Efficacy and safety of 250 mg versus 500 mg oral terbinafine in the treatment of tinea corporis and cruris: A randomised, assessor-blinded comparative study.

Background Though higher doses of terbinafine are often prescribed to treat dermatophyte infections, it is unknown if such doses are more effective than the conventional dose because comparative data are unavailable. Aim To compare the efficacy and safety of a once-daily dose of oral terbinafine 250 mg with 500 mg along with topical clotrimazole in the treatment of tinea infections. Methods A randomised, assessor-blinded, comparative study was carried out. Each group of subjects were administered either 250 mg or 500 mg oral terbinafine once daily for four weeks, along with topical clotrimazole. Clinical improvement was assessed after two weeks and again after four weeks from treatment initiation. Result A total of 60 patients with tinea corporis and cruris were randomised into two groups receiving either 250 mg (group A) or 500 mg (group B) oral terbinafine, along with clotrimazole cream in both groups. Baseline clinical parameters such as lesional activity (papules, vesicles and pustules), degree of erythema, scaling and severity of itching were comparable between both treatment arms. At the first and second follow-ups, no significant differences were found in the clinical parameters between the two groups. At the end of two weeks 13.8% of group A and 14.3% of group B and after 4 weeks 25.9% of group A and 33.3% of group B participants became KOH negative (P = 1.00 and 0.76, respectively). No significant difference in culture negativity was reported at the end of therapy (four weeks) between the two treatment arms (P = 0.78). Overall cure rates were 20% and 33.3% in the two treatment arms respectively at the end of the study (P = 0.82). Conclusion Oral terbinafine 250 mg daily yielded a poor cure rate in tinea cruris and corporis after 4 weeks of treatment and an increased dose of 500 mg did not have any additional benefit.

Exploring the safety and effectiveness of subcutaneous autologous serum therapy versus conventional intramuscular autologous serum therapy in chronic urticaria: An observer-blind, randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Autologous serum therapy aims to supplement the existing pharmacotherapy in chronic urticaria by decreasing the antihistamine pill-burden and maintaining symptom-free interval. Subcutaneous autologous serum therapy further modifies the amount of serum (2 mL to 1 mL) and gauge of a needle (24G to 31G) to improve compliance and facilitate ease of application. OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous autologous serum therapy versus conventional intramuscular autologous serum therapy and to compare the quality of life in the two treatment arms. METHODS: Institution-based, assessor-blind, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled trial with 32 patients in each treatment arm and analyzed on a modified intention to treat principle. After baseline autologous serum skin test, autologous serum was injected as per randomization every week for 9 consecutive weeks. RESULTS: Among the study population, conventional intramuscular autologous serum therapy and subcutaneous autologous serum therapy had a comparable duration of disease (P = 0.164, Mann-Whitney U test), autoreactive status (P = 0.796), urticaria total severity score (P = 0.637) and urticaria activity score summed up over 7 days (P = 0.982). Both urticaria activity score summed up over 7 days and total severity score along with antihistamine pill-burden reduced significantly (P < 0.001, Friedman's analysis of variance) in both subcutaneous autologous serum therapy and conventional intramuscular autologous serum therapy from first follow-up onwards (P < 0.05, Post hoc Dunn's test). Significant improvement was noted in patient's as well as physician's global assessment of disease activity improvement scale (P < 0.001, Friedman's analysis of variance). Intergroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in urticaria activity score summed up over 7 days either at baseline (P = 0.982, Mann-Whitney U test) or at study end (P = 0.398, Mann-Whitney U test). Similar comparable results were found in the total severity score at the end of the study (P = 0.345, Mann-Whitney U test). Dermatology life quality index showed marked improvement with both types of treatment (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon test), and the intergroup comparison showed comparable dermatology life quality index values (P = 0.994, Mann-Whitney U test). The pain score at the injection site was more with conventional intramuscular autologous serum therapy than subcutaneous autologous serum therapy (P = 0.0115, Mann-Whitney test). Younger age and lower baseline total severity scores were associated with a better therapeutic response. Baseline urticaria activity score added up over a period of 7 days and total severity scores and the diameter of lesions showed a positive correlation with response pattern. LIMITATION: Basophil histamine release assay not done. Logistics could not support follow-up beyond the end of treatment. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous autologous serum therapy is not inferior to conventional intramuscular autologous serum therapy with the additional advantage of less pain and operational feasibility.