This spontaneous report (b)(4) from the united states of america was reported by a physician (dermatologist) via food and drug administration (fda) medwatch program, concerning a female consumer (age unspecified) who experienced emotional changes, erythema, itching sensation, blister, skin inflammation/ irritation, contact dermatitis, hyperpigmentation, and patient-device incompatibility coincident with the mighty patch.The consumer's medical history and concomitant medications were not reported.On an unspecified date, the consumer initiated mighty patch, a multiple patches via the topical route, to self-treat her acne vulgaris (numerous acne nodules, pustules, papules, and comedones) of the face.On (b)(6) 2022, she developed a severe allergic contact dermatitis and subsequent post inflammatory hyperpigmentation.She developed severe itching, redness, and blistering, followed by hyperpigmentation on the skin areas where the patches were placed on the face.She was emotionally distressed by the effects of the patches.She sought medical attention with the dermatologist, who provided treatment that required a prescription bleaching cream and in office chemical peels to treat.No additional information was available.The action taken with the mighty patch was not applicable.The outcome of the events was unknown.Company comment: although investigation was unable to confirm any of the alleged facts, it is understood the user of the device applied multiple patches to her face and developed contact dermatitis and post inflammatory hyperpigmentation.The user sought medical \attention from a dermatologist who treated the hyperpigmentation with bleaching cream and in-office chemical peels.The conditions described in the voluntary medwatch report would not normally be expected to meet fda's definition of a "serious injury" as they are not considered life threatening, do not result in permanent impairment of a body unction, or permanent damage (i.E., trivial, transitory, and non-cosmetic) damage to a body structure.However, as our investigation has not been able to identify any additional information outside of that contained in the medwatch report to support a better reasoned decision from the regulatory perspective, we are reporting this event out of an abundance of caution.
|