Mixed Topics

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the skin (cutaneous LP), mucous membranes (oral, ocular, or vulvar LP), hair (lichen planopilaris [LPP]), and nails that predominantly occurs in middle-aged adults. Although the true etiology remains unknown, the pathogenesis of LP is thought to involve multiple factors. Several human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles have been associated with LP and its variants, including HLA-B27, HLA-B51, HLA-DR1 (cutaneous and oral LP), HLA-DRB1*11, and HLA-DQB1*03 (LPP). Additionally, HLA-Bw57 has been reported to be associated with oral LP in a cohort of British patients.¹ In addition to HLA alleles, genetic polymorphisms in cytokines including IL-4, IL-6, IL-18, interferon (IFN) γ, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and its receptor have been found to be associated with LP.² Beyond genetics, chronic viral infection has been implicated in the development of LP. Systemic infection with the hepatitis C virus has been linked to the development of oral LP by promoting the recruitment of hepatitis C virus–specific CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood to the oral lesions, where they exhibit a terminally differentiated effector status.³ Another report found an association between human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7) and cutaneous LP; in this study, HHV-7 RNA was detected in plasmacytoid dendritic cells but not T cells and diminished after treatment, providing evidence for dendritic cells being involved in the HHV-7–mediated pathogenesis of cutaneous LP.⁴ These findings were further corroborated by another study of oral LP patients that found enhanced infiltration of plasmacytoid and myeloid dendritic cells and upregulation in toll-like receptor and IFN-γ signaling.⁴

In addition to immune cell dysregulation, LP and its variants have been linked to neurogenic inflammation. In oral LP lesions, neurokinin 1 receptor and substance P were highly expressed and demonstrated a positive correlation with the expression of apoptotic marker caspase-3 and proliferation marker Ki-67.⁵ These results suggest that neuropeptides may be involved in cell proliferation and turnover in oral LP. Similarly, in patients with LPP, substance P was more abundant in affected areas, whereas another neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide, was more highly expressed in unaffected areas,⁶ further supporting the pathogenic role of neurogenic inflammation in LP.

A mucosal variant that often goes undiagnosed is vulvar LP. Although no distinct pathologic mechanism for vulvar LP has been established, prior reports found an association with autoantibodies.^7,8 In patients with erosive vulvar LP, epidermal-binding basement membrane zone antibodies were detected in epidermal skin biopsies and in circulation with reactivity to bullous pemphigoid antigens 180 (9/11 [81.8%] patients) and 230 (2/11 [18.2%] patients).⁷ A similar study in patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus found similar proportions of circulating antibodies reactive to bullous pemphigoid antigens 180 (6/7 [85.7%] patients) and 230 (1/7 [14.3%] patients).⁸ Erosive vulvar LP has been shown to be associated with autoimmune disease (eg, alopecia areata, celiac disease and pernicious anemia),⁹ which suggests that the previously reported autoreactive antibodies^7,8 are secondary to autoimmunity rather than primary drivers of vulvar LP pathogenesis.

Certain medications also have been reported to cause cutaneous lichenoid drug eruptions. Although they can clinically and histologically mimic classic LP, lichenoid drug eruptions are a distinct entity. Common inciting medications include thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anti-inflammatory drugs, antimalarials, checkpoint inhibitors, antimicrobials, antihypertensives, antidiabetics, and psychiatric drugs. The exact pathologic mechanism of lichenoid drug eruptions currently is unclear but is thought to involve the binding of drug molecules to the cell-surface proteins of the epidermis, creating an antigenic hapten stimulus for CD8+T cells and triggering apoptosis of keratinocytes.¹

The clinical severity of LP can range from mild localized disease to widespread and debilitating involvement. Multiple treatment modalities have been developed for management of LP, including topical and intralesional corticosteroids, phototherapy, Janus kinase inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, and anti–TNF-α inhibitors. Herein, we provide a narrative review and summary of the use of the TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab as a potential effective treatment for patients with LP.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from 2005 to 2025 using the terms adalimumab AND lichen planus or adalimumab AND lichen. Articles that reported cases of oral LP, cutaneous LP, LPP, or lichenoid eruptions and adalimumab therapy were included in our review. Articles that used non-adalimumab TNF-α inhibitors were excluded. Using the search terms, 2 independent reviewers (M.G. and N.E.) conducted the literature review then screened the articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our literature search yielded 40 articles, of which 20 met the criteria for inclusion in our narrative review.

Results

Our literature search yielded 11 patients with LP who were treated with adalimumab across studies (Table 1).^10-16 Prior LP treatments included topical corticosteroids (11/11 [100%]), disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (6/11 [54.5%]), retinoids (4/11 [36.4%]), and psoralen plus UVA (1/11 [36.4%]). Adalimumab was administered subcutaneously following 4 treatment regimens: (1) 160 mg in week 1, then 80 mg in week 2, then 40 mg weekly for a median duration of 36 weeks (6/11 [54.5%]); (2) 80 mg in week 1, then 40 mg in week 2, 40 mg every 2 weeks for 20 weeks (1/11 [9.1%]); (3) 80 mg in week 1, then 40 mg every 2 weeks for a median duration of 12 weeks (2/11 [18.2%]); and (4) 40 mg every 2 weeks (2/11 [18.2%]). Adalimumab generally was well tolerated, with only 1 (9.1%) patient experiencing minor stress-related mucocutaneous flares on the tongue and extremities that resolved spontaneously.¹² Remission was achieved in 5 (45.5%) patients, with time to remission ranging from 2 to 4 months after adalimumab therapy, with a median of 2.5 months. In 1 (9.1%) patient with bullous LP, adalimumab therapy led to remission after 10 weeks. In both cases of oral and cutaneous LP (2/11 [18.2%]), remission was achieved after 2 months of treatment. Of the 2 LPP patients reported, 1 had hair regrowth after 9 months, and the other experienced remission after 3 months of adalimumab therapy. In the 1 (9.1%) case of annular LP, adalimumab treatment led to remission after 4 months. Five (45.5%) patients with vulvar LP treated with adalimumab for at least 9 months demonstrated improved Vulvar Quality of Life Index scores without improvement in their mucosal LP lesions. In 4 of the 5 (80.0%) patients who experienced remission after adalimumab treatment, remission lasted at least 6 to 10 months, with a median of 6 months; remission duration was not reported in 1 (20.0%) patient.

Paradoxically, our review of the literature yielded 12 patients in whom adalimumab was associated with lichenoid-type eruptions across 9 studies (Table 2).^17-29 The conditions for which these patients were undergoing treatment with adalimumab included ulcerative colitis,¹⁷ psoriasis,^18,19 Crohn disease,^20,26 rheumatoid arthritis,^21-23,26 oligoarthritis,²⁴ and ankylosing spondylitis.²⁵ Lichenoid drug eruptions occurred on the legs (5/12 [41.7%]), arms (3/12 [25%]), oral mucosa (2/12 [16.7%]), and forehead or scalp (2/12 [16.7%]). Onset of time to these lichenoid eruptions ranged from 2 weeks to 17 months, with a median of 4 months. Adalimumab was discontinued in 9 (75.0%) patients and was continued in 3 (25.0%). One patient who had an onset of their lichenoid eruption after 17 months of treatment with adalimumab continued to receive adalimumab therapy with the addition of topical corticosteroids, which led to resolution of their oral lesions and partial remission of their cutaneous lesions. In 1 (8.3%) patient with localized buccal lichenoid eruptions, discontinuation of adalimumab on its own was sufficient to completely clear the lesions. Seven patients (7/12 [58.3%]) received topical corticosteroids with minimal (2/12 [16.7%]) or moderate (4/12 [33.3%]) improvement, and 1 (8.3%) patient did not have reported outcomes data. Eosinophils were detected within the adalimumab-associated lichenoid eruptions in 3 (25.0%) patients.^17,20,22

In addition to its association with lichenoid drug eruptions, adalimumab also was reported to induce LPP in a patient who was being treated for Behçet disease,²⁹ oral LP in a patient being treated for Crohn disease,²⁷ and cutaneous LP in a patient being treated for Crohn disease (Table 2).²⁸ Time to onset ranged from 4 to 10 months, with a median of 6 months. Adalimumab was discontinued in 2 of 3 (66.7%) patients and was continued in the other patient (33.3%). After cessation of adalimumab therapy, administration of topical steroids led to complete resolution in the case of associated oral LP. In contrast, in adalimumab-induced cutaneous LP, initial topical corticosteroid treatment led to progression of lesions, which mostly resolved after adalimumab cessation. In 1 patient with LPP in whom adalimumab therapy could not be discontinued, topical corticosteroid and methotrexate therapy reduced the perifollicular erythema and stabilized the alopecia without full remission.

Comment

Conventional treatment modalities for LP often include topical corticosteroids as first-line therapy, with systemic corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, or immunosuppressants (eg, cyclosporine or methotrexate) reserved for more severe or widespread disease. Historically, these approaches primarily have aimed to control symptoms rather than achieve long-term resolution; however, novel therapies including biologics and targeted immunomodulators show potential to induce sustained remission and improve quality of life for patients with refractory or mucosal LP.

In all reports where adalimumab was used to treat LP, patients initially received topical corticosteroids. While corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents are standard therapies, they often provide only temporary relief and may have an unfavorable side effect profile. Our review highlights the emerging role of adalimumab, a TNF-α inhibitor, in off-label management of LP subtypes, including cutaneous, mucosal, and vulvar LP and LPP. In several small case series and reports, patients treated with adalimumab experienced clinical improvement, including symptom resolution and quality-of-life enhancement, as well as complete remission, indicating a durable response.

The potential benefit of adalimumab in treating LP must be balanced with its paradoxical risk for inducing lichenoid eruptions as well as LP and its variants, as identified in our narrative review that included reports of patients receiving this biologic for other indications.^17-29 Since adalimumab is a fully humanized antibody, the development of neutralizing antibodies may not account for drug-induced LP and lichenoid eruptions. Given that it blocks TNF-α, adalimumab may induce these lesions through a cytokine imbalance. This is supported by data demonstrating enhanced type I IFN-related proteins in plaques of patients with psoriasiform lesions treated with TNF-α inhibitors.²⁶ These drug-induced eruptions often resolved or improved with topical corticosteroids after discontinuation, but their occurrence underscores the complexity of therapeutically targeting TNF-α in the management of LP. Our literature review suggests that adalimumab may offer therapeutic benefit in select cases of LP refractory to conventional therapy, especially when systemic control is required. Nonetheless, the risk for LP and lichenoid reactions necessitates cautious use and further investigation.

Conclusion

While the current evidence is limited to case reports and series, adalimumab shows promise as an effective and tolerable off-label treatment for LP, particularly in patients who are unresponsive to conventional immunosuppressive therapies. Remission or clinically significant improvement was achieved in several cases; however, the potential for adalimumab to induce LP and lichenoid eruptions underscores the need for careful patient selection and monitoring. Further prospective studies and larger cohorts are warranted to better define the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in treating LP lesions.

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the skin (cutaneous LP), mucous membranes (oral, ocular, or vulvar LP), hair (lichen planopilaris [LPP]), and nails that predominantly occurs in middle-aged adults. Although the true etiology remains unknown, the pathogenesis of LP is thought to involve multiple factors. Several human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles have been associated with LP and its variants, including HLA-B27, HLA-B51, HLA-DR1 (cutaneous and oral LP), HLA-DRB1*11, and HLA-DQB1*03 (LPP). Additionally, HLA-Bw57 has been reported to be associated with oral LP in a cohort of British patients.¹ In addition to HLA alleles, genetic polymorphisms in cytokines including IL-4, IL-6, IL-18, interferon (IFN) γ, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and its receptor have been found to be associated with LP.² Beyond genetics, chronic viral infection has been implicated in the development of LP. Systemic infection with the hepatitis C virus has been linked to the development of oral LP by promoting the recruitment of hepatitis C virus–specific CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood to the oral lesions, where they exhibit a terminally differentiated effector status.³ Another report found an association between human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7) and cutaneous LP; in this study, HHV-7 RNA was detected in plasmacytoid dendritic cells but not T cells and diminished after treatment, providing evidence for dendritic cells being involved in the HHV-7–mediated pathogenesis of cutaneous LP.⁴ These findings were further corroborated by another study of oral LP patients that found enhanced infiltration of plasmacytoid and myeloid dendritic cells and upregulation in toll-like receptor and IFN-γ signaling.⁴

In addition to immune cell dysregulation, LP and its variants have been linked to neurogenic inflammation. In oral LP lesions, neurokinin 1 receptor and substance P were highly expressed and demonstrated a positive correlation with the expression of apoptotic marker caspase-3 and proliferation marker Ki-67.⁵ These results suggest that neuropeptides may be involved in cell proliferation and turnover in oral LP. Similarly, in patients with LPP, substance P was more abundant in affected areas, whereas another neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide, was more highly expressed in unaffected areas,⁶ further supporting the pathogenic role of neurogenic inflammation in LP.

A mucosal variant that often goes undiagnosed is vulvar LP. Although no distinct pathologic mechanism for vulvar LP has been established, prior reports found an association with autoantibodies.^7,8 In patients with erosive vulvar LP, epidermal-binding basement membrane zone antibodies were detected in epidermal skin biopsies and in circulation with reactivity to bullous pemphigoid antigens 180 (9/11 [81.8%] patients) and 230 (2/11 [18.2%] patients).⁷ A similar study in patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus found similar proportions of circulating antibodies reactive to bullous pemphigoid antigens 180 (6/7 [85.7%] patients) and 230 (1/7 [14.3%] patients).⁸ Erosive vulvar LP has been shown to be associated with autoimmune disease (eg, alopecia areata, celiac disease and pernicious anemia),⁹ which suggests that the previously reported autoreactive antibodies^7,8 are secondary to autoimmunity rather than primary drivers of vulvar LP pathogenesis.

Certain medications also have been reported to cause cutaneous lichenoid drug eruptions. Although they can clinically and histologically mimic classic LP, lichenoid drug eruptions are a distinct entity. Common inciting medications include thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anti-inflammatory drugs, antimalarials, checkpoint inhibitors, antimicrobials, antihypertensives, antidiabetics, and psychiatric drugs. The exact pathologic mechanism of lichenoid drug eruptions currently is unclear but is thought to involve the binding of drug molecules to the cell-surface proteins of the epidermis, creating an antigenic hapten stimulus for CD8+T cells and triggering apoptosis of keratinocytes.¹

The clinical severity of LP can range from mild localized disease to widespread and debilitating involvement. Multiple treatment modalities have been developed for management of LP, including topical and intralesional corticosteroids, phototherapy, Janus kinase inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, and anti–TNF-α inhibitors. Herein, we provide a narrative review and summary of the use of the TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab as a potential effective treatment for patients with LP.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from 2005 to 2025 using the terms adalimumab AND lichen planus or adalimumab AND lichen. Articles that reported cases of oral LP, cutaneous LP, LPP, or lichenoid eruptions and adalimumab therapy were included in our review. Articles that used non-adalimumab TNF-α inhibitors were excluded. Using the search terms, 2 independent reviewers (M.G. and N.E.) conducted the literature review then screened the articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our literature search yielded 40 articles, of which 20 met the criteria for inclusion in our narrative review.

Results

Our literature search yielded 11 patients with LP who were treated with adalimumab across studies (Table 1).^10-16 Prior LP treatments included topical corticosteroids (11/11 [100%]), disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (6/11 [54.5%]), retinoids (4/11 [36.4%]), and psoralen plus UVA (1/11 [36.4%]). Adalimumab was administered subcutaneously following 4 treatment regimens: (1) 160 mg in week 1, then 80 mg in week 2, then 40 mg weekly for a median duration of 36 weeks (6/11 [54.5%]); (2) 80 mg in week 1, then 40 mg in week 2, 40 mg every 2 weeks for 20 weeks (1/11 [9.1%]); (3) 80 mg in week 1, then 40 mg every 2 weeks for a median duration of 12 weeks (2/11 [18.2%]); and (4) 40 mg every 2 weeks (2/11 [18.2%]). Adalimumab generally was well tolerated, with only 1 (9.1%) patient experiencing minor stress-related mucocutaneous flares on the tongue and extremities that resolved spontaneously.¹² Remission was achieved in 5 (45.5%) patients, with time to remission ranging from 2 to 4 months after adalimumab therapy, with a median of 2.5 months. In 1 (9.1%) patient with bullous LP, adalimumab therapy led to remission after 10 weeks. In both cases of oral and cutaneous LP (2/11 [18.2%]), remission was achieved after 2 months of treatment. Of the 2 LPP patients reported, 1 had hair regrowth after 9 months, and the other experienced remission after 3 months of adalimumab therapy. In the 1 (9.1%) case of annular LP, adalimumab treatment led to remission after 4 months. Five (45.5%) patients with vulvar LP treated with adalimumab for at least 9 months demonstrated improved Vulvar Quality of Life Index scores without improvement in their mucosal LP lesions. In 4 of the 5 (80.0%) patients who experienced remission after adalimumab treatment, remission lasted at least 6 to 10 months, with a median of 6 months; remission duration was not reported in 1 (20.0%) patient.

Paradoxically, our review of the literature yielded 12 patients in whom adalimumab was associated with lichenoid-type eruptions across 9 studies (Table 2).^17-29 The conditions for which these patients were undergoing treatment with adalimumab included ulcerative colitis,¹⁷ psoriasis,^18,19 Crohn disease,^20,26 rheumatoid arthritis,^21-23,26 oligoarthritis,²⁴ and ankylosing spondylitis.²⁵ Lichenoid drug eruptions occurred on the legs (5/12 [41.7%]), arms (3/12 [25%]), oral mucosa (2/12 [16.7%]), and forehead or scalp (2/12 [16.7%]). Onset of time to these lichenoid eruptions ranged from 2 weeks to 17 months, with a median of 4 months. Adalimumab was discontinued in 9 (75.0%) patients and was continued in 3 (25.0%). One patient who had an onset of their lichenoid eruption after 17 months of treatment with adalimumab continued to receive adalimumab therapy with the addition of topical corticosteroids, which led to resolution of their oral lesions and partial remission of their cutaneous lesions. In 1 (8.3%) patient with localized buccal lichenoid eruptions, discontinuation of adalimumab on its own was sufficient to completely clear the lesions. Seven patients (7/12 [58.3%]) received topical corticosteroids with minimal (2/12 [16.7%]) or moderate (4/12 [33.3%]) improvement, and 1 (8.3%) patient did not have reported outcomes data. Eosinophils were detected within the adalimumab-associated lichenoid eruptions in 3 (25.0%) patients.^17,20,22

In addition to its association with lichenoid drug eruptions, adalimumab also was reported to induce LPP in a patient who was being treated for Behçet disease,²⁹ oral LP in a patient being treated for Crohn disease,²⁷ and cutaneous LP in a patient being treated for Crohn disease (Table 2).²⁸ Time to onset ranged from 4 to 10 months, with a median of 6 months. Adalimumab was discontinued in 2 of 3 (66.7%) patients and was continued in the other patient (33.3%). After cessation of adalimumab therapy, administration of topical steroids led to complete resolution in the case of associated oral LP. In contrast, in adalimumab-induced cutaneous LP, initial topical corticosteroid treatment led to progression of lesions, which mostly resolved after adalimumab cessation. In 1 patient with LPP in whom adalimumab therapy could not be discontinued, topical corticosteroid and methotrexate therapy reduced the perifollicular erythema and stabilized the alopecia without full remission.

Comment

Conventional treatment modalities for LP often include topical corticosteroids as first-line therapy, with systemic corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, or immunosuppressants (eg, cyclosporine or methotrexate) reserved for more severe or widespread disease. Historically, these approaches primarily have aimed to control symptoms rather than achieve long-term resolution; however, novel therapies including biologics and targeted immunomodulators show potential to induce sustained remission and improve quality of life for patients with refractory or mucosal LP.

In all reports where adalimumab was used to treat LP, patients initially received topical corticosteroids. While corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents are standard therapies, they often provide only temporary relief and may have an unfavorable side effect profile. Our review highlights the emerging role of adalimumab, a TNF-α inhibitor, in off-label management of LP subtypes, including cutaneous, mucosal, and vulvar LP and LPP. In several small case series and reports, patients treated with adalimumab experienced clinical improvement, including symptom resolution and quality-of-life enhancement, as well as complete remission, indicating a durable response.

The potential benefit of adalimumab in treating LP must be balanced with its paradoxical risk for inducing lichenoid eruptions as well as LP and its variants, as identified in our narrative review that included reports of patients receiving this biologic for other indications.^17-29 Since adalimumab is a fully humanized antibody, the development of neutralizing antibodies may not account for drug-induced LP and lichenoid eruptions. Given that it blocks TNF-α, adalimumab may induce these lesions through a cytokine imbalance. This is supported by data demonstrating enhanced type I IFN-related proteins in plaques of patients with psoriasiform lesions treated with TNF-α inhibitors.²⁶ These drug-induced eruptions often resolved or improved with topical corticosteroids after discontinuation, but their occurrence underscores the complexity of therapeutically targeting TNF-α in the management of LP. Our literature review suggests that adalimumab may offer therapeutic benefit in select cases of LP refractory to conventional therapy, especially when systemic control is required. Nonetheless, the risk for LP and lichenoid reactions necessitates cautious use and further investigation.

Conclusion

While the current evidence is limited to case reports and series, adalimumab shows promise as an effective and tolerable off-label treatment for LP, particularly in patients who are unresponsive to conventional immunosuppressive therapies. Remission or clinically significant improvement was achieved in several cases; however, the potential for adalimumab to induce LP and lichenoid eruptions underscores the need for careful patient selection and monitoring. Further prospective studies and larger cohorts are warranted to better define the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in treating LP lesions.

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the skin (cutaneous LP), mucous membranes (oral, ocular, or vulvar LP), hair (lichen planopilaris [LPP]), and nails that predominantly occurs in middle-aged adults. Although the true etiology remains unknown, the pathogenesis of LP is thought to involve multiple factors. Several human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles have been associated with LP and its variants, including HLA-B27, HLA-B51, HLA-DR1 (cutaneous and oral LP), HLA-DRB1*11, and HLA-DQB1*03 (LPP). Additionally, HLA-Bw57 has been reported to be associated with oral LP in a cohort of British patients.¹ In addition to HLA alleles, genetic polymorphisms in cytokines including IL-4, IL-6, IL-18, interferon (IFN) γ, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and its receptor have been found to be associated with LP.² Beyond genetics, chronic viral infection has been implicated in the development of LP. Systemic infection with the hepatitis C virus has been linked to the development of oral LP by promoting the recruitment of hepatitis C virus–specific CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood to the oral lesions, where they exhibit a terminally differentiated effector status.³ Another report found an association between human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7) and cutaneous LP; in this study, HHV-7 RNA was detected in plasmacytoid dendritic cells but not T cells and diminished after treatment, providing evidence for dendritic cells being involved in the HHV-7–mediated pathogenesis of cutaneous LP.⁴ These findings were further corroborated by another study of oral LP patients that found enhanced infiltration of plasmacytoid and myeloid dendritic cells and upregulation in toll-like receptor and IFN-γ signaling.⁴

In addition to immune cell dysregulation, LP and its variants have been linked to neurogenic inflammation. In oral LP lesions, neurokinin 1 receptor and substance P were highly expressed and demonstrated a positive correlation with the expression of apoptotic marker caspase-3 and proliferation marker Ki-67.⁵ These results suggest that neuropeptides may be involved in cell proliferation and turnover in oral LP. Similarly, in patients with LPP, substance P was more abundant in affected areas, whereas another neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide, was more highly expressed in unaffected areas,⁶ further supporting the pathogenic role of neurogenic inflammation in LP.

A mucosal variant that often goes undiagnosed is vulvar LP. Although no distinct pathologic mechanism for vulvar LP has been established, prior reports found an association with autoantibodies.^7,8 In patients with erosive vulvar LP, epidermal-binding basement membrane zone antibodies were detected in epidermal skin biopsies and in circulation with reactivity to bullous pemphigoid antigens 180 (9/11 [81.8%] patients) and 230 (2/11 [18.2%] patients).⁷ A similar study in patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus found similar proportions of circulating antibodies reactive to bullous pemphigoid antigens 180 (6/7 [85.7%] patients) and 230 (1/7 [14.3%] patients).⁸ Erosive vulvar LP has been shown to be associated with autoimmune disease (eg, alopecia areata, celiac disease and pernicious anemia),⁹ which suggests that the previously reported autoreactive antibodies^7,8 are secondary to autoimmunity rather than primary drivers of vulvar LP pathogenesis.

Certain medications also have been reported to cause cutaneous lichenoid drug eruptions. Although they can clinically and histologically mimic classic LP, lichenoid drug eruptions are a distinct entity. Common inciting medications include thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anti-inflammatory drugs, antimalarials, checkpoint inhibitors, antimicrobials, antihypertensives, antidiabetics, and psychiatric drugs. The exact pathologic mechanism of lichenoid drug eruptions currently is unclear but is thought to involve the binding of drug molecules to the cell-surface proteins of the epidermis, creating an antigenic hapten stimulus for CD8+T cells and triggering apoptosis of keratinocytes.¹

The clinical severity of LP can range from mild localized disease to widespread and debilitating involvement. Multiple treatment modalities have been developed for management of LP, including topical and intralesional corticosteroids, phototherapy, Janus kinase inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, and anti–TNF-α inhibitors. Herein, we provide a narrative review and summary of the use of the TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab as a potential effective treatment for patients with LP.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from 2005 to 2025 using the terms adalimumab AND lichen planus or adalimumab AND lichen. Articles that reported cases of oral LP, cutaneous LP, LPP, or lichenoid eruptions and adalimumab therapy were included in our review. Articles that used non-adalimumab TNF-α inhibitors were excluded. Using the search terms, 2 independent reviewers (M.G. and N.E.) conducted the literature review then screened the articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our literature search yielded 40 articles, of which 20 met the criteria for inclusion in our narrative review.

Results

Our literature search yielded 11 patients with LP who were treated with adalimumab across studies (Table 1).^10-16 Prior LP treatments included topical corticosteroids (11/11 [100%]), disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (6/11 [54.5%]), retinoids (4/11 [36.4%]), and psoralen plus UVA (1/11 [36.4%]). Adalimumab was administered subcutaneously following 4 treatment regimens: (1) 160 mg in week 1, then 80 mg in week 2, then 40 mg weekly for a median duration of 36 weeks (6/11 [54.5%]); (2) 80 mg in week 1, then 40 mg in week 2, 40 mg every 2 weeks for 20 weeks (1/11 [9.1%]); (3) 80 mg in week 1, then 40 mg every 2 weeks for a median duration of 12 weeks (2/11 [18.2%]); and (4) 40 mg every 2 weeks (2/11 [18.2%]). Adalimumab generally was well tolerated, with only 1 (9.1%) patient experiencing minor stress-related mucocutaneous flares on the tongue and extremities that resolved spontaneously.¹² Remission was achieved in 5 (45.5%) patients, with time to remission ranging from 2 to 4 months after adalimumab therapy, with a median of 2.5 months. In 1 (9.1%) patient with bullous LP, adalimumab therapy led to remission after 10 weeks. In both cases of oral and cutaneous LP (2/11 [18.2%]), remission was achieved after 2 months of treatment. Of the 2 LPP patients reported, 1 had hair regrowth after 9 months, and the other experienced remission after 3 months of adalimumab therapy. In the 1 (9.1%) case of annular LP, adalimumab treatment led to remission after 4 months. Five (45.5%) patients with vulvar LP treated with adalimumab for at least 9 months demonstrated improved Vulvar Quality of Life Index scores without improvement in their mucosal LP lesions. In 4 of the 5 (80.0%) patients who experienced remission after adalimumab treatment, remission lasted at least 6 to 10 months, with a median of 6 months; remission duration was not reported in 1 (20.0%) patient.

Paradoxically, our review of the literature yielded 12 patients in whom adalimumab was associated with lichenoid-type eruptions across 9 studies (Table 2).^17-29 The conditions for which these patients were undergoing treatment with adalimumab included ulcerative colitis,¹⁷ psoriasis,^18,19 Crohn disease,^20,26 rheumatoid arthritis,^21-23,26 oligoarthritis,²⁴ and ankylosing spondylitis.²⁵ Lichenoid drug eruptions occurred on the legs (5/12 [41.7%]), arms (3/12 [25%]), oral mucosa (2/12 [16.7%]), and forehead or scalp (2/12 [16.7%]). Onset of time to these lichenoid eruptions ranged from 2 weeks to 17 months, with a median of 4 months. Adalimumab was discontinued in 9 (75.0%) patients and was continued in 3 (25.0%). One patient who had an onset of their lichenoid eruption after 17 months of treatment with adalimumab continued to receive adalimumab therapy with the addition of topical corticosteroids, which led to resolution of their oral lesions and partial remission of their cutaneous lesions. In 1 (8.3%) patient with localized buccal lichenoid eruptions, discontinuation of adalimumab on its own was sufficient to completely clear the lesions. Seven patients (7/12 [58.3%]) received topical corticosteroids with minimal (2/12 [16.7%]) or moderate (4/12 [33.3%]) improvement, and 1 (8.3%) patient did not have reported outcomes data. Eosinophils were detected within the adalimumab-associated lichenoid eruptions in 3 (25.0%) patients.^17,20,22

In addition to its association with lichenoid drug eruptions, adalimumab also was reported to induce LPP in a patient who was being treated for Behçet disease,²⁹ oral LP in a patient being treated for Crohn disease,²⁷ and cutaneous LP in a patient being treated for Crohn disease (Table 2).²⁸ Time to onset ranged from 4 to 10 months, with a median of 6 months. Adalimumab was discontinued in 2 of 3 (66.7%) patients and was continued in the other patient (33.3%). After cessation of adalimumab therapy, administration of topical steroids led to complete resolution in the case of associated oral LP. In contrast, in adalimumab-induced cutaneous LP, initial topical corticosteroid treatment led to progression of lesions, which mostly resolved after adalimumab cessation. In 1 patient with LPP in whom adalimumab therapy could not be discontinued, topical corticosteroid and methotrexate therapy reduced the perifollicular erythema and stabilized the alopecia without full remission.

Comment

Conventional treatment modalities for LP often include topical corticosteroids as first-line therapy, with systemic corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, or immunosuppressants (eg, cyclosporine or methotrexate) reserved for more severe or widespread disease. Historically, these approaches primarily have aimed to control symptoms rather than achieve long-term resolution; however, novel therapies including biologics and targeted immunomodulators show potential to induce sustained remission and improve quality of life for patients with refractory or mucosal LP.

In all reports where adalimumab was used to treat LP, patients initially received topical corticosteroids. While corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents are standard therapies, they often provide only temporary relief and may have an unfavorable side effect profile. Our review highlights the emerging role of adalimumab, a TNF-α inhibitor, in off-label management of LP subtypes, including cutaneous, mucosal, and vulvar LP and LPP. In several small case series and reports, patients treated with adalimumab experienced clinical improvement, including symptom resolution and quality-of-life enhancement, as well as complete remission, indicating a durable response.

The potential benefit of adalimumab in treating LP must be balanced with its paradoxical risk for inducing lichenoid eruptions as well as LP and its variants, as identified in our narrative review that included reports of patients receiving this biologic for other indications.^17-29 Since adalimumab is a fully humanized antibody, the development of neutralizing antibodies may not account for drug-induced LP and lichenoid eruptions. Given that it blocks TNF-α, adalimumab may induce these lesions through a cytokine imbalance. This is supported by data demonstrating enhanced type I IFN-related proteins in plaques of patients with psoriasiform lesions treated with TNF-α inhibitors.²⁶ These drug-induced eruptions often resolved or improved with topical corticosteroids after discontinuation, but their occurrence underscores the complexity of therapeutically targeting TNF-α in the management of LP. Our literature review suggests that adalimumab may offer therapeutic benefit in select cases of LP refractory to conventional therapy, especially when systemic control is required. Nonetheless, the risk for LP and lichenoid reactions necessitates cautious use and further investigation.

Conclusion

While the current evidence is limited to case reports and series, adalimumab shows promise as an effective and tolerable off-label treatment for LP, particularly in patients who are unresponsive to conventional immunosuppressive therapies. Remission or clinically significant improvement was achieved in several cases; however, the potential for adalimumab to induce LP and lichenoid eruptions underscores the need for careful patient selection and monitoring. Further prospective studies and larger cohorts are warranted to better define the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in treating LP lesions.

To the Editor:

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are rare, life-threatening reactions that include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).¹ In addition to being associated with commonly implicated medications, SCARs also may occur in the setting of antineoplastic therapy.^2,3 Although ­antineoplastic-associated SCARs have been described, diagnosis can be difficult due to varying latency periods and atypical clinical features, such as those observed with BRAF inhibitor–related DRESS during immunotherapy.⁴ Severe cutaneous adverse reactions can increase morbidity and mortality in the oncologic patient population due to both the clinical sequelae from the cutaneous reaction and the potential to interrupt cancer treatment.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and impact on cancer treatment among patients diagnosed with a SCAR while receiving active therapy for malignancy. We conducted a retrospective chart review of electronic medical records at Yale New Haven Hospital (New Haven, Connecticut) from 2013 to 2023, identifying patients receiving antineoplastic therapy who were diagnosed with a SCAR. Cases were identified through a search of the electronic medical record performed by the joint data analytics team using the keywords DRESS, SJS, TEN, AGEP, and generalized bullous fixed drug eruption, along with spelling variations (both abbreviations and full terms), in addition to manual review by one of the authors (K.V.) of the inpatient dermatology consultation log and dermatopathology database. Only patients for whom an antineoplastic agent was identified as a high-probability culprit by the dermatology and/or oncology teams were included.

In total, 20 patients (11 female, 9 male) were identified as having an antineoplastic-associated SCAR. All patients had metastatic or advanced disease. We identified 2 (10%) cases of AGEP, 16 (80%) cases of DRESS, and 3 (15%) cases of SJS/TEN. One patient on immunotherapy had 2 distinct SCARs (AGEP, DRESS) at different time points. Table 1 describes patient and SCAR characteristics as well as impact on cancer treatment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) latency period for AGEP was 7.5 (4-11) days. The median (IQR) latency period for 13 of the 16 (81%) DRESS cases was 14 (10-32) days. For 3 DRESS cases with a potential second-hit phenomenon in the setting of current or antecedent immunotherapy,⁵ the median (IQR) latency period was 122 (96-426) days for the immunotherapy drug and 28 (21-52) days for the drug culprit. The median (IQR) latency period for SJS/TEN was 23 (20-27) days.

Patients received treatment with combination systemic corticosteroids and topical corticosteroids in 13 (65%) cases, systemic corticosteroid monotherapy in 6 (30%) cases, or combination systemic corticosteroids and etanercept in 1 (5%) case. All patients experienced resolution of the SCAR and survived to hospital discharge. Most (17/20 [85%]) patients experienced interruption or discontinuation of cancer treatment. Table 2 describes the implicated antineoplastic therapies, which included chemotherapy (3 DRESS, 1 SJS/TEN), hormonal therapy (1 DRESS), immunotherapy (1 AGEP, 4 DRESS), and targeted therapy (1 AGEP, 8 DRESS, 2 SJS/TEN).

Limitations of this study include the retrospective study design, the small sample size, and the challenge of drug culprit identification in oncologic patients on multiple high-probability medications.

Though rare, SCARs can be encountered in patients on antineoplastic therapy with a wide range of drug culprits. In our cohort, SCARs occurred with various antineoplastic agents, including chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. The most common antineoplastic-associated SCAR was DRESS, which had the widest latency period in the setting of a potential second-hit phenomenon with another drug culprit. Although we did not observe any cases of SJS/TEN in the immunotherapy category, it is important to consider progressive immunotherapy-related mucocutaneous eruption in the differential diagnosis. Fortunately, all patients survived to hospital discharge and experienced SCAR resolution with systemic treatment; however, most patients experienced interruption of cancer therapy, which has the potential to affect oncologic outcomes. This interruption is not uncommon, as rechallenge of an antineoplastic agent in patients with a therapy-related SCAR generally is not recommended. The awareness and prompt management of SCARs in a patient on treatment for malignancy are critical in order to minimize negative outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

To the Editor:

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are rare, life-threatening reactions that include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).¹ In addition to being associated with commonly implicated medications, SCARs also may occur in the setting of antineoplastic therapy.^2,3 Although ­antineoplastic-associated SCARs have been described, diagnosis can be difficult due to varying latency periods and atypical clinical features, such as those observed with BRAF inhibitor–related DRESS during immunotherapy.⁴ Severe cutaneous adverse reactions can increase morbidity and mortality in the oncologic patient population due to both the clinical sequelae from the cutaneous reaction and the potential to interrupt cancer treatment.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and impact on cancer treatment among patients diagnosed with a SCAR while receiving active therapy for malignancy. We conducted a retrospective chart review of electronic medical records at Yale New Haven Hospital (New Haven, Connecticut) from 2013 to 2023, identifying patients receiving antineoplastic therapy who were diagnosed with a SCAR. Cases were identified through a search of the electronic medical record performed by the joint data analytics team using the keywords DRESS, SJS, TEN, AGEP, and generalized bullous fixed drug eruption, along with spelling variations (both abbreviations and full terms), in addition to manual review by one of the authors (K.V.) of the inpatient dermatology consultation log and dermatopathology database. Only patients for whom an antineoplastic agent was identified as a high-probability culprit by the dermatology and/or oncology teams were included.

In total, 20 patients (11 female, 9 male) were identified as having an antineoplastic-associated SCAR. All patients had metastatic or advanced disease. We identified 2 (10%) cases of AGEP, 16 (80%) cases of DRESS, and 3 (15%) cases of SJS/TEN. One patient on immunotherapy had 2 distinct SCARs (AGEP, DRESS) at different time points. Table 1 describes patient and SCAR characteristics as well as impact on cancer treatment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) latency period for AGEP was 7.5 (4-11) days. The median (IQR) latency period for 13 of the 16 (81%) DRESS cases was 14 (10-32) days. For 3 DRESS cases with a potential second-hit phenomenon in the setting of current or antecedent immunotherapy,⁵ the median (IQR) latency period was 122 (96-426) days for the immunotherapy drug and 28 (21-52) days for the drug culprit. The median (IQR) latency period for SJS/TEN was 23 (20-27) days.

Patients received treatment with combination systemic corticosteroids and topical corticosteroids in 13 (65%) cases, systemic corticosteroid monotherapy in 6 (30%) cases, or combination systemic corticosteroids and etanercept in 1 (5%) case. All patients experienced resolution of the SCAR and survived to hospital discharge. Most (17/20 [85%]) patients experienced interruption or discontinuation of cancer treatment. Table 2 describes the implicated antineoplastic therapies, which included chemotherapy (3 DRESS, 1 SJS/TEN), hormonal therapy (1 DRESS), immunotherapy (1 AGEP, 4 DRESS), and targeted therapy (1 AGEP, 8 DRESS, 2 SJS/TEN).

Limitations of this study include the retrospective study design, the small sample size, and the challenge of drug culprit identification in oncologic patients on multiple high-probability medications.

Though rare, SCARs can be encountered in patients on antineoplastic therapy with a wide range of drug culprits. In our cohort, SCARs occurred with various antineoplastic agents, including chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. The most common antineoplastic-associated SCAR was DRESS, which had the widest latency period in the setting of a potential second-hit phenomenon with another drug culprit. Although we did not observe any cases of SJS/TEN in the immunotherapy category, it is important to consider progressive immunotherapy-related mucocutaneous eruption in the differential diagnosis. Fortunately, all patients survived to hospital discharge and experienced SCAR resolution with systemic treatment; however, most patients experienced interruption of cancer therapy, which has the potential to affect oncologic outcomes. This interruption is not uncommon, as rechallenge of an antineoplastic agent in patients with a therapy-related SCAR generally is not recommended. The awareness and prompt management of SCARs in a patient on treatment for malignancy are critical in order to minimize negative outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

To the Editor:

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are rare, life-threatening reactions that include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).¹ In addition to being associated with commonly implicated medications, SCARs also may occur in the setting of antineoplastic therapy.^2,3 Although ­antineoplastic-associated SCARs have been described, diagnosis can be difficult due to varying latency periods and atypical clinical features, such as those observed with BRAF inhibitor–related DRESS during immunotherapy.⁴ Severe cutaneous adverse reactions can increase morbidity and mortality in the oncologic patient population due to both the clinical sequelae from the cutaneous reaction and the potential to interrupt cancer treatment.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and impact on cancer treatment among patients diagnosed with a SCAR while receiving active therapy for malignancy. We conducted a retrospective chart review of electronic medical records at Yale New Haven Hospital (New Haven, Connecticut) from 2013 to 2023, identifying patients receiving antineoplastic therapy who were diagnosed with a SCAR. Cases were identified through a search of the electronic medical record performed by the joint data analytics team using the keywords DRESS, SJS, TEN, AGEP, and generalized bullous fixed drug eruption, along with spelling variations (both abbreviations and full terms), in addition to manual review by one of the authors (K.V.) of the inpatient dermatology consultation log and dermatopathology database. Only patients for whom an antineoplastic agent was identified as a high-probability culprit by the dermatology and/or oncology teams were included.

In total, 20 patients (11 female, 9 male) were identified as having an antineoplastic-associated SCAR. All patients had metastatic or advanced disease. We identified 2 (10%) cases of AGEP, 16 (80%) cases of DRESS, and 3 (15%) cases of SJS/TEN. One patient on immunotherapy had 2 distinct SCARs (AGEP, DRESS) at different time points. Table 1 describes patient and SCAR characteristics as well as impact on cancer treatment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) latency period for AGEP was 7.5 (4-11) days. The median (IQR) latency period for 13 of the 16 (81%) DRESS cases was 14 (10-32) days. For 3 DRESS cases with a potential second-hit phenomenon in the setting of current or antecedent immunotherapy,⁵ the median (IQR) latency period was 122 (96-426) days for the immunotherapy drug and 28 (21-52) days for the drug culprit. The median (IQR) latency period for SJS/TEN was 23 (20-27) days.

Patients received treatment with combination systemic corticosteroids and topical corticosteroids in 13 (65%) cases, systemic corticosteroid monotherapy in 6 (30%) cases, or combination systemic corticosteroids and etanercept in 1 (5%) case. All patients experienced resolution of the SCAR and survived to hospital discharge. Most (17/20 [85%]) patients experienced interruption or discontinuation of cancer treatment. Table 2 describes the implicated antineoplastic therapies, which included chemotherapy (3 DRESS, 1 SJS/TEN), hormonal therapy (1 DRESS), immunotherapy (1 AGEP, 4 DRESS), and targeted therapy (1 AGEP, 8 DRESS, 2 SJS/TEN).

Limitations of this study include the retrospective study design, the small sample size, and the challenge of drug culprit identification in oncologic patients on multiple high-probability medications.

Though rare, SCARs can be encountered in patients on antineoplastic therapy with a wide range of drug culprits. In our cohort, SCARs occurred with various antineoplastic agents, including chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. The most common antineoplastic-associated SCAR was DRESS, which had the widest latency period in the setting of a potential second-hit phenomenon with another drug culprit. Although we did not observe any cases of SJS/TEN in the immunotherapy category, it is important to consider progressive immunotherapy-related mucocutaneous eruption in the differential diagnosis. Fortunately, all patients survived to hospital discharge and experienced SCAR resolution with systemic treatment; however, most patients experienced interruption of cancer therapy, which has the potential to affect oncologic outcomes. This interruption is not uncommon, as rechallenge of an antineoplastic agent in patients with a therapy-related SCAR generally is not recommended. The awareness and prompt management of SCARs in a patient on treatment for malignancy are critical in order to minimize negative outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

To the Editor:

At-home microcurrent facial devices have gained rapid popularity for cosmetic rejuvenation, promising improvements in skin tone, contour, and collagen production.¹ In particular, the post–COVID-19 era has seen a surge in at-home beauty practices driven by social media influence, with the global microcurrent facial market estimated at $372.9 million in 2022 and projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.3% through 2030.¹ Microcurrent devices deliver low-level electrical currents to the skin and underlying muscles. Given the limited exploration of the long-term safety, we aimed to collate existing data and identify trends in reports of adverse events (AEs) associated with these microcurrent devices.

On April 15, 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for medical device reports from January 1, 2013, through March 31, 2025, using product names and keywords including NuFACE, TheraFace, FOREO, and microcurrent device. Search terms were limited to brands for which complaint data existed in the MAUDE database at the time of query. To ensure accuracy, reports were manually reviewed to eliminate duplicates and irrelevant entries.

A total of 28 unique AE reports associated with at-home microcurrent devices were identified (eTable). The majority involved NuFACE devices (ie, NuFACE Trinity, NuFACE Mini, and NuFACE Trinity+)(NuFACE)(n=25), followed by the TheraFace PRO (Therabody, Inc)(n=2) and the FOREO BEAR (FOREO)(n=1). The most frequently documented AEs associated with the NuFACE devices included arrhythmia (7/25 [28%]), pain (6/25 [24%]), dizziness (4/25 [16%]), headache (4/25 [16%]), and inflammation (4/25 [16%]). There was 1 (4%) case of retinal detachment. The TheraFace PRO was associated with device overheating (2/2 [100%]), and the FOREO BEAR was associated with facial deformity/disfigurement (1/1 [100%]).

While microcurrent therapy is widely marketed to consumers through social media influencers and at-home beauty platforms,¹ randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AEs related to use of this technology are lacking, possibly due to nonstringent regulation of nonprescription cosmetic devices.² Contrary to our findings, RCTs of microcurrent devices have reported minimal or no AEs; for instance, an RCT evaluating 56 participants treated 5 times weekly for 12 weeks with a microcurrent device that was not included in our analysis reported only mild erythema in all experimental group participants.² In another RCT of 30 participants, 15 of whom were treated with a microcurrent device and 15 with placebo for 30 minutes once daily over a period of 10 days, no AEs were reported.³ A cohort analysis of 34 patients also provided preliminary evidence supporting the use of microcurrent therapy for chronic back and neck pain, beyond its cosmetic applications.⁴ Despite the lack of reported AEs in the literature, there is a notable absence of large-scale, rigorous studies on this topic.

Our analysis was subject to the limitations of the MAUDE database, in which reports of severe AEs are more likely to be reported than transient ones. Additionally, the small sample size and lack of a known denominator make it difficult to compare frequencies of AEs among different microcurrent tools. The products chosen for this study were the select few that reported complaint data, but there is a large existing market of devices that may be associated with AEs that have yet to be reported, potentially because of their novelty.

Our findings suggest that, despite their over-the-counter availability, microcurrent facial devices may carry major risks—particularly in at-home settings. While short-term studies have highlighted potential benefits, the small sample sizes and limited follow-up make it difficult to comprehensively characterize long-term safety risks. Among available studies on microcurrent beauty treatments, the longest follow-up was only 12 weeks.² Our findings support the need for further large-scale and longitudinal studies to evaluate both the efficacy and safety of at-home microcurrent therapy, especially with increasing consumer interest. The diversity of the products available adds to the challenge of broad safety guidelines, in addition to the lack of long-term clinical studies.

To the Editor:

At-home microcurrent facial devices have gained rapid popularity for cosmetic rejuvenation, promising improvements in skin tone, contour, and collagen production.¹ In particular, the post–COVID-19 era has seen a surge in at-home beauty practices driven by social media influence, with the global microcurrent facial market estimated at $372.9 million in 2022 and projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.3% through 2030.¹ Microcurrent devices deliver low-level electrical currents to the skin and underlying muscles. Given the limited exploration of the long-term safety, we aimed to collate existing data and identify trends in reports of adverse events (AEs) associated with these microcurrent devices.

On April 15, 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for medical device reports from January 1, 2013, through March 31, 2025, using product names and keywords including NuFACE, TheraFace, FOREO, and microcurrent device. Search terms were limited to brands for which complaint data existed in the MAUDE database at the time of query. To ensure accuracy, reports were manually reviewed to eliminate duplicates and irrelevant entries.

A total of 28 unique AE reports associated with at-home microcurrent devices were identified (eTable). The majority involved NuFACE devices (ie, NuFACE Trinity, NuFACE Mini, and NuFACE Trinity+)(NuFACE)(n=25), followed by the TheraFace PRO (Therabody, Inc)(n=2) and the FOREO BEAR (FOREO)(n=1). The most frequently documented AEs associated with the NuFACE devices included arrhythmia (7/25 [28%]), pain (6/25 [24%]), dizziness (4/25 [16%]), headache (4/25 [16%]), and inflammation (4/25 [16%]). There was 1 (4%) case of retinal detachment. The TheraFace PRO was associated with device overheating (2/2 [100%]), and the FOREO BEAR was associated with facial deformity/disfigurement (1/1 [100%]).

While microcurrent therapy is widely marketed to consumers through social media influencers and at-home beauty platforms,¹ randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AEs related to use of this technology are lacking, possibly due to nonstringent regulation of nonprescription cosmetic devices.² Contrary to our findings, RCTs of microcurrent devices have reported minimal or no AEs; for instance, an RCT evaluating 56 participants treated 5 times weekly for 12 weeks with a microcurrent device that was not included in our analysis reported only mild erythema in all experimental group participants.² In another RCT of 30 participants, 15 of whom were treated with a microcurrent device and 15 with placebo for 30 minutes once daily over a period of 10 days, no AEs were reported.³ A cohort analysis of 34 patients also provided preliminary evidence supporting the use of microcurrent therapy for chronic back and neck pain, beyond its cosmetic applications.⁴ Despite the lack of reported AEs in the literature, there is a notable absence of large-scale, rigorous studies on this topic.

Our analysis was subject to the limitations of the MAUDE database, in which reports of severe AEs are more likely to be reported than transient ones. Additionally, the small sample size and lack of a known denominator make it difficult to compare frequencies of AEs among different microcurrent tools. The products chosen for this study were the select few that reported complaint data, but there is a large existing market of devices that may be associated with AEs that have yet to be reported, potentially because of their novelty.

Our findings suggest that, despite their over-the-counter availability, microcurrent facial devices may carry major risks—particularly in at-home settings. While short-term studies have highlighted potential benefits, the small sample sizes and limited follow-up make it difficult to comprehensively characterize long-term safety risks. Among available studies on microcurrent beauty treatments, the longest follow-up was only 12 weeks.² Our findings support the need for further large-scale and longitudinal studies to evaluate both the efficacy and safety of at-home microcurrent therapy, especially with increasing consumer interest. The diversity of the products available adds to the challenge of broad safety guidelines, in addition to the lack of long-term clinical studies.

To the Editor:

At-home microcurrent facial devices have gained rapid popularity for cosmetic rejuvenation, promising improvements in skin tone, contour, and collagen production.¹ In particular, the post–COVID-19 era has seen a surge in at-home beauty practices driven by social media influence, with the global microcurrent facial market estimated at $372.9 million in 2022 and projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.3% through 2030.¹ Microcurrent devices deliver low-level electrical currents to the skin and underlying muscles. Given the limited exploration of the long-term safety, we aimed to collate existing data and identify trends in reports of adverse events (AEs) associated with these microcurrent devices.

On April 15, 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for medical device reports from January 1, 2013, through March 31, 2025, using product names and keywords including NuFACE, TheraFace, FOREO, and microcurrent device. Search terms were limited to brands for which complaint data existed in the MAUDE database at the time of query. To ensure accuracy, reports were manually reviewed to eliminate duplicates and irrelevant entries.

A total of 28 unique AE reports associated with at-home microcurrent devices were identified (eTable). The majority involved NuFACE devices (ie, NuFACE Trinity, NuFACE Mini, and NuFACE Trinity+)(NuFACE)(n=25), followed by the TheraFace PRO (Therabody, Inc)(n=2) and the FOREO BEAR (FOREO)(n=1). The most frequently documented AEs associated with the NuFACE devices included arrhythmia (7/25 [28%]), pain (6/25 [24%]), dizziness (4/25 [16%]), headache (4/25 [16%]), and inflammation (4/25 [16%]). There was 1 (4%) case of retinal detachment. The TheraFace PRO was associated with device overheating (2/2 [100%]), and the FOREO BEAR was associated with facial deformity/disfigurement (1/1 [100%]).

While microcurrent therapy is widely marketed to consumers through social media influencers and at-home beauty platforms,¹ randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AEs related to use of this technology are lacking, possibly due to nonstringent regulation of nonprescription cosmetic devices.² Contrary to our findings, RCTs of microcurrent devices have reported minimal or no AEs; for instance, an RCT evaluating 56 participants treated 5 times weekly for 12 weeks with a microcurrent device that was not included in our analysis reported only mild erythema in all experimental group participants.² In another RCT of 30 participants, 15 of whom were treated with a microcurrent device and 15 with placebo for 30 minutes once daily over a period of 10 days, no AEs were reported.³ A cohort analysis of 34 patients also provided preliminary evidence supporting the use of microcurrent therapy for chronic back and neck pain, beyond its cosmetic applications.⁴ Despite the lack of reported AEs in the literature, there is a notable absence of large-scale, rigorous studies on this topic.

Our analysis was subject to the limitations of the MAUDE database, in which reports of severe AEs are more likely to be reported than transient ones. Additionally, the small sample size and lack of a known denominator make it difficult to compare frequencies of AEs among different microcurrent tools. The products chosen for this study were the select few that reported complaint data, but there is a large existing market of devices that may be associated with AEs that have yet to be reported, potentially because of their novelty.

Our findings suggest that, despite their over-the-counter availability, microcurrent facial devices may carry major risks—particularly in at-home settings. While short-term studies have highlighted potential benefits, the small sample sizes and limited follow-up make it difficult to comprehensively characterize long-term safety risks. Among available studies on microcurrent beauty treatments, the longest follow-up was only 12 weeks.² Our findings support the need for further large-scale and longitudinal studies to evaluate both the efficacy and safety of at-home microcurrent therapy, especially with increasing consumer interest. The diversity of the products available adds to the challenge of broad safety guidelines, in addition to the lack of long-term clinical studies.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Cutaneous Leiomyosarcoma

Based on the clinical and histopathologic findings, our patient was diagnosed with primary cutaneous leiomyosarcoma (LMS), a rare soft-tissue neoplasm that arises from smooth muscle and typically manifests as a firm pink nodule.¹ The neoplasm may occur in the area of a prior traumatic injury or develop spontaneously without an identifiable cause.^1-3 Cutaneous LMS represents 2% to 3% of all soft-tissue sarcomas worldwide, with an estimated incidence of 1 in 500,000 annually.^1,4 Men who are in their fifth to seventh decades of life are at the highest risk for LMS.¹

Histologically, cutaneous LMS can be subclassified as dermal, which has a low metastatic risk and excellent prognosis, or subcutaneous, which is associated with poorer outcomes and vascular muscle origin.¹ In our case, hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed fascicles of smooth muscle fibers with hypercellularity, atypia, and mitotic figures (Figure). The neoplasm stained positive for desmin, vimentin, and smooth muscle actin and negative for SOX10, Melan-A, PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma), CD34, and Factor XIIIa.¹

Standard treatment for LMS is surgical excision.⁵ Poor prognostic factors include lesions with a diameter of 5 cm or larger, deep subcutaneous tumor invasion, and distant metastases.^2,5

The differential diagnosis may include dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, which can have a similar pink nodular appearance and also may manifest after injury⁶; however, this lesion would stain positive for CD34 on histopathology.¹ Nodular melanoma also can manifest as a solitary red, raised lesion, but it would stain positive for SOX10, PRAME, and Melan-A on histopathology.⁷ Basal cell carcinoma, which also may have a similar clinical appearance, is associated with nests of basaloid cells and palisading nuclei histologically.⁸ Lastly, atypical fibroxanthoma also manifests as a red nodule or plaque and is associated with atypical mitotic figures on histology; however, it notably stains negative for desmin.⁹

In summary, cutaneous LMS should be included in the differential diagnosis for raised, pink nodules. Given its nonspecific clinical presentation, this rare and malignant neoplasm requires biopsy and immunohistochemical staining for accurate diagnosis.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Cutaneous Leiomyosarcoma

Based on the clinical and histopathologic findings, our patient was diagnosed with primary cutaneous leiomyosarcoma (LMS), a rare soft-tissue neoplasm that arises from smooth muscle and typically manifests as a firm pink nodule.¹ The neoplasm may occur in the area of a prior traumatic injury or develop spontaneously without an identifiable cause.^1-3 Cutaneous LMS represents 2% to 3% of all soft-tissue sarcomas worldwide, with an estimated incidence of 1 in 500,000 annually.^1,4 Men who are in their fifth to seventh decades of life are at the highest risk for LMS.¹

Histologically, cutaneous LMS can be subclassified as dermal, which has a low metastatic risk and excellent prognosis, or subcutaneous, which is associated with poorer outcomes and vascular muscle origin.¹ In our case, hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed fascicles of smooth muscle fibers with hypercellularity, atypia, and mitotic figures (Figure). The neoplasm stained positive for desmin, vimentin, and smooth muscle actin and negative for SOX10, Melan-A, PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma), CD34, and Factor XIIIa.¹

Standard treatment for LMS is surgical excision.⁵ Poor prognostic factors include lesions with a diameter of 5 cm or larger, deep subcutaneous tumor invasion, and distant metastases.^2,5

The differential diagnosis may include dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, which can have a similar pink nodular appearance and also may manifest after injury⁶; however, this lesion would stain positive for CD34 on histopathology.¹ Nodular melanoma also can manifest as a solitary red, raised lesion, but it would stain positive for SOX10, PRAME, and Melan-A on histopathology.⁷ Basal cell carcinoma, which also may have a similar clinical appearance, is associated with nests of basaloid cells and palisading nuclei histologically.⁸ Lastly, atypical fibroxanthoma also manifests as a red nodule or plaque and is associated with atypical mitotic figures on histology; however, it notably stains negative for desmin.⁹

In summary, cutaneous LMS should be included in the differential diagnosis for raised, pink nodules. Given its nonspecific clinical presentation, this rare and malignant neoplasm requires biopsy and immunohistochemical staining for accurate diagnosis.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Cutaneous Leiomyosarcoma

Based on the clinical and histopathologic findings, our patient was diagnosed with primary cutaneous leiomyosarcoma (LMS), a rare soft-tissue neoplasm that arises from smooth muscle and typically manifests as a firm pink nodule.¹ The neoplasm may occur in the area of a prior traumatic injury or develop spontaneously without an identifiable cause.^1-3 Cutaneous LMS represents 2% to 3% of all soft-tissue sarcomas worldwide, with an estimated incidence of 1 in 500,000 annually.^1,4 Men who are in their fifth to seventh decades of life are at the highest risk for LMS.¹

Histologically, cutaneous LMS can be subclassified as dermal, which has a low metastatic risk and excellent prognosis, or subcutaneous, which is associated with poorer outcomes and vascular muscle origin.¹ In our case, hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed fascicles of smooth muscle fibers with hypercellularity, atypia, and mitotic figures (Figure). The neoplasm stained positive for desmin, vimentin, and smooth muscle actin and negative for SOX10, Melan-A, PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma), CD34, and Factor XIIIa.¹

Standard treatment for LMS is surgical excision.⁵ Poor prognostic factors include lesions with a diameter of 5 cm or larger, deep subcutaneous tumor invasion, and distant metastases.^2,5

The differential diagnosis may include dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, which can have a similar pink nodular appearance and also may manifest after injury⁶; however, this lesion would stain positive for CD34 on histopathology.¹ Nodular melanoma also can manifest as a solitary red, raised lesion, but it would stain positive for SOX10, PRAME, and Melan-A on histopathology.⁷ Basal cell carcinoma, which also may have a similar clinical appearance, is associated with nests of basaloid cells and palisading nuclei histologically.⁸ Lastly, atypical fibroxanthoma also manifests as a red nodule or plaque and is associated with atypical mitotic figures on histology; however, it notably stains negative for desmin.⁹

In summary, cutaneous LMS should be included in the differential diagnosis for raised, pink nodules. Given its nonspecific clinical presentation, this rare and malignant neoplasm requires biopsy and immunohistochemical staining for accurate diagnosis.

Have you ever heard of the American Dermatological Association (ADA)? While many residents may not yet be familiar with this group, its members are among the most respected leaders in dermatology. They serve as current and past presidents of influential organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology (Susan C. Taylor, MD [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]), the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (M. Laurin Council, MD, MBA [Creve Coeur, Missouri]), and the Association of Professors of Dermatology (Sewon Kang, MD [Baltimore, Maryland]). Others lead certification boards or serve as editors of key journals like the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Dirk Elston, MD [Charleston, South Carolina]), JAMA Dermatology (Kanade Shinkai, MD [San Francisco, California], and Cutis (Vincent A. DeLeo, MD [Los Angeles, California]).

The ADA is celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2026. What makes the organization so enduring is not just its history, but its culture. The members of the ADA foster deep, long-lasting relationships, and its meetings are purposefully designed to balance structured scientific sessions with unscheduled time for reflection, conversation, and connection. That intentional design cultivates learning, innovation, and wellness.

Steven Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People¹ highlights the importance of renewal and relationship building, as does the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest-running research projects on well-being.^2-4 The key conclusion? Relationships are the strongest predictors of long, healthy, and fulfilling lives, not wealth or achievement. Medical training is intense, and the emphasis often falls squarely on achievement. But the friendships you form in medical school, residency, and early career are just as formative. Membership with the ADA continues this spirit of connection throughout one’s professional life, with meetings that welcome spouses and partners and encourage engagement across generations.

A hallmark of ADA culture is its commitment to mentoring and mutual support. Need advice about transitioning from private practice to academia? Navigating department leadership? Applying for a grant? Considering industry, editorial, or global health roles? Within the ADA, there’s someone who has done it and is eager to help. Recent meetings have addressed future-facing topics such as artificial intelligence, bedside diagnostics, workforce advocacy, and global health while also carving out time for rejuvenating activities: book clubs with best-selling authors, sessions on the arts, storytelling, wellness, and travel. This holistic programming reflects the ADA’s belief in supporting the whole physician.³ Members understand the value of relationships and appreciate these opportunities to learn about the passions and interests of their colleagues (Table).

Candidates are nominated by current members and must be board certified and at least 10 years beyond completion of their training. Members vote upon candidates in a rank voting system each year. If someone is nominated and not selected, they did not fail—they may be nominated again. The idea behind this membership process is to keep the organization small enough that members can get to know one another—there are currently 552 active members. Importantly, the ADA has embraced diversity and inclusion. While historically male- and White-dominated, recent inductee classes now reflect gender parity and a broader range of backgrounds, enriching the organization with fresh perspectives.^5-8

For residents and fellows, the lesson is clear: friendships, mentorship, and time for reflection are not luxuries—they are essential. Burnout stems from relentless output in isolation; however, in cultures that prioritize renewal, authenticity, and community, physicians can flourish.⁹ Membership in small professional organizations is an important step towards avoiding isolation. We encourage you to be active in your local, state, and national organizations.

The ADA stands as a powerful example of how professional societies can help you build the kind of life and career you want, not just a résumé. From informal beachside conversations to high-level scientific discussions, its enduring strength is this: leaders helping others lead.

Have you ever heard of the American Dermatological Association (ADA)? While many residents may not yet be familiar with this group, its members are among the most respected leaders in dermatology. They serve as current and past presidents of influential organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology (Susan C. Taylor, MD [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]), the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (M. Laurin Council, MD, MBA [Creve Coeur, Missouri]), and the Association of Professors of Dermatology (Sewon Kang, MD [Baltimore, Maryland]). Others lead certification boards or serve as editors of key journals like the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Dirk Elston, MD [Charleston, South Carolina]), JAMA Dermatology (Kanade Shinkai, MD [San Francisco, California], and Cutis (Vincent A. DeLeo, MD [Los Angeles, California]).

The ADA is celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2026. What makes the organization so enduring is not just its history, but its culture. The members of the ADA foster deep, long-lasting relationships, and its meetings are purposefully designed to balance structured scientific sessions with unscheduled time for reflection, conversation, and connection. That intentional design cultivates learning, innovation, and wellness.

Steven Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People¹ highlights the importance of renewal and relationship building, as does the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest-running research projects on well-being.^2-4 The key conclusion? Relationships are the strongest predictors of long, healthy, and fulfilling lives, not wealth or achievement. Medical training is intense, and the emphasis often falls squarely on achievement. But the friendships you form in medical school, residency, and early career are just as formative. Membership with the ADA continues this spirit of connection throughout one’s professional life, with meetings that welcome spouses and partners and encourage engagement across generations.

A hallmark of ADA culture is its commitment to mentoring and mutual support. Need advice about transitioning from private practice to academia? Navigating department leadership? Applying for a grant? Considering industry, editorial, or global health roles? Within the ADA, there’s someone who has done it and is eager to help. Recent meetings have addressed future-facing topics such as artificial intelligence, bedside diagnostics, workforce advocacy, and global health while also carving out time for rejuvenating activities: book clubs with best-selling authors, sessions on the arts, storytelling, wellness, and travel. This holistic programming reflects the ADA’s belief in supporting the whole physician.³ Members understand the value of relationships and appreciate these opportunities to learn about the passions and interests of their colleagues (Table).

Candidates are nominated by current members and must be board certified and at least 10 years beyond completion of their training. Members vote upon candidates in a rank voting system each year. If someone is nominated and not selected, they did not fail—they may be nominated again. The idea behind this membership process is to keep the organization small enough that members can get to know one another—there are currently 552 active members. Importantly, the ADA has embraced diversity and inclusion. While historically male- and White-dominated, recent inductee classes now reflect gender parity and a broader range of backgrounds, enriching the organization with fresh perspectives.^5-8

For residents and fellows, the lesson is clear: friendships, mentorship, and time for reflection are not luxuries—they are essential. Burnout stems from relentless output in isolation; however, in cultures that prioritize renewal, authenticity, and community, physicians can flourish.⁹ Membership in small professional organizations is an important step towards avoiding isolation. We encourage you to be active in your local, state, and national organizations.

The ADA stands as a powerful example of how professional societies can help you build the kind of life and career you want, not just a résumé. From informal beachside conversations to high-level scientific discussions, its enduring strength is this: leaders helping others lead.

Have you ever heard of the American Dermatological Association (ADA)? While many residents may not yet be familiar with this group, its members are among the most respected leaders in dermatology. They serve as current and past presidents of influential organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology (Susan C. Taylor, MD [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]), the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (M. Laurin Council, MD, MBA [Creve Coeur, Missouri]), and the Association of Professors of Dermatology (Sewon Kang, MD [Baltimore, Maryland]). Others lead certification boards or serve as editors of key journals like the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Dirk Elston, MD [Charleston, South Carolina]), JAMA Dermatology (Kanade Shinkai, MD [San Francisco, California], and Cutis (Vincent A. DeLeo, MD [Los Angeles, California]).

The ADA is celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2026. What makes the organization so enduring is not just its history, but its culture. The members of the ADA foster deep, long-lasting relationships, and its meetings are purposefully designed to balance structured scientific sessions with unscheduled time for reflection, conversation, and connection. That intentional design cultivates learning, innovation, and wellness.

Steven Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People¹ highlights the importance of renewal and relationship building, as does the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest-running research projects on well-being.^2-4 The key conclusion? Relationships are the strongest predictors of long, healthy, and fulfilling lives, not wealth or achievement. Medical training is intense, and the emphasis often falls squarely on achievement. But the friendships you form in medical school, residency, and early career are just as formative. Membership with the ADA continues this spirit of connection throughout one’s professional life, with meetings that welcome spouses and partners and encourage engagement across generations.

A hallmark of ADA culture is its commitment to mentoring and mutual support. Need advice about transitioning from private practice to academia? Navigating department leadership? Applying for a grant? Considering industry, editorial, or global health roles? Within the ADA, there’s someone who has done it and is eager to help. Recent meetings have addressed future-facing topics such as artificial intelligence, bedside diagnostics, workforce advocacy, and global health while also carving out time for rejuvenating activities: book clubs with best-selling authors, sessions on the arts, storytelling, wellness, and travel. This holistic programming reflects the ADA’s belief in supporting the whole physician.³ Members understand the value of relationships and appreciate these opportunities to learn about the passions and interests of their colleagues (Table).

Candidates are nominated by current members and must be board certified and at least 10 years beyond completion of their training. Members vote upon candidates in a rank voting system each year. If someone is nominated and not selected, they did not fail—they may be nominated again. The idea behind this membership process is to keep the organization small enough that members can get to know one another—there are currently 552 active members. Importantly, the ADA has embraced diversity and inclusion. While historically male- and White-dominated, recent inductee classes now reflect gender parity and a broader range of backgrounds, enriching the organization with fresh perspectives.^5-8

For residents and fellows, the lesson is clear: friendships, mentorship, and time for reflection are not luxuries—they are essential. Burnout stems from relentless output in isolation; however, in cultures that prioritize renewal, authenticity, and community, physicians can flourish.⁹ Membership in small professional organizations is an important step towards avoiding isolation. We encourage you to be active in your local, state, and national organizations.

The ADA stands as a powerful example of how professional societies can help you build the kind of life and career you want, not just a résumé. From informal beachside conversations to high-level scientific discussions, its enduring strength is this: leaders helping others lead.