METHODS: Seventeen POAG patients with suboptimal IOP control despite pre-existing topical medications were subjected to adjunct SLT (50 applications 180 degrees) or second line medical therapy. Current medications were continued, and patients were followed up for 6 months for degree of intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering. HRQoL was assessed using Glaucoma Quality of Life 36-item (GlauQoL-36), Assessment of Quality of Life-7D (AQoL-7D) and Vision related Quality of Life (VisQoL). Costs involved were calculated and compared to the effect (IOP reduction) achieved in each arm.
RESULTS: Ten patients were in the SLT group and 7 in the topical medication (MED) group. Mean baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) was 18.90±3.48mmHg in SLT group and 15.57±2.23mmHg in MED group. Mean reduction of IOP was 4.30±1.64mmHg in SLT group and 2.71±2.56 mmHg in MED group at 6 months which was not statistically significant (p=0.14) between two groups. All the HRQoL questionnaires did not show significant changes in the groups or between groups when compared baseline with 6-month post treatment (p-values ranging from 0.247 to 0.987). For every 1mmHg reduction in IOP, cost involved in MED group (RM53.61) was 165% of the cost involved in SLT group (RM32.56).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study has shown that SLT was as effective clinically and tolerable as topical anti glaucoma medications and was possibly more cost effective in the step-up treatment of patients with POAG at 6 months follow- up.
Materials and Methods: An unblinded randomized controlled trial was undertaken at the dermatology clinic of a tertiary care hospital. Consent from the patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were obtained, and they were included in this study. They were randomized into two groups, namely Gp-1 (C and P labeling) and Gp-2 (conventional labeling). Both groups were assessed at week 0, 6, and 12 (visit 1, 2, and 3) using knowledge assessment list and psoriasis severity assessment score. For visit 2 (week 6), reinforcement of their understanding of topical treatment was performed.
Results: A total of 101 patients were recruited. Only 91 of them completed the study. The mean ages were 44.52 (±16.61) and 45.49 (±15.84) years, with 70.3% males and approximately half Malay ethnics. The changes of knowledge and comparison of Topical Application Assessment Score between the groups showed an incremental raise of significance with every visit (P = 0.006 [week 1], 0.004 [week 6], and 0.002 [week 12]). Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 could not draw any conclusion as patients who achieved >75% improvement were inadequate.
Conclusion: C and P labeling was effective in improving the understanding and knowledge of patients with psoriasis. Both groups showed improvement in body surface area and Dermatology Life Quality Index for every visit; however, it was statistically insignificant.
Objective: This article aimed to provide a narrative updated review on the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of tinea corporis.
Methods: A PubMed search was performed with Clinical Queries using the key term 'tinea corporis.' The search strategy included clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and reviews. The search was restricted to the English language. The information retrieved from the mentioned search was used in the compilation of the present article.
Results: Tinea corporis typically presents as a well-demarcated, sharply circumscribed, oval or circular, mildly erythematous, scaly patch or plaque with a raised leading edge. Mild pruritus is common. The diagnosis is often clinical but can be difficult with prior use of medications, such as calcineurin inhibitors or corticosteroids. Dermoscopy is a useful and non-invasive diagnostic tool. If necessary, the diagnosis can be confirmed by microscopic examination of potassium hydroxide wet-mount preparations of skin scrapings from the active border of the lesion. Fungal culture is the gold standard to diagnose dermatophytosis especially if the diagnosis is in doubt and results of other tests are inconclusive or the infection is widespread, severe, or resistant to treatment. The standard treatment of tinea corporis is with topical antifungals. Systemic antifungal treatment is indicated if the lesion is multiple, extensive, deep, recurrent, chronic, or unresponsive to topical antifungal treatment, or if the patient is immunodeficient.
Conclusion: The diagnosis of tinea corporis is usually clinical and should pose no problem to the physician provided the lesion is typical. However, many clinical variants of tinea corporis exist, rendering the diagnosis difficult especially with prior use of medications, such as calcineurin inhibitors or corticosteroids. As such, physicians must be familiar with this condition so that an accurate diagnosis can be made and appropriate treatment initiated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male rats were rendered diabetes mellitus via intraperitoneal injection of streptozotocin and nicotinamide. Following diabetes development, wound was created at the back of the neck. 1% and 2% mangiferin gel and 1% silver sulphurdiazine (SS) gel (positive control) were applied to the wound for twenty-one (21) days. Fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels were weekly monitored. At the end of the treatment, rats were sacrificed and wound was excised and subjected for histopathological and molecular biological analysis.
RESULTS: No changes to serum FBG levels was noted throughout the period of mangiferin treatment. Albeit, a significant decrease in the size of the wound with increased in the skin thickness of surrounding the wound were observed. Increased expression and distribution of EGF, FGF, TGF-β, VEGF, PI3K, MMP and Nrf2 and decreased expression and distribution of TNFα and NF-κB p65 were observed in diabetic wound treated with topical mangiferin.
CONCLUSIONS: Mangiferin has potential to be used as an agent to promote wound healing in diabetic condition.
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.