Periorbital hyperpigmentation: a study of its prevalence, common causative factors and its association with personal habits and other disorders.

BACKGROUND: Periorbital hyperpigmentation (POH) is one of the most commonly encountered conditions in routine dermatology practice. There are only few published studies about its prevalence, classification, and pathogenesis but none showing its association with habits, and other medical conditions in Indian patients. AIMS: To determine prevalence and type of POH, common causative factors, and its association with personal habits and other disorders within various age and sex groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients attending the dermatology OPD were included in study and were subjected to detailed history, careful clinical and Wood's lamp examination, eyelid stretch test and laboratory investigations. Clinical photographs of all patients were taken. RESULTS: POH was most prevalent in 16-25 years age group (47.50%) and in females (81%) of which majority were housewives (45.50%). Commonest form of POH was constitutional (51.50%) followed by post inflammatory (22.50%). Lower eyelids were involved in 72.50%. Grade 2 POH was seen in 58%. Wood's lamp examination showed POH to be dermal in 60.50%. Faulty habits were observed viz. lack of adequate sleep (40%), frequent cosmetic use (36.50%), frequent eye rubbing (32.50%), and lack of correction for errors of refraction like myopia in 12% patients. Strong association of POH with stress (71%), atopy (33%) and family history (63%) was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Periorbital hyperpigmentation is a multi-factorial entity. It is absolutely essential to classify the type of POH and determine underlying causative factors in order to direct appropriate measures for better and successful outcome in future.

A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of topical Whitfield's ointment plus oral fluconazole with topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups and advised to apply either agent topically twice-a-day for 4 weeks on the lesions and fluconazole (150 mg) was administered once a week for 4 weeks in the study group applying Whitfield's ointment. Patients were followed-up at an interval of 10 days for clinical score and global evaluation response was assessed at baseline and during each follow-up. RESULTS: Out of 120 patients enrolled in the study 103 completed the study. Patients treated with Whitfield's ointment and oral fluconazole reduced mean sign and symptom score from 8.81 ± 0.82 to 0.18 ± 0.59 while butenafine treated patients reduced it from 8.88 ± 0.53 to 0.31 ± 0.67 at the end of the treatment. Nearly, 98% patients were completely cleared of the lesion on the 3(rd) follow-up with both treatments. CONCLUSION: Whitfield's ointment with oral fluconazole is as efficacious, safe and cost-effective as compared with 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin.

A comparative randomized open label study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness between topical 2% sertaconazole and topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin.

BACKGROUND: Dermatophytoses are the superficial fungal infections of skin, hair, and nail. Butenafine is a benzylamine group of antifungal that inhibits the biosynthesis of ergosterol by blocking squalene epoxidase. Sertaconazole is a newer imidazole antifungal which inhibits the biosynthesis of ergosterol by inhibiting 14-α lanosterol demethylase. The study was done to compare a newer antifungal with a relatively older one. AIM: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of topical 2% sertaconazole cream and 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to two treatment groups. They were advised to apply the drug topically twice a day for one month on the lesions. They were followed up at an interval of 10 days. Clinical score and Global Evaluation Response were assessed at baseline and during each follow up. RESULTS: A total 125 patients were recruited, out of them 111 completed the whole study. Median Sign and Symptom Score of tinea on the baseline was 9 [5,9] that was reduced to 0 [0,4] by 2% sertaconazole while it was 9 [6,9] in the butenafine group on the baseline that was reduced to 0 [0,6] at the end of the treatment. 98% and 90% of the patients got complete clearance of the lesions with butenafine and sertaconazole, respectively. Treatment with butenafine was more cost effective as compared to sertaconazole. CONCLUSION: 1% butenafine is more efficacious, cost effective, and equally safe as compared to 2% sertaconazole in the tinea infections of skin.

Comparative efficacy and safety of topical permethrin, topical ivermectin, and oral ivermectin in patients of uncomplicated scabies.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin has opened a new era in the management of scabies as orally effective drug. However, topical route has been little explored for ivermectin. AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin, oral ivermectin, and topical ivermectin in the treatment of uncomplicated scabies. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, comparative, parallel clinical trial conducted in 315 patients, randomly allocated to 3 groups. First group received permethrin 5% cream as single application, second group received tablet ivermectin 200 mcg/kg as single dose, and third group received ivermectin 1% lotion as single application. All the patients received anti-histaminic for pruritus. The patients were followed up at intervals of 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks. If there were no signs of cure, the same intervention was repeated at each follow up. Primary efficacy variable was clinical cure of lesions. Statistical analysis was done by chi square test and one way ANOVA test using SPSS version 12. RESULTS: At the end of first week, cure rate was 74.8% in permethrin group, 30% in oral ivermectin group, and 69.3% in topical ivermectin group (P < 0.05). At the end of second week, cure rate was 99% in permethrin group, 63% in oral ivermectin group, and 100% in topical ivermectin group (P < 0.05). At the end of third week, 100% cure rate was observed in permethrin and topical ivermectin group while 99% in oral ivermectin group (P = 0.367). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Permethrin and topical ivermectin were equally effective against scabies while oral ivermectin was significantly less effective up to 2 weeks. Topical ivermectin can be used as an alternative to permethrin.

To study cost effectiveness of topical permethrin versus oral ivermectin in patients of uncomplicated scabies.

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the cost and effectiveness of topical permethrin and oral ivermectin in the treatment of uncomplicated scabies. Methods: This was an open label randomized comparative study conducted in 210 patients, randomly allocated to two groups. First group received permethrin 5% cream as single application, second group received tablet ivermectin 200mcg/kg as single dose. All the patients received antihistaminic for pruritus. The patients were followed up at intervals of one, two, three and four weeks. If there were no signs of cure, the same intervention was repeated at each follow up. The cost effectiveness was calculated on the basis of total expenditure incurred on therapy. Results: At the end of first week cure rate was 74.8% in permethrin group, 30% in oral ivermectin group. At the end of second week cure rate was 99% in permethrin group, 60% in oral ivermectin group. At the end of third week 100% cure rate was observed in permethrin while 99% in oral ivermectin group. The total cost of treatment shows that cost of tab. ivermectin was less compared to permethrin 5% but the cost to relieve itching and cost of transport was higher than permethrin 5%. Conclusions: Topical permethrin is more cost effective than oral ivermectin in treatment of uncomplicated scabies.

Evaluation of the effect of topical cefadroxil on bacterial load of pathogenic staphylococci in anterior nares in human volunteers, comparative study between oral vs. topical cefadroxil.

Background: Cefadroxil has good tissue penetration & exerts more sustained action at the site of infection after oral absorption. Our aim of the study was to check topical cefadroxil has any efficacy over staphylococcal superficial skin infection or not. Methods: Pre-treatment nasal swabs were obtained from 25 healthy human volunteers and bacterial load was recorded. After single application of topical cefadroxil 3% in left anterior nare and placebo (vehicle) in right anterior nare nasal swabs were obtained and results were compared. 150 patients with staphylococcal superficial skin infections were distributed in 4 groups: Group A - oral cefadroxil 500 mg twice daily for 5 days, Group B - topical cefadroxil (0.5 % to 5%) twice daily, Group C - cefadroxil 500 mg orally plus placebo (vehicle) topically twice daily and Group D -cefadroxil 500 mg orally plus cefadroxil preparation topically twice daily. Bacterial load was measured before treatment, on follow up &after clinical cure and results were compared. Results: Topical cefadroxil significantly reduced bacterial load after single application in anterior nare. Topical cefadroxil cured and significantly reduced bacterial load in staphylococcal superficial skin infections within 3 days of treatment. Oral plus topical cefadroxil combination therapy significantly reduced bacterial load and cured infection within 3 days of treatment in patients with moderate to heavy bacterial growth. No any adverse effect was observed during entire study period in any of groups. Conclusions: Topical preparation of cefadroxil is safe and effective in treating staphylococcal superficial skin infections. Combination of oral plus topical cefadroxil showed synergistic effect in infections with moderate to heavy growth. This study is registered at CTRI [REG ID: CTRI/2013/02/003433 REF: REF/2013/02/004576].

Comparative efficacy and safety of topical permethrin, topical ivermectin, and oral ivermectin in patients of uncomplicated scabies.

Background: Ivermectin has opened a new era in the management of scabies as orally effective drug. However, topical route has been little explored for ivermectin. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin, oral ivermectin, and topical ivermectin in the treatment of uncomplicated scabies. Methods: This was an open-label, randomized, comparative, parallel clinical trial conducted in 315 patients, randomly allocated to 3 groups. First group received permethrin 5% cream as single application, second group received tablet ivermectin 200 mcg/kg as single dose, and third group received ivermectin 1% lotion as single application. All the patients received anti-histaminic for pruritus. The patients were followed up at intervals of 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks. If there were no signs of cure, the same intervention was repeated at each follow up. Primary efficacy variable was clinical cure of lesions. Statistical analysis was done by chi square test and one way ANOVA test using SPSS version 12. Results: At the end of first week, cure rate was 74.8% in permethrin group, 30% in oral ivermectin group, and 69.3% in topical ivermectin group (P < 0.05). At the end of second week, cure rate was 99% in permethrin group, 63% in oral ivermectin group, and 100% in topical ivermectin group (P < 0.05). At the end of third week, 100% cure rate was observed in permethrin and topical ivermectin group while 99% in oral ivermectin group (P = 0.367). No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Permethrin and topical ivermectin were equally effective against scabies while oral ivermectin was significantly less effective up to 2 weeks. Topical ivermectin can be used as an alternative to permethrin.