Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Combining topical tretinoin with mometasone furoate in the treatment of vulvar lichen sclerosus: Results of dermoscopic assessment.

The main purpose of the present study was to compare the dermoscopic changes on vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS) induced by two different 12-week treatment protocols, namely mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus tretinoin 0.05% cream in short-contact therapy (group A) versus the same corticosteroid plus emollient (group B). All dermoscopic images captured before and after treatment were assessed. Each dermoscopic variable selected for the study purpose was arbitrarily graded according to a 4-point scale by dermatologists blinded to both the time at which the images were captured and treatment allocation. Seventeen patients in group A and 15 in group B were included. The vessel mean dermoscopic scores increased significantly after treatment, whereas the scores of (a) patchy, structure-less, whitish areas, (b) whitish background, (c) comedo-like openings, and (d) purpuric blotches decreased. At the control visit, the two protocols did not differ significantly for any of the dermoscopic parameters, both in terms of mean score change and in the number of patients showing changes. Although the complementary action of the two molecules may suggest a therapeutic benefit, the association of tretinoin in short contact therapy with a potent corticosteroid did not induce significant changes in the dermoscopic features of VLS compared with the same corticosteroid alone.

Comparison of the Efficacy, Side Effects, and Cost of Modafinil and Intranasal Mometasone Furoate in Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome: A Preliminary Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND Obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is characterized by repeated episodes of reduction in airflow due to the collapse of the upper airway during sleep. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcome, side effects, and cost of treatment between modafinil and intranasal mometasone furoate in patients with OSAHS. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients with OSAHS (N=250) were divided into two groups: the modafinil group (MG) (N=125) were treated with 100 mg modafinil twice a day; the intranasal mometasone furoate group (IMFG) (N=125) were treated with 100 µg of intranasal mometasone furoate in the evening. Quality of life, grading of OSAHS, plain-film radiography, the adenoidal-nasopharyngeal ratio (AN ratio), side effects, cost of treatment, and beneficial effects after discontinuation of treatment were evaluated for all patients. RESULTS Duration of sleep apnea was significantly reduced in the IMFG compared with the MG (p=0.0145, q=9.262). Modafinil and intranasal mometasone furoate both had moderate effects on improvement of the OSAHS score. The IMFG showed a significantly greater beneficial effect on the AN ratio when compared with the MG (p=0.0001, q=6.584). No adverse events of treatment with modafinil and intranasal mometasone furoate were reported. Cost of treatment and beneficial effect after discontinuation were both significantly greater for the IMFG compared with the MG. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this preliminary clinical study were that for patients diagnosed with OSAHS, night-time treatment with intranasal mometasone furoate was more effective than modafinil.