A randomized, double-blind trial of amorolfine 0.25% cream and sertaconazole 2% cream in limited dermatophytosis.

BACKGROUND: Dermatophytosis is becoming increasingly unresponsive to conventional antifungals. Newer topical antifungals may be more effective in these patients. AIMS: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of amorolfine 0.25% cream and sertaconazole 2% cream in limited tinea cruris/corporis. METHODS: A single-center, randomized (1:1), double-blind, parallel group, active-controlled trial (CTRI/2014/12/005246) was performed. Sixty-six untreated adults with acutely symptomatic tinea cruris/corporis were included in the study. All patients had limited cutaneous involvement and were KOH mount positive. Group A received amorolfine 0.25% cream, and group B received sertaconazole 2% cream twice daily application to the lesions for 4 weeks. After the baseline visit, four follow-up visits were carried out. The outcome measures for effectiveness were clinical and mycological cure. Safety parameters studied were treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in routine laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Both sertaconazole and amorolfine significantly reduced symptoms (P < 0.001) in both groups. However, improvement in symptoms (pruritus, burning sensation, erythema, scaling and crusting) was significantly greater in the sertaconazole group at every follow-up visit. Sertaconazole cream was also more effective than amorolfine cream in reducing the number of lesions (P = 0.002 at 12 weeks) and improving the Dermatology Life Quality Index (P < 0.001) at all the follow-up visits. Adverse events were similar in the two groups (P = 0.117). Fungal cultures became negative in 92.3% of the sertaconazole group as compared to 80% in the amorolfine group (P = 0.010). LIMITATIONS: Antifungal susceptibility testing could not be done. CONCLUSION: Sertaconazole 2% is superior to amorolfine 0.25%, both in terms of effectiveness and tolerability. Improvement can be appreciated from second week onwards.

Effectiveness and safety of levocetirizine 10 mg versus a combination of levocetirizine 5 mg and montelukast 10 mg in chronic urticaria resistant to levocetirizine 5 mg: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria is a vexing problem for patients and treating physicians alike. The EAACI/GA[2]LEN/EDF/WAO guidelines advocate an increased antihistamine dosage up to four times the standard, before adding leukotriene receptor antagonists. Patients are frequently intolerant of these higher dosages. We conducted this study to determine whether the addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists to the standard antihistamine dose was comparable to higher dosages of antihistamines alone, in terms of efficacy, safety and quality of life changes. We compared levocetirizine 10 mg (double dose of standard) versus a combination of levocetirizine 5 mg and montelukast 10 mg in cases of chronic urticaria not responding to single daily dose of 5 mg levocetirizine. METHODS: A single-center, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel group phase IV trial (CTRI/2014/12/005261) was conducted on 120 patients of chronic urticaria of either sex not responding to 5 mg levocetirizine. Patients were randomized into receiving either levocetirizine 10 mg or levocetirizine 5 mg + montelukast 10 mg for 4 weeks. Primary outcome measures were Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) and Urticaria Total Severity Score (TSS). Routine hematological and biochemical tests and treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored for safety. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients on levocetirizine 10 mg group and 51 patients on levocetirizine 5 mg + montelukast 10 mg group were analyzed. UAS and TSS reduced significantly in both treatment groups and reduction of score were comparable in between the groups (P = 0.628, P = 0.824, respectively). Among adverse effects, sedation was noted significantly more (P = 0.013) in levocetirizine 10 mg group. Quality of life was significantly improved in levocetirizine 5 mg + montelukast 10 mg group (P = 0.031). LIMITATIONS: The limitation of the study was that the follow-up period was 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: EAACI/GA[2]LEN/EDF/WAO guidelines need to be more flexible in allowing usage of montelukast before escalation of anti-histamine dosage.

Immunotherapy in viral warts with intradermal Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine versus intradermal tuberculin purified protein derivative: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing effectiveness and safety in a tertiary care center in Eastern India.

BACKGROUND: Current therapeutic modalities for viral warts are mostly ablative and are limited by high recurrence rates besides being unsuitable for numerous lesions. Immunotherapy has the potential to overcome these limitations. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine versus tuberculin purified protein derivative in the immunotherapy of warts. METHODS: Patients received three doses of 0.1 ml of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine or tuberculin purified protein derivative intradermally over the deltoid region at 4-weekly intervals. They were followed-up for another month. Number of warts, complete cure rates and quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included. Complete clearance was noted in 16 (48.5%) out of 33 patients in the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin group and in 5 (18.5%) out of 27 in the tuberculin purified protein derivative group (P = 0.121). The number of lesions reduced statistically significantly from baseline in both the groups (P < 0.001) from the first follow-up visit onward (P < 0.05). The reduction was statistically significantly more in the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin group than in the tuberculin purified protein derivative group from the second follow-up onward. Dermatologic life quality index improved statistically significantly with both treatments. Adverse events (pain during injection, abscess formation and scarring at injection site) were more frequent with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin. No recurrence was seen after lesions cleared. LIMITATIONS: Patients were not followed up for more than 4 weeks after treatment. We could not estimate the cytokine levels or the peripheral blood mononuclear cell proliferation in response to Bacillus Calmette-Guerin/tuberculin purified protein derivative injections. CONCLUSION: Both intradermal Bacillus Calmette-Guerin and tuberculin purified protein derivative hold promise in the treatment of viral warts. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin may be more effective, though it had more adverse events in our study.