METHODS: This was a prospective, randomised, observer-blinded study. Two keloids on the same site were randomly assigned to receive either daily topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing (Scar 1) or monthly IL triamcinolone injection (Scar 2). Efficacy was assessed using patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) at 4-weekly intervals up to 12 weeks. Dimension of keloid and adverse effects were also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 34 scars from 17 patients completed the study. There was significant improvement of POSAS at 12 weeks compared to baseline within each treatment group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in POSAS at 12 weeks between the two treatments. Keloid dimensions showed a similar trend of improvement by week 12 with either treatment (p = 0.002 in Scar 1, p = 0.005 for Scar 2). However, there was no significant difference between the treatment. In the IL triamcinolone group, all patients reported pain and 70.6% observed necrotic skin reaction. There was a significantly higher rate of adverse effects such as erythema (41.2 vs. 17.6%), hypopigmentation (35.3 vs. 23.5%), telangiectasia (41.2 vs. 17.6%) and skin atrophy (23.5 vs. 5.9%) documented in the IL triamcinolone group when compared to clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing.
CONCLUSION: Clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing is equally effective and has fewer adverse effects compared to IL triamcinolone. Hence, it may be used as an alternative treatment for keloid particularly in patients with low pain threshold, needle phobia and those who prefers home-based treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: In total, 282 patients with oral submucous fibrosis were treated with topical corticosteroid and oral antioxidant and the ice-cream stick exercise regimen. Patients in subgroups A1, A2, and A3 were additionally given a new MED. Patients in subgroups A1 and B1 patients with interincisal distance (IID) of 20 to 35 mm were managed without any additional therapy; patients in subgroups A2 and B2 with IID of 20 to 35 mm were additionally managed with intralesional injections; and those in subgroups A3 and B3 with IID less than 20 mm were managed surgically. Subjective evaluation of decrease in the oral mucosal burning was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple post hoc analysis were carried out to present the results.
RESULTS: Patients using the MED, that is, subgroups A1, A2, and A3, showed reduction in burning sensation in the range of 64.8% to 71.1% and 27.8% to 30.9%, whereas in subgroups B1, B2, and B3, reduction in burning sensation ranged from 64.7% to 69.9% and from 29.3% to 38.6% after 6 months. The wo-way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant results in changes in initial VAS scores to 6-monthly VAS scores between MED users and non-MED users.
CONCLUSIONS: The MED helps to enhance the rate of reduction of mucosal burning sensation, in addition to the conventional ice-cream stick regimen, as an adjunct to local and surgical treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacies and safety of adsorbent lotion containing tapioca starch, spent grain wax, Butyrospermum parkii extract, argania spinosa kernel oil, aloe barbadensis, rosehip oil, and allantoin for the treatment of mild-to-moderate intertrigo, relative to 1% hydrocortisone cream.
METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded study enrolled 40 intertrigo patients. Twice daily, 20 patients applied adsorbent lotion while the remainder used 1% hydrocortisone cream. Efficacy evaluation, skin biophysical measurements, skin tolerability, safety, and visual analog scale (VAS) patient-satisfaction scores were evaluated at baseline and Week 2.
RESULTS: The adsorbent lotion showed higher complete cure rates for color, partial epidermal loss, papules/pustules/vesicles/patches, dryness, and scaling than the corticosteroid without statistical significance. Adsorbent lotion demonstrated significantly higher reduction in pruritus than the corticosteroid treatment. Reduction of erythema level using Mexameter and VAS patient-satisfaction scores were not statistically different between adsorbent lotion and hydrocortisone cream. No adverse effects or superimposed infections were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: The anti-inflammatory efficacies of adsorbent lotion and low-potency steroid were equivalent. The lotion was safe and produced excellent pruritus reduction. Patient satisfaction was high.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence and degree of topical corticosteroid phobia and its impact on treatment adherence in various dermatological conditions. Additionally, we explored the sources of information regarding topical corticosteroids.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 300 participants with topical corticosteroid usage experience. Topical corticosteroid phobia was assessed with the topical corticosteroid phobia (TOPICOP) scale, and treatment adherence was measured with the Elaboration d'un outil d'evaluation de l'observance des traitements medicamenteux (ECOB) score. Information sources regarding topical corticosteroids were identified, and their level of trust was assessed. The data were collected via questionnaires in three languages, namely English, Malay and Mandarin.
RESULTS: The study found that topical corticosteroid phobia was prevalent, with 98% of participants expressing a certain degree of phobia. The mean global TOPICOP score was 32.7 ± 6.7%. The mean score of each domain was 27.1 ± 17.2% for knowledge and belief, 35.7 ± 23.8% for fears and 40.8 ± 25.8% for behaviour. Patients/caregivers who have eczema, highly educated, severe disease, low tolerability to symptoms, previous adverse effects with topical corticosteroids and tend to traditional/non-steroidal alternative therapy usage had a significant association with topical corticosteroid phobia (p<0.05). Dermatologists were the most common and trusted source of information on topical corticosteroids.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the widespread topical corticosteroid phobia in dermatological practice. Dermatologists should take the lead in combating steroid phobia and provide patients with public awareness regarding topical corticosteroids to improve treatment adherence and therapeutic outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 231 OSMF patients were selected and treated with basic regime including topical corticosteroids, oral antioxidants and the icecream-stick exercise regime and allotted randomly to two equal groups A and B. Group-A patients were additionally given MED. Subgroups A1 and B1 patients with an inter-incisal distance (IID) 20-35mm were not given any additional therapy; subgroup A2 and B2 patients (IID 20-35mm) were treated additionally with intra-lesional injections. Subgroups A3 and B3 with IID<20mm were managed surgically. IID was measured at baseline and at 6 months recall. The change in IID measurements was calculated and statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukeys multiple post hoc analysis.
RESULTS: Average improvement in IID after six months of recall visits was observed to be 8.4 mm in subgroup-A1 (n-53) compared to 5.5 mm in B1(n-50) (p<0.01). The IID improvement in subgroup-A2 was found to be 9.3mm (n-46) compared to 5.1 mm in B2 (n-48) (p<0.01). In the surgery group, mouth opening improvement was observed to be 9.6 mm in subgroup A3 (n-18) compared to 4.8 mm for B3 (n-16) (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MED appears to be effective for increasing oral opening in OMSF patients in conjunction with local, injection and/or surgical treatment.