Pyoderma Gangrenosum: A Clinico-Epidemiological Study: Date of Web Publication 2-Dec-2016
Pyoderma Gangrenosum: A Clinico-Epidemiological Study: Date of Web Publication 2-Dec-2016
Pyoderma Gangrenosum: A Clinico-Epidemiological Study: Date of Web Publication 2-Dec-2016
Correspondence Address:
Sarita Sasidharanpillai
'Rohini', Girish Nagar, Nallalam PO, Kozhikode - 673 027, Kerala
India
Check
DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.188654
Abstract
Introduction
Not much information is available on the clinical patterns, associations of pyoderma gangrenosum and
treatment response in the Indian population.
Methods
After obtaining a clearance for the study from the institutional ethics committee and with the written
informed consent of each patient, all patients who attended the dermatology outpatient department of
Government Medical College, Kozhikode with lesions suggestive of pyoderma gangrenosum during the
10-year study period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014, were carefully evaluated. The
duration, onset and evolution of the disease were recorded. Co-existing systemic diseases and a
detailed drug history were noted in each case. A complete hemogram, urine microscopy, peripheral
smear for atypical cells and blast forms, random blood sugar estimation, fasting lipid profile, renal and
liver function tests, serum electrolytes, serum electrophoresis, serology for rheumatoid factor, human
immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis A, B and C viruses, antinuclear antibody profile and thyroid
function tests were performed in each patient. All patients presenting with leg ulcers were examined
to identify any clinical features suggestive of arterial or venous insufficiency; a sickle cell test and
Doppler studies of the arterial and venous systems were also carried out. Ophthalmologic evaluation,
chest radiography, barium swallow, barium meal follow-through, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy,
gastroduodenoscopy, endoscopic biopsy, ultrasonogram of the abdomen and pelvis, computerized
tomogram of the abdomen and thorax, and bone marrow analysis were done when indicated. After
excluding ulcers due to arterial and venous insufficiency and those due to infective causes and
hematological dyscrasias, the remaining patients were advised to undergo pathergy testing and a
wedge biopsy from the ulcer edge. Biopsy specimens were sent for culture for acid-fast bacilli as well
as for histopathology. A diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosum was made based on clinical
presentation, histopathology and exclusion of other diseases that may have a similar presentation.
Those diagnosed as pyoderma gangrenosum were included in the study.
A preset proforma was used to collect data regarding age, sex and evolution of the ulcer. Patients
were specifically asked about the original lesion and disease progression. Site, size, number,
morphology and clinical characteristics of lesions were documented. Pain experienced by each patient
was graded on a visual analog scale. Data on past history of similar lesions and comorbidities as well
as details of investigations done were collected. The treatment received by the patient as well as the
response were recorded.
Those who responded to topical or intralesional steroids and/or inhibitors of neutrophil chemotaxis
(colchicine, dapsone, minocycline or salazopyrin) were classified as having mild pyoderma
gangrenosum. Patients who needed daily systemic steroids with or without immunomodulators (either
neutrophil chemotaxis inhibitors or immunosuppressants such as azathioprine) were considered to
have moderate disease and those who were not responsive to daily systemic steroids or in whom a
coexisting disease contraindicated daily systemic steroids were categorized as having severe
pyoderma gangrenosum.
Patients were followed up till complete resolution of the disease. Whenever treated patients came back
to us with recurrences during the study period, details were carefully documented. The data were
analyzed and clinico-epidemiological aspects, associated systemic diseases and response to treatment
were studied.
Results
During the study period, 61 patients [Table 1] who attended our department were diagnosed as having
pyoderma gangrenosum. Of these, 32 were males and 29 were females. The age of patients ranged
from 1.5 to 76 years with an average of 39.7 years.
Table 1: Pyoderma gangrenosum in study subjects
The initial lesions observed were papules (30 patients, 49.2%), pustules (19 patients, 31.1%),
erosions (10 patients, 16.4%) and plaques (2 patients, 3.3%). The most common site affected was
the leg with 48 (78.7%) manifesting leg lesions and 37 (60.7%) having lesions confined to the
legs [Figure 1]a. The other areas involved included the face (4.9%), trunk (13.1%) [Figure 1]b, upper
limbs (11.5%), thighs (8.2%), buttocks (4.9%), penis (3.3%) and vulva (4.9%) [Figure 1]c.
Thirty five (94.6%) of the 37 patients with lesions confined to the legs and 13 (54.2%) of the 24 with
lesions on other areas had only a single lesion of pyoderma gangrenosum (78.7% of total). Clinical
types observed were the ulcerative variant in 55 (90.2%) and plaque type [Figure 2] in 6 (9.8%). Two
(3.3%) children below 3 years had a generalized distribution of ulcerative pyoderma
gangrenosum [Figure 3].
All patients complained of lesional pain with a visual analog scale score of 36. Pathergy testing was
positive in nine (14.8%) cases. Seventeen (27.9%) patients had an associated systemic disease [Table
1] and in 15 (88.2%) of them, the systemic disease preceded the pyoderma gangrenosum.
Consistent histological features observed were epidermal ulceration and a perivascular, predominantly
neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrate in the dermis [Figure 4].
Figure 3b: The same child with healed lesions following treatment with
intravenous immunoglobulin G
Depending on the treatment needed, there were 11 (18%) mild, 39 (63.9%) moderate and 11 (18%)
severe cases of pyoderma gangrenosum [Table 1]. None of our patients responded to potent topical or
intralesional steroids alone. Nine (81.8%) of the eleven mild cases responded to colchicine, 0.5 mg
twice daily and the remaining two, who had coexisting ulcerative colitis, responded to salazopyrin
prescribed for the inflammatory bowel disease, along with local cleansing measures. Seven of the nine
cases treated with colchicine developed recurrences within a year of stopping the drug which were
again managed with the same drug.
Forty eight of the remaining fifty patients received prednisolone, 1 mg/kg/day orally. Two patients had
co-existing diseases that could be worsened by daily steroid treatment. Thirty-nine of the 48 patients
who received daily systemic steroids, including a 1-year-old child, responded to treatment. Thirty-
six of them required an additional immunomodulator to overcome the flares on tapeirng steroid
(colchicine in 19, dapsone in 2, minocycline in 3, salazopyrin in 9 and azathioprine in 3 patients).
Patients were tapered off steroids in 48 months whereas the steroid-sparing agents were continued
for another 34 months.
The nine patients who failed to show an adequate response to daily systemic steroids and the two
patients in whom co-existing diseases contraindicated daily steroid therapy were considered as having
severe pyoderma gangrenosum. One was a 3-year-old female child who manifested generalized
pyoderma gangrenosum [Figure 3]a that did not respond to oral prednisolone. Administration of two
pulses of intravenous immunoglobulin G (400 mg/kg body weight/day for 5 days) 28 days apart
achieved complete resolution of lesions after which she was administered three more pulses [Figure 3]b.
Dexamethasone pulse therapy (dexamethasone 100 mg in 500 ml 5% dextrose once in 28 days) was
tried in the remaining 10 severe cases. Seven out of these 10 patients responded to pulse therapy (7
10 pulses) and 4 of them needed interval steroids and colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily) to manage the
flare-ups in between pulses. Colchicine was slowly tapered over 46 months following completion of
pulse therapy.
Split-thickness skin grafting was attempted in 3 patients, 1 man with diabetes mellitus and 2 women,
one of whom had systemic lupus erythematosus. These patients had responded only partially to
dexamethasone pulse therapy along with interval steroids and immunomodulators. Grafting was
carried out within a week of dexamethasone pulse therapy and three more pulses were given to
ensure immunosuppression during graft uptake. This allowed a satisfactory response in two patients,
but the graft was not taken up in the patient with systemic lupus erythematosus. This last patient was
being maintained on daily prednisolone 20 mg, azathioprine 50 mg and colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily;
the ulcer had not healed completely at the time of this report.
Discussion
The slight male predilection noted in our study was contrary to most previous studies. [1],[5],[6] The mean
age of our study population was much lower than the observations of Ye and Ye and Al Ghazal et al.
(5862 years) but was consistent with certain other reports.[1],[3],[5] Though Bhat et al. noted a high
percentage of childhood cases (27%), our findings were comparable to the data in other reports. [5],[7]
In concordance with most previous studies, ulcerative pyoderma gangrenosum was the most common
variant in our study.[5],[6],[7] The absence of pustular pyoderma gangrenosum in our study population
was surprising since the common underlying systemic disease in our subjects was inflammatory bowel
disease. The clinical types and sites of involvement documented by us were consistent with previous
reports.[2],[5],[6],[8] Positive pathergy documented in 14.8% of our study group was lower than the
previously reported 2050%.[2],[9] Whether pyoderma gangrenosum affecting areas other than the legs
is at high risk for developing multiple ulcers (as observed by us) needs further evaluation.
We found systemic associations in 27.9% of cases, lower than in earlier reports.[1],[3],[8] Idiopathic
hypereosinophilic syndrome, selective immunoglobulin E deficiency and lymphocytic colitis diagnosed
in one of our patients are hitherto unreported associations with pyoderma gangrenosum.[10] In contrast
to previous reports, associated arthritis was not found to be a poor prognostic factor in our study.[6]
The diagnostic challenge in the patient with systemic lupus erythematosus was in differentiating
pyoderma gangrenosum from vasculitic ulceration of systemic lupus erythematosus. Perivascular
neutrophilic infiltrate in the absence of fibrinoid necrosis in the biopsy specimen was more in favour of
pyoderma gangrenosum whereas vasculitis in systemic lupus erythematosus manifests with a
lymphocytic infiltrate and fibrinoid necrosis.
Pyoderma gangrenosum affecting the penis and vulva was distinguished from Behcet's disease by the
absence of oral ulcers at the time of presentation or in the past, and after a thorough ophthalmologic
evolution ruled out eye lesions suggestive of Behcet's disease. Moreover, Behcet's disease tends to
produce ulceration over the scrotal skin rather than the penis.
The main limitation of our study was the relatively small sample size. We also cannot comment on the
comparative efficacy of different drugs as this was not a randomized controlled study. Whenever
treated patients came back to us with recurrent lesions, it was carefully documented, but we do not
have reliable data on the recurrence rates following different modalities of treatment.
Conclusion
Male predilection and involvement in a younger age group were notable findings in our study. Whether
pyoderma gangrenosum affecting body parts other than the legs is associated with a greater risk of
extensive disease warrants further study. A major hindrance to a better understanding of pyoderma
gangrenosum is its low prevalence. Multicentre studies on the clinical pattern, treatment response and
systemic associations can throw light on the less-known aspects of this disease.
Acknowledgment
We express our sincere gratitude to all faculty and the postgraduates who were part of the
Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, during the study period for their
invaluable help.
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
References
Leprol 2004;70:329-35.
[PUBMED]
2. Mamta A, Joshi A, Gulati A, Bansal R, Pathak VP. Localized granulomatous pyoderma
3. Ye MJ, Ye JM. Pyoderma gangrenosum: A review of clinical features and outcomes of 23 cases
1916;9:1-39.
5. Al Ghazal P, Herberger K, Schaller J, Strlin A, Hoff NP, Goerge T, et al. Associated factors and
comorbidities in patients with pyoderma gangrenosum in Germany: A retrospective multicentric
6.
Wollina U. Pyoderma gangrenosum A review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2013;8:136.
7. Bhat RM, Nandakishore B, Sequeira FF, Sukumar D, Kamath GH, Martis J, et al. Pyoderma
8.
Bhat RM. Pyoderma gangrenosum: An update. Indian Dermatol Online J 2012;3:7-13.
[PUBMED]
9. Brooklyn T, Dunnill G, Probert C. Diagnosis and treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. BMJ
2006;333:181-4.
10. Riyaz N, Sasidharanpillai S, Rahima S, Bindu V, Shaan M, Raghavan NT, et al. Pyoderma
gangrenosum in association with microscopic colitis, idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome,
selective IgE deficiency and diabetes mellitus. Clin Exp Dermatol 2015;40:629-32.
11. Cummins DL, Anhalt GJ, Monahan T, Meyerle JH. Treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with