Dermatology Research and Practice

Dermatology Research and Practice / 2021 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 8655004 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8655004

Suchana Marahatta, Dhan Keshar Khadka, Sudha Agrawal, Arpana Rijal, "Intralesional Bleomycin for the Treatment of Resistant Palmoplantar and Periungual Warts", Dermatology Research and Practice, vol. 2021, Article ID 8655004, 6 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8655004

Intralesional Bleomycin for the Treatment of Resistant Palmoplantar and Periungual Warts

Academic Editor: Craig G. Burkhart
Received20 May 2021
Revised31 Aug 2021
Accepted14 Sep 2021
Published18 Oct 2021

Abstract

Introduction. Periungual, palmar, and plantar warts are difficult to treat with poor treatment response. Intralesional (IL) bleomycin has shown promising results for their treatment in a few reports. However, we need further evidence before opting it for treating difficult sites and resistant warts. Hence, we conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of IL bleomycin for the treatment of resistant palmoplantar and periungual warts. Methods. In this retrospective study, we included all patients who were given IL bleomycin for warts over a year. Maximum three sittings of bleomycin (1 mg/ml) were given monthly, and they were followed up for 3 months after the procedure. The response was categorized as complete, near-complete, significant, moderate, mild, and no clearance for 100%, 75–99%, 50–74%, 25–49%, 1–25%, and 0% clearance, respectively. Results. Out of 29 patients, follow-up details were available only in 19 patients (53 warts). The mean duration was 2.5 ± 1.47 years. The number of past interventions ranged from 2–4. Wart clearance after the first intervention was complete in 36.84%, near-complete in 26.31%, significant in 26.31%, and moderate in 10.53%. Wart clearance after the last intervention was complete in 89.47% and near-complete in 10.52% of patients. However, during 3 months of follow-up after the last injection, 15.78% had a recurrence. None of them had severe local and systemic side effects. Conclusions. IL bleomycin could be a better treatment option for the treatment of resistant and difficult warts. However, we observed a higher recurrence rate even in a shorter follow-up. Hence, we need further studies with larger samples.

1. Introduction

Warts are a widespread cutaneous infection which affects trauma-prone sites such as periungual areas, palms, and soles [1]. It could be more prevalent among Nepalese as most of them are farmers, walk barefoot, and share community bathing and common water sources. Although spontaneous clearance is possible, many opt for treatment for cosmetic concerns, social stigma, pain, risk of malignancies, etc. [2]. Bleomycin is an antitumor and antiviral agent commonly used for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma [3].

Available studies have recommended cryotherapy and salicylic acid (SA) as first-line therapies for warts [4]. However, cryotherapy may not be easily available even in developing countries. SA needs a longer treatment, and the patient’s compliance cannot be confirmed [1]. Moreover, a significant numbers of periungual (72%) and palmoplantar (31%) warts are resistant to common treatments. Thus, we need to be wiser while choosing the most appropriate therapeutic modalities [5].

Currently, there is limited evidence of intralesional (IL) bleomycin for treating recalcitrant warts. Some reports have shown positive results with cure rates ranging from 14%–99% [6, 7]. Hence, we conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of IL bleomycin for the treatment of palmoplantar and periungual warts.

2. Methods

In this retrospective case series, we extracted data from the eligible patient’s record maintained in the operation theater (OT) of the dermatology department of BPKIHS from March 2017 to February 2018. We included patients of age ≥18 years with recalcitrant and difficult site warts, who had never received IL bleomycin in past. However, whose follow-up details were not available till three months after the last intervention and with immunocompromised status were excluded from the study. We extracted relevant patients’ particulars such as age, gender, occupation, and education. We also noted clinical details such as disease duration, progression, and the name and the number of past interventions. Photographic records were maintained during all visits. Similarly, the details of examination findings such as the number, site, size of warts, and side effects were recorded at baseline as well as at each follow-up visit to assess the size reduction and efficacy of the treatment.

2.1. Case Definitions
Resistant warts: they were defined as warts that have failed treatment twice in the pastDifficult site warts: they were defined as periungual, palmar, and plantar warts
2.2. Injection Technique

Bleomycin for injection was obtained in vials containing 15 mg (15 U) of powder. It was first reconstituted with 5 ml sterile water for injection to prepare the stock solution, which was stored at 4–8°C for a maximum of 60 days. Then, one part of bleomycin stock solution and two parts of 2% lignocaine were taken in a 26G insulin syringe to make a final concentration of 1 U/mL (=1 mg/mL) just before injection. Each wart and the adjacent skin were cleaned with isopropyl alcohol before injection. The injection was given at the base of each wart until the lesion was blanched. The amount of injection was decided depending on the size of the warts: warts up to 5 mm, 10 mm, and more than 10 mm received 0.2 mL, 0.5 mL, and 1.0 mL of bleomycin, respectively. The total volume injected at one treatment session was limited to 2 mL, and the injection into a single wart was limited to 1 mL. Similarly, a maximum of 5 warts were treated in a session to avoid systemic side effects [8, 9]. The treated warts were given a specific number to avoid confusion during follow-up.

2.3. Assessment and Follow-Up

Patients were reevaluated at 4 weeks’ interval. Any remaining keratotic tissues were pared off with a scalpel blade. If warts persisted or recurred after injection, the treatment was repeated using the same concentration and technique. However, it was not repeated for more than two follow-up sessions. The side effects of the injection such as pain, edema, oozing, crusting, and Raynaud’s phenomenon were recorded in each follow-up visit. Patients were followed up to 3 months of the last intervention. The response was categorized as complete clearance, near-complete clearance, significant clearance, moderate clearance, mild clearance, and no clearance for 100%, 75–99%, 50–74%, 25–49%, 1–25%, and 0% clearance, respectively.

3. Results

Out of 29 patients (94 warts) subjected to IL bleomycin injection, only 19 subjects (=53 warts) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients was 27.95±/−11.72 years. The mean duration of the wart was 2.5±/−1.47 years, and the mean number of warts was 2.79±/−1.81 (range: 1–6). The number of past interventions ranged from 2–5. Sites of the warts were plantar = 10, periungual = 7, palmar = 1, and palmoplantar = 1 (Table 1).


S. no.Age (in years)/genderSite of wartNumber of past interventionsNo. of wartsPast procedureSize of the largest wart (mm)Treatment sessionsOutcome

237/MPeriungual22CO2 LASER10 × 52CC
356/FPeriungual33EC and excision10 × 51CC
419/FPlantar24EC6 × 62CC
516/MPlantar21Excision15 × 151CC
628/MPeriungual21EC10 × 62CC
718/FPeriungual32EC15 × 52CC
818/FPlantar45Chemical cautery25 × 153R
924/MPlantar23EC6 × 62CC
1019/FPlantar25EC3 × 51CC
1137/MPeriungual21CO2 LASER10 × 52CC
1219/MPlantar56EC25 × 202CC
1319/FPeriungual21EC9 × 41CC
1434/FPlantar36Excision12 × 101CC
1521/FPalmoplantar34Excision10.82R
1635/FPlantar21Chemical cautery and EC12 × 113NC
1725/MPalmar31EC10 × 93NC
1826/MPlantar22EC12 × 101CC
1927/MPlantar24Excision10 × 52R
2054/FPeriungual31EC25 × 151CC

EC: electrocautery, CC: complete clearance; NC: near-complete clearance; R: recurrence.

Wart clearance after the first intervention was complete in 7 (36.84%), near-complete in 5 (26.31%), significant in 5 (26.31%), and moderate in 2 (10.53%). Wart clearance after the last intervention was complete in 17 (89.47%) and near-complete in 2 (10.52%) patients (Figures 13). However, during the 3 months’ follow-up after the last injection, 3 patients, i.e., 3/19 (15.78%), had a recurrence (Figure 4). None of the patients had severe local and systemic side effects. Local pain, edema, and crusting were the most common side effects and were seen in almost all patients. Duration of pain was 3 days (7 patients), 2 days (4 patients), 1 day (5 patients), and 7 days (2 patients). In three patients, we noticed temporary skin pigmentation. However, severe side effects were not seen in any of them.

4. Discussion

The mean duration of wart was 2.5 ± 1.47 years, and the mean number was 2.79 ± 1.81 (range: 1–6). The number of past interventions ranged from 2–4. In our study, IL bleomycin (1 U/ml) had 36.84% and 89.47% complete clearance rates after the 1st and 3rd interventions, respectively, for the treatment of difficult site recalcitrant warts. We found 15.78% recurrence rate within 3 months of the last intervention. However, it was devoid of serious adverse effects with transient pain up to 3 days being the most common (84.21%) adverse effects.

Warts are the most common cutaneous viral infection. Although self-clearance is possible in many lesions, many patients want its treatment [2]. To date, there is no specific guideline for treating nongenital warts. However, a meta-analysis and pooled analysis of RCT found the highest (58%) cure rate of the wart with cryotherapy and SA combination treatment, which were followed by aggressive cryotherapy (54%), cryotherapy (49%), SA (52%), and placebo (23%). Available evidence supports and recommends only aggressive cryotherapy and SA strongly for the treatment of warts, while higher-quality evidence is lacking to support other modalities. Treatment of recalcitrant warts at difficult sites is even more challenging. Almost 72% of periungual warts and 31% of palmoplantar warts are resistant to commonly used therapeutic modalities [5]. Moreover, cryotherapy may not be available in all centers in the developing world, and compliance cannot be insured in SA.

Bleomycin is an antitumor agent with the antiviral property. A few countable researchers had tried IL bleomycin for treating warts with inconsistent efficacy ranging from 14–99%. However, some recent reports have shown very promising results [7, 8, 1012]. We had almost comparable complete clearance rate with the previous reports, ranging from 69.3% to 96.47% (Table 2) [8, 9, 1116]. A little higher clearance was obtained by Dhar et al. [8] (CC: 94.9%), including all cutaneous warts without prior treatment. Soni et al. (CC: 96.47%) had selected difficult site warts, but they had also not received any treatment in the past [9]. However, we had chosen difficult site warts with treatment failure with at least 2 prior treatment sessions with other modalities.


AuthorsIntervention (study design)ResultsFollow-up duration

Our studyIL bleomycin only (retrospective case series)CC (89.47%), RR (15.78%)3 months
Barkat et al. [12]IL bleomycin vs. placebo (RCT)Bleomycin = dermoscopic clearance (69.3%); CC (88.5%), CC of placebo (0%)3 months
Pasquali et al. [13]IL bleomycin + electropolation vs. IL bleomycin only (prospective case series)CC of IL bleomycin + electroporation (78%), bleomycin only (16%)3 months
Dhar et al. [8]IL bleomycin vs. cryotherapy (RCT)CC of bleomycin (94.9%); cryotherapy (76.5%); RR (13%)8 weeks
Adalatkhah et al. [14]IL bleomycin vs. cryotherapy (RCT)CC of bleomycin (86%), cryotherapy (68%)6 weeks
Al-Naggar et al. [15]IL bleomycin vs. microneedling assisted topical bleomycin spray (RCT)CC of IL bleomycin (70%), CC of microneedling-assisted topical spray (83.3%)6 months
Soni et al. [9]IL bleomycin vs. placebo (RCT)CC of IL bleomycin (96.47%) vs. placebo (11.11%)12 months
Salk and Douglas [16]IL bleomycin only (prospective study)CC (87%), RR (19.35%)6 months
Alghamdi and Khurram [17]Translesional multipuncture technique with 0.1 U/ml concentration for periungual warts (prospective study)CC (86.6%), RR (13.33%)6 months
Alghamdi and Khurram [11]Translesional multipuncture technique with 0.1 U/ml concentration for plantar warts (prospective study)CC (74%), no response (13%), RR: 9.5%3 months
Aziz-Jalali et al. [5]IL bleomycin (retrospective study)CC (73%), RR (23%)6 months

RCT: randomized controlled trial, CC: clinical clearance, RR: recurrence rate.

Alghamdi et al. [17] treated most of the periungual warts with past treatment failure with much lesser bleomycin concentration using the multipuncture technique, with good clearance rate (86.6%) and lesser recurrence rate (13.33%) [17]. Unlike other reports, we had a higher recurrence rate (15.78%). The possible explanation could be that we have not conducted a dermoscopic evaluation to find complete clearance. As supported by the work of Barkat et al., without dermoscopic evaluation, we may miss 19.2% of cases. In their study, 69.3% clearance was obtained with dermoscopy evaluation, but 88.5% clearance was obtained when evaluated only clinically [12]. In the work of Dhar et al., recurrence was lesser (13%) than ours. However, they had chosen all patients without prior treatment and the follow-up duration was 4 weeks lesser than that of our study [8]. But, we had selected only recalcitrant warts with a slightly longer follow-up. Hence, we might have a higher recurrence. However, in a study that has chosen recalcitrant plantar warts, 19.35% recurrence was seen in 6 months [16]. Similarly, in a study which included difficult site recalcitrant warts, RR was 23% in 6 months (Table 2) [5].

Pain for a few initial days was the most common side effect; transient pigmentation was seen among 3 patients. However, none of them had serious adverse effects. These findings are comparable to other reports [9, 1218]. One previous study detected reversible necrosis in 1.2% of the patients with IL bleomycin injected for ungual warts [19]. However, we did not observe such complications.

4.1. Limitations of the Study

Retrospective case series with lesser sample size and shorter follow-up after the last intervention are the major limitations of our study.

5. Conclusions

In our study, there was a good number of complete clearance (89.47%) after two sessions of IL bleomycin for the treatment of difficult sites and resistant warts. None of the participants had severe adverse effects. Therefore, IL bleomycin could be a safe, better, and promising treatment option for resistant warts in difficult sites. However, we observed a higher recurrence rate even in a shorter follow-up period (15.78%). We need further studies, preferably randomized controlled trials with larger samples. Furthermore, we recommend including dermoscopic evaluation for the assessment of complete clearance.

Data Availability

Data will be deposited in a repository, or they can also be obtained from the corresponding author on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to all participants of this study. Likewise, they are indebted to all faculty, residents, and staff of the Dermatology Department of B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences who have helped directly as well as indirectly to carry out this study.

References

  1. S. K. Loo and W. Y. Tang, “Warts (non-genital) search date october 2013 warts (non-genital),” BMJ-Clinical Evidence, vol. 6, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  2. J. C. Sterling, S. Handfield-Jones, and P. M. Hudson, “Guidelines for the management of cutaneous warts,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. P. Saitta, K. Krishnamurthy, and L. H. Brown, “Bleomycin in dermatology: a review of intralesional applications,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1299–1313, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. E. Mulhem and S. Pinelis, “Treatment of nongenital cutaneous warts,” American Family Physician, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 288–293, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  5. M.-H. Aziz-Jalali, G. Ghafarpour, M. R. Rezaei, A. Heshmatzadeh Behzadi, M. Rohani Nasab, and M. A. Nilforoushzadeh, “Efficacy of intralesional bleomycin in the treatment of resistant warts,” Journal of Skin and Stem Cell, vol. 1, no. 1, Article ID e18875, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. C. S. Kwok, R. Holland, and S. Gibbs, “Efficacy of topical treatments for cutaneous warts: a meta-analysis and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 233–246, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. T. G. Lewis and E. D. Nydorf, “Intralesional bleomycin for warts: a review,” Journal of Drugs in Dermatology: Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 499–504, 2006, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16774100/. View at: Google Scholar
  8. S. Dhar, M. Rashid, A. Islam, and M. Bhuiyan, “Intralesional bleomycin in the treatment of cutaneous warts: a randomized clinical trial comparing it with cryotherapy,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 262–267, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. P. Soni, K. Khandelwal, N. Aara, B. Ghiya, R. Mehta, and R. Bumb, “Efficacy of intralesional bleomycin in palmo-plantar and periungual warts,” Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 188–192, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. C. Kwok, S. Gibbs, C. Bennett, R. Holland, and R. Abbott, “Topical treatments for cutaneous warts (review),” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 9, Article ID CD001781, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. K. M. Alghamdi and H. Khurram, “Successful treatment of plantar warts with very diluted bleomycin using a translesional multipuncture technique: pilot prospective study,” Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 250–256, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. T. Barkat, R. T. A. Abdel-Aziz, and M. S. Mohamed, “Evaluation of intralesional injection of bleomycin in the treatment of plantar warts: clinical and dermoscopic evaluation,” International Journal of Dermatology, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 1533–1537, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. P. Pasquali, A. Frietes-Martinez, S. Gonzalez, E. Spugnini, and A. Baldi, “Successful treatment of plantar warts with intralesional bleomycin and electroporation: pilot prospective study,” Dermatology Practical and Conceptual, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 21–26, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. H. Adalatkhah, H. Khalilollahi, N. Amini, and H. Sadeghi-Bazargani, “Compared therapeutic efficacy between intralesional bleomycin and cryotherapy for common warts: a randomized clinical trial,” Dermatology Online Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 4, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. M. R. Al‐Naggar, A. S. Al‐Adl, A. R. Rabie, M. R. Abdelkhalk, and M. L. Elsaie, “Intralesional bleomycin injection vs microneedling‐assisted topical bleomycin spraying in treatment of plantar warts,” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 124–128, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. R. Salk and T. S. Douglas, “Intralesional bleomycin sulfate injection for the treatment of verruca plantaris,” Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 220–225, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. K. M. Alghamdi and H. Khurram, “Successful treatment of periungual warts with diluted bleomycin using translesional multipuncture technique: a pilot prospective study,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 486–492, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. L. F. Noriega, L. d. S. Valandro, N. G. D. Chiacchio, M. L. Vieira, and N. D. Chiacchio, “Tratamento de verrugas virais com bleomicina intralesional,” Surgical & Cosmetic Dermatology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17–21, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. Singal and C. Grover, “Efficacy and safety of intralesional bleomycin in the management of ungual warts,” Skin Appendage Disorders, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 346–350, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Suchana Marahatta et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views191
Downloads169
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.