Ingenol Mebutate (DB05013): A Comprehensive Monograph on a Novel Topical Agent from Discovery to Market Withdrawal

Executive Summary

Ingenol mebutate (DrugBank ID: DB05013) is a small molecule cytotoxic agent that emerged from the investigation of a traditional botanical remedy into a regulated pharmaceutical product for the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). Derived from the sap of Euphorbia peplus, the drug garnered significant interest due to its unique dual mechanism of action and an exceptionally short treatment course of only two to three days, a stark contrast to the weeks or months required for existing topical therapies. Its mechanism involves the rapid induction of primary necrosis in dysplastic keratinocytes, followed by a robust, neutrophil-mediated inflammatory response intended to clear residual abnormal cells. This activity is driven by its function as a potent modulator of Protein Kinase C (PKC) isoforms, key regulators of cellular signaling. Pivotal Phase III clinical trials demonstrated statistically significant efficacy in clearing AK lesions on the face, scalp, trunk, and extremities, leading to its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2012 under the brand name Picato.

Despite its initial promise, the very biological potency that underpinned its rapid efficacy became the source of its downfall. Post-marketing surveillance and mandated long-term safety studies revealed a concerning and paradoxical safety signal: an increased risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancers, particularly squamous cell carcinoma, within the treated area. A three-year comparative study found a significantly higher incidence of skin malignancies in patients treated with ingenol mebutate compared to the comparator, imiquimod. This finding fundamentally undermined the drug's risk-benefit profile, as it was indicated to treat a pre-cancerous condition but appeared to promote the development of the very malignancy it was intended to prevent. Consequently, regulatory bodies worldwide took action, culminating in the suspension and subsequent withdrawal of the drug from the European market in 2020, followed by its discontinuation in Canada, the United States, and other regions. The story of ingenol mebutate serves as a critical case study in pharmacology and regulatory science, illustrating the complex relationship between a drug's mechanism of action and its long-term safety, the limitations of short-term clinical endpoints, and the indispensable role of rigorous post-marketing surveillance.

---

Section 1: Compound Profile and Chemical Characteristics

1.1 Identification and Nomenclature

Ingenol mebutate is a well-defined small molecule that has been cataloged under various scientific and regulatory identifiers. A comprehensive understanding of the compound requires familiarity with its formal nomenclature and codes used during its development and marketing phases.

• Drug Name: Ingenol mebutate [1]
• DrugBank ID: DB05013 [2]
• Type: Small Molecule [2]
• CAS Number: 75567-37-2 [3]
• Common Brand Name: Picato [4]
• Synonyms and Investigational Codes: Throughout its development and in scientific literature, ingenol mebutate has been referred to by several synonyms. These include ingenol 3-angelate, 3-ingenyl angelate, and I3A.[6] During its investigational phase, it was widely known by the code PEP005.[2]

1.2 Ethnobotanical Origins and Discovery

The development of ingenol mebutate is a modern example of ethnopharmacology, where a compound with a long history of use in traditional medicine is scientifically validated and developed into a regulated therapeutic.

• Botanical Source: The active compound is extracted from the sap of Euphorbia peplus, a plant belonging to the spurge family.[6] This plant is commonly known by several folk names, including petty spurge, radium weed, and milkweed, reflecting its widespread recognition and use.[6]
• History of Traditional Use: For centuries, the milky, irritant sap of E. peplus has been used in folk medicine as a topical remedy for a variety of skin lesions, including common warts, corns, and, notably, skin cancers.[2] This history of community use for treating sun-related skin damage provided the direct impetus for its scientific investigation.[12] The active diterpenoid esters within the sap were first isolated and characterized in the year 2000, leading to the identification of ingenol mebutate as a primary active constituent.[15] The potent, visibly destructive effect of the sap on skin lesions, which made it a compelling folk remedy, also served as an early indicator of the compound's inherent biological aggression. This potent cytotoxicity, while therapeutically promising, foreshadowed the severe local skin reactions and the potential for uncontrolled biological activity that would later be characterized in clinical and post-marketing settings.

1.3 Chemical Structure and Physicochemical Properties

The pharmacological activity and formulation of ingenol mebutate are rooted in its distinct chemical structure and properties.

• Chemical Formula and Molecular Weight: The molecular formula of ingenol mebutate is C25​H34​O6​, corresponding to an average molecular weight of approximately 430.5 g/mol.[6]
• Chemical Classification: Chemically, it is a hydrophobic, macrocyclic diterpene ester.[6] It is specifically classified as an ester of the diterpene ingenol and angelic acid.[15] This places it within the broader class of tigliane and ingenane diterpenoids, a group of compounds known for their potent biological activities, including the modulation of key cellular signaling pathways.[2] Its structural relationship to compounds like phorbol esters, which are classic activators of Protein Kinase C, is a crucial detail for understanding its mechanism of action.
• Physical Form and Solubility: In its pure form, ingenol mebutate is a white to pale yellow crystalline powder.[3] Its hydrophobic nature renders it insoluble in water but soluble in various organic solvents, including dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethanol, and methanol.[8] This lipophilicity is a key property that facilitates its penetration through the lipid-rich stratum corneum of the skin and necessitated its formulation in an alcohol-based topical gel for clinical use.[6]
• Synthesis: While initially isolated from its natural source, pathways for its chemical synthesis have been established. These include a 3-step semisynthesis starting from the parent compound ingenol and a more complex 14-step total synthesis from (+)-3-carene, a relatively inexpensive component of turpentine.[15] These developments indicate the feasibility of producing the compound without reliance on botanical extraction.

Property	Value	Source(s)
IUPAC Name	(Z)-(1aS,5R,5aS,6S,9R)-5,5a-dihydroxy-4-(hydroxymethyl)-1,1,7,9-tetramethyl-1a,2,5,5a,6,9,10,10a-octahydro-1H-2,8a-methanocyclopenta[a]cyclopropa[e]annulen-6-yl 2-methylbut-2-enoate	8
CAS Number	75567-37-2	3
DrugBank ID	DB05013	2
Molecular Formula	C25​H34​O6​	16
Average Molecular Weight	430.5 g/mol	6
Appearance	White to pale yellow crystalline powder	3
Solubility (Water)	Insoluble	8
Solubility (Organic)	Soluble in DMSO, ethanol, methanol, dichloromethane	8
Chemical Class	Tigliane and ingenane diterpenoid; Diterpene ester	2
Table 1: Chemical and Physical Properties of Ingenol Mebutate

---

Section 2: Pharmacological Profile: A Dual Mechanism of Action

The therapeutic effect of ingenol mebutate is attributed to a unique, dual mechanism of action that combines rapid, direct cytotoxicity with a subsequent, localized immunomodulatory response.[17] This two-pronged approach was considered a key advantage, responsible for the rapid clearance of lesions with a very short treatment duration.

2.1 Primary Cytotoxicity via Necrosis

The first and most immediate effect of ingenol mebutate application is the induction of rapid cell death in the targeted area.

• Direct Cell Death: Within hours of application, ingenol mebutate causes cell death through a process of primary necrosis.[11] This is distinct from apoptosis (programmed cell death) and is characterized by a swift disruption of the plasma membrane, followed by mitochondrial swelling and a loss of mitochondrial membrane potential, ultimately leading to cell lysis and the release of intracellular contents.[6]
• Preferential Targeting: In vitro and in vivo studies have indicated that this necrotic effect preferentially targets transformed, dysplastic, or rapidly proliferating keratinocytes over healthy, differentiated cells.[18] While the precise molecular basis for this selectivity is not fully understood, it is a critical feature for its use as a field therapy for actinic keratosis.[7]

2.2 Immunomodulatory Effects and Inflammatory Response

Following the initial wave of necrosis, a secondary inflammatory phase is initiated, which is crucial for clearing any remaining abnormal cells.

• Inflammatory Cascade: The lysis of dysplastic cells releases a host of intracellular molecules that act as danger signals, including pro-inflammatory cytokines like tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-8 (IL-8), as well as danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs).[11]
• Neutrophil Recruitment: These signals trigger an acute and robust inflammatory response characterized by the substantial infiltration of neutrophils into the treated tissue.[17] Ingenol mebutate also appears to directly activate endothelial cells, further promoting the recruitment of these immune cells.[21]
• Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity (ADCC): This influx of neutrophils is not merely a passive inflammatory consequence. The secondary phase of the drug's action involves the elimination of residual dysplastic cells through a neutrophil-mediated, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC).[10] This immune-mediated "mopping-up" phase is considered essential for achieving a durable clinical response and preventing the relapse of lesions.[11]

2.3 Molecular Targeting: The Role of Protein Kinase C (PKC)

The dual cytotoxic and immunomodulatory effects of ingenol mebutate are orchestrated at the molecular level through its interaction with the Protein Kinase C (PKC) family of enzymes.

• PKC Activation: Ingenol mebutate is a potent activator and modulator of multiple PKC isoforms, acting as a ligand for key members of this enzyme family.[6] It has been shown to bind with high, nanomolar affinity to several conventional and novel PKC isoforms, including PKC-α, -β, -γ, -δ, and -ε.[7] Specifically, it is listed as a ligand for PKC-alpha and PKC-delta in humans.[2]
• PKC Isoform Specificity and Downstream Signaling: The biological effects of ingenol mebutate are particularly dependent on the activation of PKC-delta, an isoform involved in regulating cell proliferation, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis.[2] Activation of PKC initiates a downstream signaling cascade, most notably the PKC/MEK/ERK pathway.[15] Experimental inhibition of this signaling pathway was shown to rescue keratinocytes from ingenol mebutate-induced cell death, confirming its critical role in the drug's mechanism.[22]
• Induction of Decoy Receptors: Further investigation into this signaling pathway revealed a novel downstream effect: the induction of interleukin decoy receptors IL1R2 and IL13RA2.[15] These receptors can sequester interleukins, thereby modulating the local inflammatory environment. Their induction is functionally linked to the reduction in cell viability and may contribute to the drug's overall therapeutic effect and help prevent lesion recurrence.[15]

The "dual mechanism of action," while celebrated for its role in achieving rapid, short-term efficacy, is a classic example of inducing acute, uncontrolled inflammation. The potent, non-specific inflammatory activation, driven by a powerful signaling modulator like PKC, is a well-established pathway in tumor promotion. Phorbol esters, the canonical laboratory tumor promoters, exert their effects precisely through PKC activation. The intense inflammatory response and neutrophil infiltration triggered by ingenol mebutate lead to the release of reactive oxygen species and other mutagenic factors into the local microenvironment. In essence, the drug treats a pre-cancerous field by inducing a pro-carcinogenic inflammatory state. While this process may effectively destroy existing dysplastic cells, it simultaneously creates a damaged, inflamed tissue environment that is primed for the development of new, and potentially more aggressive, malignant lesions, particularly in skin already compromised by chronic sun exposure. This analysis reveals that the drug's mechanism was inherently double-edged; its therapeutic action was mechanistically inseparable from the pro-tumorigenic risk that ultimately proved to be its fatal flaw.

---

Section 3: Pharmacokinetic Properties and Systemic Exposure

The pharmacokinetic profile of a topical drug is a critical determinant of its safety and potential for systemic side effects. For ingenol mebutate, the profile is characterized by effective local penetration with minimal systemic absorption.

3.1 Dermal Penetration and Absorption

• Penetration: To exert its effect, ingenol mebutate must first cross the skin's primary barrier, the stratum corneum. Evidence suggests it achieves this penetration and reaches its target cells in the epidermis and dermis, possibly facilitated by P-glycoprotein-mediated absorptive drug transport.[6]
• Systemic Absorption: A key feature of ingenol mebutate is its negligible systemic absorption following topical application. In numerous clinical studies, plasma concentrations of the drug and its primary metabolites were consistently below the lower limit of quantification, typically <0.1 ng/mL.[2]
• Maximal Use Studies: This low absorption profile was confirmed even under "maximal use" conditions. Specific Phase I trials were designed to assess safety and systemic exposure when the gel was applied to large surface areas of skin, ranging from 100 cm² to approximately 250 cm².[26] Even in these scenarios, systemic exposure remained either non-quantifiable or at transient, subnanomolar levels, and was not associated with any clinically relevant systemic adverse events.[26]

3.2 Metabolism, Distribution, and Excretion

The lack of significant systemic absorption means that traditional pharmacokinetic parameters are largely not applicable to the topical use of ingenol mebutate.

• Lack of Systemic Profile: Because the drug does not enter the systemic circulation in quantifiable amounts, key pharmacokinetic parameters such as volume of distribution, plasma protein binding, biological half-life, and clearance cannot be determined for its approved topical use.[2]
• CYP450 Interaction: In vitro studies have demonstrated that ingenol mebutate does not significantly inhibit or induce the major cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes involved in drug metabolism.[2] This indicates a very low potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions with systemically administered medications, a favorable characteristic for a drug often used in an elderly population with polypharmacy.[15]

The extremely low systemic absorption of ingenol mebutate was a cornerstone of its initial safety argument and likely contributed to a streamlined regulatory review. This focus, however, inadvertently cultivated a false sense of security. The standard drug evaluation process, with its heavy emphasis on systemic pharmacokinetics and toxicology, demonstrated that the drug was "safe" from a systemic perspective. This finding, while accurate, was ultimately irrelevant to the drug's primary risk vector. The significant danger posed by ingenol mebutate was not systemic toxicity but rather the profound, localized, and long-term biological consequences within the treated skin field. The pharmacokinetic data, by showing the drug stayed where it was applied, confirmed that the risk was also localized. This case underscores a critical lesson for the evaluation of topical agents with potent biological activity: the absence of systemic absorption does not equate to overall safety, and a myopic focus on systemic exposure can overlook severe, localized risks.

---

Section 4: Clinical Development and Efficacy in Actinic Keratosis

The approval of ingenol mebutate was based on a robust clinical development program, highlighted by four pivotal Phase III trials that demonstrated its efficacy for the field treatment of actinic keratosis (AK).

4.1 Overview of Pivotal Clinical Trials

The core evidence for the efficacy of ingenol mebutate comes from four large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled Phase III studies.[15] The results of these trials were prominently published in the

New England Journal of Medicine, underscoring their significance.[31] The program was designed to evaluate two distinct regimens, with different drug concentrations and treatment durations tailored to the anatomical location of the AK lesions.

Treatment Location	Formulation	Treatment Group	Complete Clearance Rate (%)	Partial Clearance Rate (≥75% reduction) (%)	p-value (vs. Vehicle)
Face and Scalp	0.015% Gel	Ingenol Mebutate	42.2	63.9	<0.001
		Vehicle	3.7	7.4
Trunk and Extremities	0.05% Gel	Ingenol Mebutate	34.1	49.1	<0.001
		Vehicle	4.7	6.9
Table 2: Summary of Pivotal Phase III Clinical Trial Efficacy for Actinic Keratosis (at Day 57)
Data compiled from pooled analyses of four pivotal trials.30

4.2 Efficacy in Face and Scalp Lesions (0.015% Gel)

Two of the pivotal trials focused on AK lesions located on the face and scalp, areas of high cosmetic concern and frequent sun exposure.

• Regimen: Patients self-applied 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel once daily for three consecutive days.[1]
• Complete Clearance: The primary endpoint was the rate of complete clearance, defined as the absence of any clinically visible AK lesions in the treatment area at Day 57. A pooled analysis of the two trials demonstrated a complete clearance rate of 42.2% in the ingenol mebutate group, compared to just 3.7% in the vehicle group, a highly statistically significant difference (p<0.001).[30]
• Partial Clearance and Lesion Reduction: The rate of partial clearance (defined as a reduction of at least 75% in the number of lesions) was 63.9% for the active drug versus 7.4% for vehicle.[31] The median percentage reduction in the total number of AK lesions from baseline was 83%.[34]

4.3 Efficacy in Trunk and Extremity Lesions (0.05% Gel)

The other two pivotal trials evaluated a different regimen for AK lesions on the trunk and extremities.

• Regimen: Patients applied a higher concentration, 0.05% ingenol mebutate gel, once daily for a shorter duration of two consecutive days.[1]
• Complete Clearance: The pooled analysis for these trials showed a complete clearance rate of 34.1% for ingenol mebutate, compared to 4.7% for vehicle at Day 57 (p<0.001).[30]
• Partial Clearance and Lesion Reduction: The partial clearance rate was 49.1% for the active drug versus 6.9% for vehicle.[31] The median reduction in lesion count was 75%.[34]

4.4 Long-Term Efficacy and Recurrence Rates

While the short-term efficacy data was compelling, longer-term follow-up revealed significant limitations in the durability of the treatment effect.

• 12-Month Follow-up: Observational follow-up of patients who had achieved complete clearance in the pivotal trials found high rates of recurrence at 12 months. For patients treated on the face or scalp, 53.9% had a recurrence of AK lesions, while 56% of those treated on the trunk or extremities experienced recurrence.[25]
• Comparative Long-Term Efficacy: The drug's performance was further contextualized by a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which compared the 12-month efficacy of four common field therapies for AK: 5% fluorouracil cream, 5% imiquimod cream, methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT), and 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel.[36] In this study, ingenol mebutate was found to be the least effective of the four treatments. The cumulative probability of remaining free from treatment failure (defined as <75% lesion reduction) at 12 months was only 28.9% for ingenol mebutate. This was significantly lower than the rates for MAL-PDT (37.7%), imiquimod (53.9%), and, most notably, 5-fluorouracil (74.7%).[36]

The clinical development program for ingenol mebutate was strategically designed with a focus on short-term clearance endpoints, specifically at Day 57 post-treatment. This timeline perfectly aligned with the drug's rapid, inflammation-driven mechanism of action, which typically resolves within a few weeks. This approach successfully generated a highly favorable, statistically robust dataset that highlighted the drug's primary advantage—speed of effect. However, this focus created an incomplete and ultimately misleading picture of its overall clinical value. The subsequent emergence of high recurrence rates and its poor performance in long-term comparative studies demonstrated that the initial, visually impressive clearance of lesions was often superficial and transient. The underlying field cancerization, the true target of field therapy, was not adequately addressed. Unlike other agents such as 5-fluorouracil or imiquimod, which may provide more durable control, the potent but short-lived inflammatory destruction induced by ingenol mebutate failed to confer long-term immune surveillance or repair of the sun-damaged field. The trial design, while methodologically valid, accentuated the drug's strengths while effectively masking its most critical weakness: a profound lack of durability.

---

Section 5: Dosing, Administration, and Patient Management

The clinical use of ingenol mebutate was defined by a very short, location-specific dosing regimen and a strict application protocol designed to maximize efficacy while minimizing the risk of adverse events.

5.1 Approved Dosing Regimens

The dosing for Picato gel was tailored to the anatomical site, reflecting differences in skin thickness and sensitivity.

• Face and Scalp: The recommended regimen was the application of the 0.015% strength gel once daily for three consecutive days. The treatment was intended for a contiguous skin area of up to approximately 25 cm² (e.g., 5 cm x 5 cm).[1]
• Trunk and Extremities: For these less sensitive areas, a higher concentration of 0.05% gel was used, applied once daily for a shorter duration of two consecutive days, also to a treatment area of up to 25 cm².[1]

5.2 Application Protocol and Patient Counseling

The potency of ingenol mebutate necessitated a highly detailed and cautious application protocol, which was a critical component of patient counseling.

• Step-by-Step Application: Patients were instructed to remove the cap from a new, single-use tube just before application, squeeze the entire contents onto a fingertip, and spread the gel evenly over the prescribed treatment area. The gel was then to be left to dry for 15 minutes.[1]
• Post-Application Care: A strict 6-hour waiting period was required after application, during which the patient had to avoid washing, touching, or covering the treated area with bandages or other dressings.[1] Activities that could cause excessive sweating were also to be avoided during this period. After the 6 hours had passed, the area could be gently washed with mild soap and water.[1]
• Crucial Warnings: Patient education emphasized several critical precautions to prevent adverse events:
• The gel is for external, topical use only and must be kept away from the eyes, mouth, lips, and other mucous membranes.[1]
• Hands must be washed immediately and thoroughly with soap and water after application to prevent accidental transfer of the drug to other parts of the body or to other people.[1]
• The medication should not be applied to open wounds or to skin that has not fully healed from a previous drug or surgical treatment.[1]
• Each tube contains a single dose and must be safely discarded after one use, even if some gel remains.[1]

5.3 Management of Local Skin Reactions (LSRs)

A universal consequence of treatment with ingenol mebutate was the development of local skin reactions (LSRs). Managing patient expectations regarding these reactions was a key aspect of care.

• Expected Reactions: The inflammatory mechanism of the drug meant that reactions such as erythema (redness), flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation (blistering/pus formation), and erosion/ulceration were not only common but expected signs of the drug's activity.[1]
• Timeline of LSRs: A defining characteristic of these reactions was their predictable and transient nature. LSRs typically began within one day of the first application, peaked in intensity approximately one week after the completion of the 2- or 3-day treatment course, and then resolved relatively quickly. For areas treated on the face and scalp, resolution generally occurred within two weeks of treatment initiation, while for the trunk and extremities, resolution took up to four weeks.[26] This rapid onset and resolution was a significant differentiating factor from the prolonged irritation often seen with longer-course therapies like 5-fluorouracil or imiquimod.

The extremely short treatment course of two to three days was ingenol mebutate's single greatest advantage over its competitors, offering unparalleled convenience and a high likelihood of patient adherence.[6] However, this simplicity in duration was contrasted by a high degree of complexity and risk in its application. The official labeling and subsequent FDA safety communications were replete with stern warnings about the precise application method, the critical 6-hour no-wash period, and the severe consequences of accidental exposure, particularly to the eyes.[1] This created a clinical paradox: the drug was simultaneously one of the most convenient and one of the most hazardous topical therapies to self-administer. The potency that allowed for a 3-day treatment also meant the margin for application error was incredibly small, a fact borne out by the numerous post-marketing reports of severe eye injuries and other adverse events linked to improper use.[40]

---

Section 6: Safety, Tolerability, and Adverse Event Profile

The safety profile of ingenol mebutate is dominated by localized effects, ranging from expected and manageable skin reactions to severe and unexpected adverse events that emerged during post-marketing use.

6.1 Common Adverse Events

The most frequently observed adverse events in clinical trials were the direct result of the drug's intended inflammatory mechanism of action.

• Local Skin Reactions: The vast majority of adverse events were the predictable Local Skin Reactions (LSRs). In pivotal trials, application site pain, pruritus (itching), and irritation were the most common events reported at a significantly higher rate than with the vehicle gel.[1]
• Other Common Events: Beyond the direct application site, other adverse events reported in ≥2% of patients and more frequently than vehicle included periorbital edema (swelling around the eyes, particularly with face and scalp treatment), nasopharyngitis (common cold symptoms), and headache.[2]

6.2 Serious Adverse Events and Ophthalmic Risks

While less common, a number of serious adverse events were identified both in clinical trials and, more prominently, through post-marketing surveillance.

• Severe Eye Injuries: Accidental transfer of the gel to the periocular area posed a significant risk. Post-marketing reports confirmed numerous cases of severe ocular adverse events, including severe eye pain, chemical conjunctivitis, corneal burns, eyelid edema, and eyelid ptosis (drooping).[1] The frequency and severity of these events prompted the FDA to issue a specific Drug Safety Communication in 2015, emphasizing the need for extreme caution during application.[40]
• Severe Skin Reactions: Although LSRs were expected, some patients experienced severe reactions that could extend beyond the treated area or manifest in more serious forms.[39] Post-marketing reports have included rare but severe generalized skin reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome.[33]
• Infections: The disruption of the skin barrier caused by the drug's necrotic and inflammatory action created a risk for secondary infections. Application site infections were reported in clinical trials.[33] Furthermore, cases of herpes zoster (shingles) reactivation within the treatment area were identified post-marketing, suggesting the intense local inflammation could trigger latent viral infections.[15]

6.3 Hypersensitivity Reactions

Systemic allergic reactions, though rare, were also a documented risk.

• Contraindication: The drug was contraindicated in any patient with a known hypersensitivity to ingenol mebutate or any of the gel's other components.[33]
• Reported Reactions: Post-marketing surveillance identified cases of allergic contact dermatitis at the application site, as well as more severe, systemic hypersensitivity reactions, including cases of anaphylaxis that required hospitalization.[33]

The adverse event profile, even before the definitive link to skin cancer was established, was heavily weighted towards severe, localized events. Many of these, particularly the devastating eye injuries, were driven by user error in a real-world setting outside the controlled protocols of a clinical trial. This pattern suggested that the drug's inherent potency was difficult to manage safely for the average patient. The severity of these acute events—corneal burns from accidental transfer, shingles reactivation from intense inflammation—were not just isolated incidents. They were early and clear indicators of the drug's powerful and potentially uncontrollable biological activity. This same biological aggression, capable of causing such acute tissue damage and disruption, was the very mechanism that would later be implicated in its long-term carcinogenic risk.

---

Section 7: The Emergence of a Malignancy Risk: Post-Marketing Surveillance and Long-Term Safety Studies

The trajectory of ingenol mebutate shifted irrevocably when post-marketing data began to reveal a paradoxical and unacceptable risk: the potential for the drug to promote the development of skin cancer.

7.1 Initial Safety Signals and Regulatory Scrutiny

Concerns about the drug's carcinogenic potential were present from the outset, rooted in its mechanism of action.

• Early Concerns: The potential for ingenol mebutate to act as a tumor promoter was a theoretical concern even during its initial license application. This was based on its mechanism as a potent PKC activator—a pathway known to be involved in carcinogenesis—and findings from preclinical animal studies.[43]
• Regulatory Mandate: Recognizing this potential risk, regulatory agencies, including the EMA, made the approval of ingenol mebutate conditional upon the manufacturer, LEO Pharma, conducting a long-term, three-year safety study specifically designed to assess the risk of skin malignancy in a real-world setting.[43]
• First Warnings: By October 2019, preliminary results from this and other studies had become concerning enough for the EMA and the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to initiate an in-depth review. They issued initial safety communications advising healthcare professionals to use the drug with caution in patients with a prior history of skin cancer.[43] The FDA eventually followed suit, updating the U.S. product label in March 2021 to include a formal warning about the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer.[45]

7.2 Comparative Safety Study Findings

The definitive evidence that sealed the drug's fate came from the mandated long-term comparative safety study.

• The Pivotal 3-Year Study (vs. Imiquimod): The final results of the post-marketing safety study (NCT01926496), which involved 484 patients, provided a direct comparison between ingenol mebutate and another common AK field therapy, imiquimod.[44] The results demonstrated a clear and statistically significant imbalance in the incidence of skin malignancies.[47]
• Incidence Rates: The study found a markedly higher rate of skin cancer development in the skin area treated with ingenol mebutate compared to the area treated with imiquimod. Specifically, the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was substantially higher in the ingenol mebutate group. Reports from regulatory agencies summarizing the study data cite an SCC incidence of 3.3% with ingenol mebutate versus 0.4% with imiquimod.[44] Another analysis of the same study reported that 6.3% of patients treated with ingenol mebutate developed some form of skin cancer in the treated area, compared with only 2.0% of patients treated with imiquimod.[48]
• Other Benign Tumors: The risk was not limited to malignant tumors. An analysis of pooled data from the initial 8-week pivotal trials (involving 1,262 patients) had already shown a higher incidence of benign but rapidly growing tumors (keratoacanthomas) in patients treated with ingenol mebutate compared to vehicle (1.0% vs. 0.1%).[44]

Study/Analysis	Treatment Group	Comparator Group	Incidence of Malignancy (%)	Specific Malignancy Type	Source(s)
3-Year Safety Study (N=484)	Ingenol mebutate	Imiquimod	3.3	Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC)	44
			0.4
3-Year Safety Study (N=484)	Ingenol mebutate	Imiquimod	6.3	All Skin Cancers	49
			2.0
Pooled Trials of Ingenol Disoxate (N=1234)	Ingenol disoxate	Vehicle	7.7	BCC, Bowen's, SCC	44
			2.9
Pooled 8-Week Trials (N=1262)	Ingenol mebutate	Vehicle	1.0	Keratoacanthoma (Benign)	44
			0.1
Table 3: Comparative Incidence of Skin Malignancy in Long-Term Safety Studies

7.3 Supporting Evidence from Related Compounds

The concern that the cancer risk was inherent to the ingenol molecular structure was strengthened by data from a related compound.

• Ingenol Disoxate Trials: Four clinical trials involving a similar ester, ingenol disoxate (a compound whose clinical development was ultimately terminated), showed a parallel and even more pronounced risk. In a pooled analysis of these trials involving 1,234 patients, the incidence of skin tumors (including basal cell carcinoma, Bowen's disease, and SCC) was significantly higher in the active treatment group compared to the vehicle group (7.7% vs. 2.9%).[44] This finding strongly suggested a class effect, linking the pro-tumorigenic potential to the ingenol backbone itself.

The emergence of this malignancy risk represents a catastrophic failure of the drug's fundamental risk-benefit calculation. Ingenol mebutate was approved for the treatment of actinic keratosis, a pre-cancerous condition, with the primary therapeutic goal of preventing its progression to squamous cell carcinoma. The natural progression rate of a single AK lesion to SCC is relatively low, although the cumulative risk across a sun-damaged field is significant.[34] The long-term safety data revealed that the treatment itself carried an SCC risk of approximately 3.3% in the treated area over a three-year period.[44] This iatrogenic risk was unacceptably high and likely exceeded the baseline risk of the untreated condition over the same timeframe. The drug, therefore, failed its primary purpose. Rather than preventing skin cancer, it appeared to accelerate or induce its development in a subset of patients. This is not merely a side effect; it is a fundamental contradiction of the drug's therapeutic rationale, which made its continued clinical use untenable and its market withdrawal both logical and ethically necessary.

---

Section 8: Regulatory Trajectory: From Approval to Global Withdrawal

The regulatory history of ingenol mebutate is a story of two distinct phases: a rapid path to approval based on compelling short-term efficacy, followed by an equally rapid unraveling as long-term safety data emerged, leading to its removal from the global market.

8.1 FDA and EMA Approval History

Following successful Phase III trials, ingenol mebutate quickly gained approval from major regulatory bodies.

• FDA Approval: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Picato (ingenol mebutate) gel on January 23, 2012, for the topical treatment of actinic keratosis.[51] It was marketed in the U.S. by LEO Pharma Inc.
• EMA Approval: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted a marketing authorization for Picato in the European Union on November 15, 2012.[15]

Date	Regulatory Body	Action	Significance
Jan 23, 2012	FDA (USA)	Approval	Picato gel approved for topical treatment of actinic keratosis.51
Nov 15, 2012	EMA (EU)	Approval	Marketing authorization granted for Picato in the European Union.53
Aug 21, 2015	FDA (USA)	Safety Communication	Warning issued regarding severe adverse events and application errors.40
Oct 18, 2019	MHRA (UK) / EMA (EU)	Safety Warning	Advised caution in patients with a history of skin cancer due to emerging data.43
Jan 17, 2020	EMA (EU)	Suspension	Recommended suspension of marketing authorization as a precaution during ongoing review.44
Feb 11, 2020	EMA (EU)	Withdrawal	Marketing authorization formally withdrawn at the manufacturer's request.15
Apr 30, 2020	EMA (EU)	Final Conclusion	Review completed, formally concluding that risks outweigh benefits.46
Oct 26, 2020	Health Canada	Withdrawal	Manufacturer initiated recall and withdrawal from the Canadian market at Health Canada's request.56
Oct 2020	Manufacturer	Discontinuation	LEO Pharma discontinued production and availability in the U.S..5
Mar 2021	FDA (USA)	Label Update	Product label updated to include a warning about non-melanoma skin cancer.45
Table 4: Timeline of Key Regulatory Milestones

8.2 European Medicines Agency (EMA) Review and Withdrawal

European regulators acted swiftly and decisively once the long-term safety data became clear.

• Review Initiation: In late 2019, the EMA's Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) launched a formal review of Picato's safety profile based on the accumulating evidence of a skin cancer risk.[43]
• Suspension: In January 2020, as a precautionary measure, the EMA recommended the immediate suspension of the drug's marketing authorization to protect public health while the review continued.[44]
• Voluntary Withdrawal: On February 11, 2020, the manufacturer, LEO Pharma, formally requested the withdrawal of the marketing authorization for Picato in the EU, preempting the final outcome of the review.[15]
• Final Conclusion: The EMA completed its review on April 30, 2020, and issued its final verdict: the risks of ingenol mebutate, particularly the increased risk of skin cancer, outweighed its benefits in the treatment of actinic keratosis. This conclusion validated the drug's removal from the market.[46]

8.3 Actions by Other Global Regulators (FDA, Health Canada)

Other international health authorities followed with similar actions, though with some differences in timing and approach.

• Health Canada: After conducting its own safety review that also concluded a probable link between Picato use and an increased risk of skin cancer, Health Canada determined that the drug's benefit-risk profile was no longer favorable. At the agency's request, LEO Pharma withdrew Picato from the Canadian market in October 2020.[56]
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The FDA's response was more incremental. The agency's first major safety action was in 2015, with a communication focused on severe adverse events related to application errors.[40] Following the EMA's definitive actions in 2020, the FDA did not immediately mandate a withdrawal. Instead, it required a label update, which was finalized in March 2021, to include a warning about the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer.[45] Concurrently, the manufacturer made the commercial decision to discontinue production, and the drug was no longer available in the U.S. market as of October 2020.[4]

The staggered and varied responses from these major global regulators highlight different philosophies in risk management. The EMA and Health Canada adopted a more precautionary principle, acting decisively to suspend and then withdraw the drug based on the emerging long-term safety signal. The FDA, in contrast, initially followed a more traditional regulatory path of risk mitigation through label warnings. The fact that the manufacturer ultimately withdrew the product from the U.S. market voluntarily suggests that the commercial, legal, and ethical liabilities had become untenable, regardless of the FDA's formal regulatory stance at that moment. This divergence provides a compelling case study on international regulatory harmonization and the different thresholds for definitive action in the face of evolving safety data.

---

Section 9: Broader Therapeutic Potential and Investigational Research

Prior to the discovery of its long-term risks, the unique and potent mechanism of ingenol mebutate had made it an attractive candidate for a range of other therapeutic applications beyond actinic keratosis. This promising research was ultimately rendered moot by the safety findings.

9.1 Off-Label and Investigational Dermatological Uses

The efficacy of ingenol mebutate against dysplastic keratinocytes prompted research into its use for other epithelial neoplasms.

• Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC): Several case reports and a Phase IIa clinical trial investigated ingenol mebutate for the treatment of superficial BCC. The Phase IIa study reported promising histological clearance rates of up to 71% with a two-day application of the 0.05% gel, suggesting potential as a non-surgical treatment option.[10]
• Squamous Cell Carcinoma in situ (Bowen's Disease): The drug was also investigated as a potential topical therapy for Bowen's disease, another form of non-melanoma skin cancer confined to the epidermis.[10]
• Anogenital Warts: The drug's cytotoxic and immunomodulatory effects were tested against human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced lesions. Case reports and clinical trials showed high clearance rates for anogenital warts, with one case series reporting 94.1% of patients achieving complete clearance.[10]

9.2 Novel Research Applications

Preclinical research explored the utility of ingenol mebutate's potent cellular modulation in entirely different fields of medicine.

• HIV Latency Reactivation: In vitro studies revealed that ingenol mebutate is a highly potent agent for reactivating latent HIV from infected T-cells.[8] This is a critical step in the "shock and kill" strategy for an HIV cure, which aims to awaken dormant viral reservoirs so they can be targeted by antiretroviral therapy or the immune system. Research was ongoing to determine if these effects could be replicated in animal models for potential human trials.[15]
• Tattoo Removal: A preclinical study in hairless mice demonstrated that a 0.1% ingenol mebutate gel could consistently remove two-week-old tattoos.[15] The mechanism appeared to involve the drug-induced inflammation causing the ink-containing microspheres in the dermis to be exuded into the scab and sloughed off as the skin healed. This process was observed to be independent of ink color, a potential advantage over laser removal techniques which are less effective for certain colors.[15]

The promising preclinical and early clinical data for these diverse indications—from other skin cancers to viral latency and even aesthetics—are now permanently shelved due to the insurmountable carcinogenicity finding. This represents a significant loss of potential therapeutic avenues that were being actively explored. The research into HIV latency is particularly illustrative of the drug's double-edged nature. Its powerful ability to modulate fundamental cellular pathways and reactivate latent genes made it a compelling tool for virologists. However, this same profound and indiscriminate ability to manipulate cellular signaling is inextricably linked to the uncontrolled processes that can lead to carcinogenesis. The discovery of the skin cancer risk in dermatology had a cascading effect, closing the door on all other potential applications for this molecule. The very potency that made it interesting for one field proved to be its fatal flaw in another.

---

Section 10: Final Assessment and Future Perspectives

10.1 Synthesis of the Ingenol Mebutate Narrative

The story of ingenol mebutate is a compelling and cautionary tale in modern drug development. It began with the promise of a nature-derived compound, validated from centuries of folk medicine, that offered a revolutionary improvement in convenience for patients with actinic keratosis. Its rapid, dual-action mechanism delivered impressive short-term lesion clearance, leading to swift regulatory approvals and widespread clinical adoption. However, this narrative of success was built on an incomplete understanding of the drug's long-term biological consequences.

The central conflict of the ingenol mebutate story is that its therapeutic strength was mechanistically inseparable from its fatal flaw. The potent induction of necrosis and acute inflammation via PKC activation was highly effective at destroying existing pre-cancerous lesions, but it did so by creating a local microenvironment known to be conducive to tumor promotion. The drug's journey from a promising new therapy to a withdrawn product serves as a powerful illustration of the critical and non-negotiable importance of long-term, post-marketing safety surveillance, especially for drugs with novel and potent mechanisms of action.

10.2 Implications for Dermatologic Drug Development

The case of ingenol mebutate provides several crucial lessons for the future development and regulation of dermatological and topical therapies.

• The Challenge of Field Cancerization: This case highlights the profound difficulty of treating field cancerization. A successful therapy for sun-damaged skin must not only eradicate clinically visible and subclinical lesions but must also do so without disrupting tissue homeostasis in a way that promotes the development of new malignancies in a chronically vulnerable environment. A "scorched earth" approach, while visually effective in the short term, may ultimately be counterproductive.
• Rethinking Clinical Endpoints: The over-reliance on short-term clearance rates as primary endpoints in the pivotal trials for ingenol mebutate proved to be misleading. While valid for demonstrating acute efficacy, such endpoints failed to capture the drug's lack of durability and, more importantly, its long-term risks. For chronic conditions with a risk of malignant progression, such as actinic keratosis, regulatory agencies and drug developers must place a greater emphasis on long-term endpoints, including durable efficacy, recurrence rates, and, critically, long-term safety, as part of the initial risk-benefit assessment for approval.
• Mechanism-Based Risk Assessment: The experience with ingenol mebutate underscores the need for a deep, mechanism-based approach to risk assessment. Potent modulators of fundamental and ubiquitous signaling pathways like Protein Kinase C warrant an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny for long-term, off-target, or paradoxical effects like carcinogenesis. This is true even when the drug is intended for topical, localized use. The ingenol mebutate case definitively proves that the absence of systemic absorption should not be used as a primary mitigator for concerns about localized, long-term toxicity. This drug's legacy will be to serve as a key case study in regulatory science, pharmacology, and clinical trial design for years to come, reminding the medical community that a rapid and powerful effect is not always a beneficial one.

Works cited

1. Ingenol Mebutate Topical: MedlinePlus Drug Information, accessed September 9, 2025, https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a613008.html
2. Ingenol mebutate: Uses, Interactions, Mechanism of Action | DrugBank Online, accessed September 9, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB05013
3. Ingenol Mebutate - PubChem, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ingenol-Mebutate
4. Ingenol Mebutate topical gel - Cleveland Clinic, accessed September 9, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/18549-ingenol-mebutate-topical-gel
5. Picato (ingenol mebutate): Drug Basics and Frequently Asked Questions - GoodRx, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.goodrx.com/picato/what-is
6. Ingenol mebutate: A novel topical drug for actinic keratosis - PMC, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3752492/
7. Ingenol Mebutate (Ingenol 3-angelate) | CAS NO.:75567-37-2 | GlpBio, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.glpbio.com/ingenol-mebutate-ingenol-3-angelate.html
8. Ingenol Mebutate | PEP005 | CAS#75567-37-2 | inducer of cell death | MedKoo Biosciences, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.medkoo.com/products/5089
9. Proceedings of the First International Conference on PEP005 - PubMed, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17264770/
10. Ingenol Mebutate - American Osteopathic College of Dermatology (AOCD), accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.aocd.org/page/IngenolMebutate
11. Ingenol mebutate | 75567-37-2 - ChemicalBook, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB92650628.htm
12. Ingenol mebutate: a novel treatment for actinic keratosis - Open Access Journals, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.openaccessjournals.com/articles/ingenol-mebutate-a-novel-treatment-for-actinic-keratosis.pdf
13. Euphorbia peplus–from folklore remedy to clinical treatment for skin cancer - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, accessed September 9, 2025, https://research.usc.edu.au/esploro/outputs/conferencePresentation/Euphorbia-peplusfrom-folklore-remedy-to-clinical/99449264102621
14. Euphorbia peplus – Knowledge and References - Taylor & Francis, accessed September 9, 2025, https://taylorandfrancis.com/knowledge/Medicine_and_healthcare/Pharmaceutical_medicine/Euphorbia_peplus/
15. Ingenol mebutate - Wikipedia, accessed September 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenol_mebutate
16. Ingenol mebutate - Midas Pharma, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.midas-pharma.com/en/products/drug-substances/ingenol-mebutate/
17. Dual mechanism of action of ingenol mebutate gel for topical treatment of actinic keratoses: rapid lesion necrosis followed by lesion-specific immune response - PubMed, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22055282/
18. Ingenol Mebutate: A Succinct Review of a Succinct Therapy - PMC, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4257954/
19. What is the mechanism of Ingenol Mebutate? - Patsnap Synapse, accessed September 9, 2025, https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/what-is-the-mechanism-of-ingenol-mebutate
20. Ingenol-3-angelate (CAS 75567-37-2) - Cayman Chemical, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.caymanchem.com/product/16207/ingenol-3-angelate
21. (PDF) New developments in the treatment of actinic keratosis: Focus on ingenol mebutate gel - ResearchGate, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230812063_New_developments_in_the_treatment_of_actinic_keratosis_Focus_on_ingenol_mebutate_gel
22. Ingenol Mebutate Signals via PKC/MEK/ERK in Keratinocytes and Induces Interleukin Decoy Receptors IL1R2 and IL13RA2 - PubMed, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26116359/
23. Ingenol Mebutate Signals via PKC/MEK/ERK in Keratinocytes and Induces Interleukin Decoy Receptors IL1R2 and IL13RA2 - AACR Journals, accessed September 9, 2025, https://aacrjournals.org/mct/article/14/9/2132/122379/Ingenol-Mebutate-Signals-via-PKC-MEK-ERK-in
24. Ingenol Mebutate: An Introduction (non-melanoma skin cancer), accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.skintherapyletter.com/skin-cancer/ingenol-mebutate/
25. Ingenol mebutate for actinic keratoses - Australian Prescriber, accessed September 9, 2025, https://australianprescriber.tg.org.au/articles/ingenol-mebutate-for-actinic-keratoses.html
26. Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of Ingenol Mebutate 0.05% Gel Applied to Treatment Areas up to 100cm2 on the Forearm(s) of Patients with Actinic Keratosis - PubMed Central, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4285446/
27. Pharmacokinetics of ingenol mebutate gel under maximum use conditions in large treatment areas - PubMed, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28524709/
28. AusPAR Attachment 2: Extract from the Clinical Evaluation Report for Ingenol Mebutate, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-ingenol-mebutate-130606-cer.pdf
29. Ingenol mebutate gel - DermNet, accessed September 9, 2025, https://dermnetnz.org/topics/ingenol-mebutate-gel
30. (PDF) Ingenol Mebutate Gel for Actinic Keratosis - ResearchGate, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221894954_Ingenol_Mebutate_Gel_for_Actinic_Keratosis
31. New England Journal of Medicine Article Reviews the Benefits of Ingenol Mebutate in Field Treatment of Actinic Keratoses - PR Newswire, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-england-journal-of-medicine-article-reviews-the-benefits-of-ingenol-mebutate-in-field-treatment-of-actinic-keratoses-142681945.html
32. Ingenol Mebutate Gel (Picato): A Novel Agent for the Treatment of Actinic Keratoses - PMC, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956386/
33. This label may not be the latest approved by FDA. For current ..., accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/202833s012lbl.pdf
34. Ingenol mebutate treatment in actinic keratosis – clinical effectiveness and potential side effects - PMC, accessed September 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791158/
35. LEO Pharma Release: The New England Journal of Medicine Article Reviews the Benefits of Ingenol Mebutate in Field Treatment of Actinic Keratoses - BioSpace, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.biospace.com/leo-pharma-release-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-article-reviews-the-benefits-of-ingenol-mebutate-in-field-treatment-of-actinic-keratoses
36. Randomized Trial of Four Treatment Approaches for Actinic Keratosis, accessed September 9, 2025, http://phdres.caregate.net/jclub-articles/Marion.012820.pdf
37. Randomized Trial of Four Treatment Approaches for Actinic Keratosis - Maastricht University, accessed September 9, 2025, https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/files/94686754/Mosterd_2019_Randomized_trial_of_four_treatment.pdf
38. Approaches to Field Therapy for Actinic Keratoses: Relating Clinical Trial Results to Real-world Practice—A Commentary, accessed September 9, 2025, https://jcadonline.com/field-therapy-actinic-keratoses-commentary/
39. PICATO® gel - Amazon S3, accessed September 9, 2025, https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/drugbank/fda_labels/DB05013.pdf?1367614747
40. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns of severe adverse events with application of Picato (ingenol mebutate) gel for skin, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.fda.gov/media/93060/download
41. Picato Adverse Events Prompt FDA Warning | MDedge, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.mdedge.com/content/picato-adverse-events-prompt-fda-warning-0
42. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns of severe adverse events with application of Picato (ingenol mebutate) gel for skin condition; requires label changes, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-warns-severe-adverse-events-application-picato-ingenol-mebutate
43. Ingenol mebutate gel (Picato ): increased incidence of skin tumours seen in some clinical studies - GOV.UK, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/ingenol-mebutate-gel-picato-increased-incidence-of-skin-tumours-seen-in-some-clinical-studies
44. Ingenol mebutate gel (Picato ): suspension of the licence due to risk of skin malignancy, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/ingenol-mebutate-gel-picato-suspension-of-the-licence-due-to-risk-of-skin-malignancy
45. PICATO® (ingenol mebutate) gel, for topical use - This label may not be the latest approved by FDA. For current labeling information, please visit https://www.fda.gov/drugsatfda, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/202833s013lbl.pdf
46. 5PSQ-136 Disproportionality analysis of the skin toxicity of ingenol mebutate using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database | European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, accessed September 9, 2025, https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/28/Suppl_1/A124.1
47. European marketing of Picato suspended while skin cancer risk reviewed - The Hospitalist, accessed September 9, 2025, https://community.the-hospitalist.org/content/european-marketing-picato-suspended-while-skin-cancer-risk-reviewed
48. Ingenol mebutate withdrawn - Spot Check: skin cancer + aesthetics. Melbourne, accessed September 9, 2025, https://spotcheck.clinic/ingenol-mebutate-withdrawn/
49. Risks of Picato for actinic keratosis outweigh benefits | European Medicines Agency (EMA), accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/risks-picato-actinic-keratosis-outweigh-benefits
50. Picato - referral | European Medicines Agency (EMA), accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/picato
51. Picato (ingenol mebutate) FDA Approval History - Drugs.com, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.drugs.com/history/picato.html
52. FDA Approves LEO Pharma's Picato® (ingenol mebutate) Gel, the First and Only Topical Actinic Keratosis (AK) Therapy With 2 or 3 Consecutive Days of Once-Daily Dosing - BioSpace, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.biospace.com/fda-approves-leo-pharma-s-picato-ingenol-mebutate-gel-the-first-and-only-topical-actinic-keratosis-ak-therapy-with-2-or-3-consecutive-days-of-on
53. Picato | European Medicines Agency (EMA), accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/picato
54. EU panel review supports decision to pull Picato from market | MDedge - The Hospitalist, accessed September 9, 2025, https://community.the-hospitalist.org/content/eu-panel-review-supports-decision-pull-picato-market
55. EMA review of Picato concludes medicine's risks outweigh its benefits - FirstWord Pharma, accessed September 9, 2025, https://firstwordpharma.com/story/4995691
56. LEO Pharma Inc. is withdrawing the drug Picato (Ingenol mebutate), used to treat skin lesions, due to the potential increased risk of skin cancer - Recalls and Safety Alerts, accessed September 9, 2025, https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/leo-pharma-inc-withdrawing-drug-picato-ingenol-mebutate-used-treat-skin-lesions-due
57. PICATO (ingenol mebutate gel, 0.015% and 0.05%) - Product Withdrawal in Canada due to Potential Increased Risk of Skin Cancer - Recalls and Safety Alerts, accessed September 9, 2025, https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/picato-ingenol-mebutate-gel-0015-and-005-product-withdrawal-canada-due-potential
58. Summary Safety Review - Picato (ingenol mebutate) - Assessing the Potential Risk of Skin Cancer - Drug and Health Products Portal, accessed September 9, 2025, https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents/resource/SSR00242
59. Information Update - Use of the drug Picato may increase the risk of skin cancer - Canada.ca, accessed September 9, 2025, https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/information-update-use-drug-picato-may-increase-risk-skin-cancer
60. ingenol mebutate topical (DSC) (Discontinued) - Medscape Reference, accessed September 9, 2025, https://reference.medscape.com/drug/picato-ingenol-mebutate-topical-999712
61. Superficial Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Face Successfully Treated with Ingenol Mebutate 0.05% Gel: Case Report and a Review of the Literature, accessed September 9, 2025, https://jcadonline.com/basalcellcarcinoma-ingenol-mebutate-gel/
62. Immunothrombotic Mechanisms Induced by Ingenol Mebutate Lead to Rapid Necrosis and Clearance of Anogenital Warts - MDPI, accessed September 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/21/13377