeting different pathophysiologic pathways by stacking multiple treatments may provide synergistic benefits for HS patients. Treatment stacking is a familiar concept in acne; for instance, patients who benefit tremendously from isotretinoin may still require a hormone-modulating treatment (eg, spironolactone) to attain optimal results.

Adherence to a rigid treatment algorithm based on disease severity limits the potential to create comprehensive regimens that account for unique patient characteristics and clinical manifestations. When evaluating an HS patient, providers should systematically consider each pathophysiologic factor and target the ones that appear to be most involved in that particular patient. The North American HS guidelines illustrate this point by supporting use of several treatments across different Hurley stages, such as recommending hormonal treatment in patients with Hurley stages 1, 2, or 3.¹ Of note, treatment stacking also includes procedural therapies. Surgeons typically prefer a patient’s disease management to be optimized prior to surgery, including reduced drainage and inflammation. In addition, even after surgery, patients often still require medical management to prevent continued disease worsening.

Treatment Pathways for HS

A multimodal approach with treatment stacking (Figure) can be useful to all HS patients, from those with the mildest to the most severe disease. Modifiable pathophysiologic factors and examples of their targeted treatments include (1) follicular occlusion (eg, oral retinoids), (2) metabolic dysfunction (eg, metformin), (3) hormones (eg, oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, finasteride), (4) dysbiosis (eg, antibiotics such as clindamycin and rifampin combination therapy), (5) immune dysregulation (eg, biologic agents), and (6) friction/irritation (eg, weight loss, clothing recommendations).

CT108004176_figure.JPG

Combining treatments from different pathways enables potentiation of individual treatment efficacies. A female patient with only a few HS nodules that flare with menses may be well controlled with spironolactone as her only systemic agent; however, she still may benefit from use of an antiseptic wash, topical clindamycin, and lifestyle changes such as weight loss and reduction of mechanical irritation. A patient with severe recalcitrant HS could notably benefit from concomitant biologic, systemic antibiotic, and hormonal/metabolic treatments. If disease control is still inadequate, agents within the same class can be switched (eg, choosing a different biologic) or other disease-modifying agents such as colchicine also can be added. The goal is to create an effective treatment toolbox with therapies targeting different pathophysiologic arms of HS and working together in synergy. Each tool can be refined by modifying dosing frequency and duration of use to strive for optimal response. At this time, the literature on HS combination therapy is sparse. A retrospective study of 31 patients reported promising combinations, including isotretinoin with spironolactone for mild disease, isotretinoin or doxycycline with adalimumab for moderate disease, and cyclosporine with adalimumab for severe disease.⁵ Larger prospective studies on clinical response to different combination regimens are warranted.

Optimizing Therapy for HS and Its Comorbidities

Additional considerations may further optimize treatment plans. Some therapies benefit all patients; for example, providers should counsel all HS patients on healthy weight management, optimized clothing choices,⁶ and friction reduction in the intertriginous folds. Providers also may consider adding therapies with faster onset of efficacy as a bridge to long-term, slower-onset therapies. For instance, female HS patients with menstrual flares who are prescribed spironolactone also may benefit from a course of systemic antibiotics, which typically provides more prompt relief. Treatment regimens also can concomitantly treat HS and its comorbidities.⁷ For example, metformin serves a dual purpose in HS patients with diabetes mellitus, and adalimumab in patients with both HS and inflammatory bowel disease.

Final Thoughts

The last decade has seen tremendous growth in HS research⁸ coupled with a remarkable expansion in the therapeutic pipeline.⁹ However, currently no single therapy for HS can guarantee satisfactory disease remission or durability of remission. The contrast between clinical trials and real-world practice should be acknowledged; the former often is restrictive in design with monotherapy and allowance of very limited concomitant treatments, such as topical or oral antibiotics. This limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the additive synergistic potential of different therapeutics in combination. In clinical practice, we are not restricted by monotherapy trial protocols. As we await new tools, treatment stacking allows for creating a framework to best utilize the tools that are available to us.

Although HS has continued to affect the lives of many patients, improved understanding of underlying pathophysiology and a well-placed sense of urgency from all stakeholders (ie, patients, clinicians, researchers, industry partners) has pushed this field forward. Until our therapeutic armamentarium has expanded to include highly efficacious monotherapy options, providers should consider treatment stacking for every HS patient.