Intramuscular Steroids in the Treatment of Dermatologic Disease: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Intramuscular (IM) steroids can be used to treat a wide variety of dermatologic diseases. Although seemingly effective and safe, this form of corticosteroid therapy may be underused amongst dermatologists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to determine the evidence regarding the efficacy and side effect profile of intramuscular triamcinolone in the treatment of dermatologic disease. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A PubMed search engine was used for this study. Inclusion criteria were studies that examined human subjects, reported clinical outcomes and side effects of intramuscular steroids for the treatment of dermatologic disease, cutaneous disease where steroids remain an accepted standard of care, studies published after 1980, and English language articles. FINDINGS: A total of 62 papers were reviewed. Six papers met criteria. They looked at alopecia areata, (2) systemic lupus erythematosus (1), Behcets disease (1), and nail lichen planus (2). Collectively, the studies included 342 patients. Study types included case series (1), retrospective observational (2), randomized prospective (2), and double-blind placebo controlled (1) studies. In this systematic review, intramuscular steroids were found to have comparable efficacy and side effect profile alone or in comparison with other steroid modalities for the select number of dermatoses investigated. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We conclude that intramuscular steroids can be regarded as having comparable efficacy to other steroid modalities in the treatment of steroid responsive dermatoses; and also appear to be safer in most instances with the exception of dysmenorrhea in females. Additional studies are greatly needed.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(3):323-329.

[What information is given on adverse drug reactions from new drugs?]. / Hvilken informasjon gis om bivirkninger av nye legemidler?

BACKGROUND: It is not known to what extent information on previously unknown adverse reactions is communicated to doctors after the approval of a new drug. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included seven drugs, approved between 1982 and 1995 and the first in their class to be approved in Norway. We recorded the number of adverse reactions listed in the annual editions of the Norwegian physicians' desk reference(Felleskatalogen) from the first edition that included the drug and up until the 2001 edition. RESULTS: Only 51 % of the adverse reactions listed in the 2001 edition were included in the first post-approval edition. On average, 1.6 new adverse reactions were added for each drug every year. By contrast: in a group of 12 drugs approved before 1970, 0.14 new adverse reactions were added for each drug every year between 1989 and 2001. INTERPRETATION: With a new drug it is to be expected that many adverse reactions are not acknowledged as such. Caution is warranted because of the fact that even though it is not listed in the physicians' desk reference, any event appearing in a patient exposed to a new drug may be an adverse reaction.