-
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Feb 2016Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment modalities for CLP.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov registry.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the current literature. All randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized case-control studies, and cohort studies with more than one treatment arm were included. The primary outcomes were complete response and time to complete response. The secondary outcomes were partial response, relapse, time to relapse, reduction of itch, the adverse event rate, and withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials. Most trials had a small sample size. In the rare studies in which variants other than generalized or classic lichen planus were included, they could not be analyzed separately. Body-of-evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Acitretin, sulfasalazine, and griseofulvin were associated with increased overall response rates in comparison with placebo. Narrow-band ultraviolet B radiation (NBUVB) was more effective than 6 weeks' low-dose prednisolone in achieving a complete response, and prednisolone was more effective than enoxaparin. Hydroxychloroquine was more effective than griseofulvin in achieving an overall response. Betamethasone valerate 0.1% ointment had comparable efficacy to calcipotriol ointment. Methotrexate was effective, with a nonsignificant difference in the complete response rate in comparison with oral betamethasone. In nonrandomized controlled trials, oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A photochemotherapy (PUVA) had comparable efficacy to a PUVA bath and NBUVB. Psoralen plus sunlight exposure (PUVASOL) and betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream were effective relative to a short course of oral metronidazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Several effective treatment options are available for CLP. Further well-designed studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of topical glucocorticoids-the current first-line therapy-as well as other treatment modalities, and the treatment of different variants of CLP.
Topics: Acitretin; Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antifungal Agents; Calcitriol; Dermatologic Agents; Enoxaparin; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Ficusin; Glucocorticoids; Griseofulvin; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Lichen Planus; Male; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; PUVA Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26507510
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-015-0160-6 -
Ophthalmic Epidemiology Jun 2024Herpes stromal keratitis (HSK) is an immune-mediated corneal inflammation that occurs after a herpes simplex virus infection. This paper aims to systematically identify... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Herpes stromal keratitis (HSK) is an immune-mediated corneal inflammation that occurs after a herpes simplex virus infection. This paper aims to systematically identify and compare interventions for treating HSK and their patient outcomes.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA methodology. Online databases were searched to obtain all relevant papers. Two independent reviewers screened through 168 records. Seven papers were included and used for data extraction. A qualitative analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
HSK patients receiving prednisolone phosphate and acyclovir showed a higher treatment success rate and significantly longer time to failure compared to patients receiving only acyclovir ( < .001). No difference in resolution time was found between oral and topical acyclovir. Between groups receiving dexamethasone and flurbiprofen, resolution occurred in 93% and 67% of patients, and BCVA (LogMAR) improved from 1.0 to 0.30 and 0.48, respectively. BCVA improved in both cyclosporine-A ( < .001) and its control (prednisolone) groups ( = .002). A tacrolimus treatment group showed greater improvement in BCVA compared to its control (prednisolone) group ( < .001).
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids and antivirals managed HSK most effectively only when used concurrently. Oral acyclovir showed similar effectiveness to its ointment counterpart, a preferable alternative for easier administration. Corticosteroid use could induce greater therapeutic benefits when tapered in concentration and frequency and administrated for at least 10 weeks. Anti-inflammatory drugs including flurbiprofen, cyclosporine-A, and tacrolimus could be safe and effective for treating HSK. Future long-term follow-up and RCTs could provide insights on the therapeutic benefits of these potential alternatives.
Topics: Humans; Keratitis, Herpetic; Antiviral Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Glucocorticoids; Acyclovir; Corneal Stroma
PubMed: 37184084
DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2023.2213324 -
Journal of Wound Care Feb 2019A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to summarise the state of the literature in regard to the efficacy and uses of clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE:
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to summarise the state of the literature in regard to the efficacy and uses of clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) in the burn patient.
METHOD:
A systematic review of articles available on PubMed, Scopus and OvidSP Medline was performed. Keywords used in the search process included burns, thermal injury, collagenase, enzymatic debridement, wound care. Reviews, case reports, independent abstracts, consensus and opinion papers were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed for articles fitting inclusion criteria.
RESULTS:
Following screening, six relevant articles were identified for systematic review. Few studies, with limited sample sizes, argue that CCO may be an effective debriding agent. It may also accelerate wound healing and avoid the pain associated with mechanical debridement. CCO lacks antimicrobial activity but the risk of burn wound infection does not appear to be significantly different than when using silver-impregnated products. CCO is more expensive than traditional wound care products but may help halt burn depth conversion and prevent the need for surgery.
CONCLUSION:
CCO may be a safe and effective debridement agent for burn wounds with respect to decreasing wound healing time and minimising pain without increasing the risk of infection. It should be used on a case-by-case basis due to its financial cost, which may be offset by its ability to manage burns non-operatively.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Burns; Collagenases; Humans; Ointments; Wound Healing
PubMed: 30767636
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.Sup2.S9 -
Clinical Therapeutics Jun 2021Impetigo affects approximately 162 million children worldwide at any given time. Lack of consensus on the most effective treatment strategy for impetigo and increasing... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Impetigo affects approximately 162 million children worldwide at any given time. Lack of consensus on the most effective treatment strategy for impetigo and increasing antibiotic resistance continue to drive research into newer and alternative treatment options. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of new treatments for impetigo in endemic and nonendemic settings.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase via Scopus for studies that explored treatments for bullous, nonbullous, primary, and secondary impetigo published between August 1, 2011, and February 29, 2020. We also searched online trial registries and hand-searched the reference lists of the included studies. We used the revised Cochrane risk of bias (version 2.0) tool for randomized trials and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for nonrandomized uncontrolled studies to assess the risk of bias.
FINDINGS
We included 10 studies that involved 6651 participants and reported on 9 treatments in the final analysis. Most clinical trials targeted nonbullous impetigo or did not specify this. The risk of bias varied among the studies. In nonendemic settings, ozenoxacin 1% cream appeared to have the strongest evidence base compared with retapamulin and a new minocycline formulation. In endemic settings, oral co-trimoxazole and benzathine benzylpenicillin G injection were equally effective in the treatment of severe impetigo. Mass drug administration intervention emerged as a promising public health strategy to reduce the prevalence of impetigo in endemic settings.
IMPLICATIONS
This review highlights the limited research into new drugs used for the treatment of impetigo in endemic and nonendemic settings. Limited recent evidence supports the use of topical ozenoxacin or retapamulin for impetigo treatment in nonendemic settings, whereas systemic antibiotics and the mass drug administration strategy have evidence for use in endemic settings. Given the troubling increase in resistance to existing treatments, there is a clear need to ensure the judicious use of antibiotics and to develop new treatments and alternative strategies; this is particularly important in endemic settings. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020173042.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Impetigo; Ointments; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34053699
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.04.013 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Mucopolysaccharide polysulfate (MPS) cream as a moisturizer is widely applied to treat eczema, and a lot of clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy and safety....
Mucopolysaccharide polysulfate (MPS) cream as a moisturizer is widely applied to treat eczema, and a lot of clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy and safety. However, there is no further research to collect and analyze these studies. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MPS cream as monotherapy or add-on therapy for non-exudative eczema. Ten databases were searched to identify the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to July 31, 2021. Revman 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. A total of eligible 20 studies were included. Among the 20 studies, 2 studies compared MPS cream with other moisturizers, 14 compared MPS cream plus topical corticosteroids (TCS) with TCS alone, and 4 compared with MPS cream plus tacrolimus ointment with tacrolimus ointment alone. The pooled results demonstrated that MPS cream had a higher total efficacy rate [Risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30, < 0.00001], a lower recurrence rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.74, = 0.002) and a lower pruritus score [mean difference (MD) -1.78, 95% CI: -2.16 to -1.40, < 0.00001] than urea cream or vaseline ointment. Moreover, in comparison with TCS or tacrolimus ointment alone, the combination treatment performed better in terms of total efficacy rate, total symptom score, recurrence rate, and pruritus score. For safety, the skin adverse events were mild, and MPS cream as monotherapy or add-on therapy did not increase the risk of skin adverse events. MPS cream as monotherapy or add-on therapy could provide a good effect for treating non-exudative eczema with mild and tolerable skin adverse events. However, due to the suboptimal quality of the included studies, high-quality and large-sample RCTs are needed in the future for update or validation. PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), identifier: CRD42021265735.
PubMed: 35004755
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.788324 -
Medicine Jul 2023Traditional Chinese herbal ointment has significant curative effect and few side effects in the treatment of perianal eczema (PE). Currently, there is no systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Traditional Chinese herbal ointment has significant curative effect and few side effects in the treatment of perianal eczema (PE). Currently, there is no systematic evaluation on the treatment of PE with traditional Chinese medicine ointment. The current aim is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine ointment in the treatment of PE through meta-analysis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials on the treatment of PE with Chinese herbal plaster were included in the meta-analysis, which was searched in Chinese and English databases up to March 1, 2023. The search will be conducted in accordance with the object of PICOS framework. Two research will independently use EndnoteX9 to extract the data and evaluate the quality assessment of included trails. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.4.1 provided by Cochrane Collaboration; when the outcome indicator is a dichotomous variable, relative risk (RR) was used as the effect size; when the outcome indicator is a continuous variable, weighted mean difference (MD) was used as the effect size, each effect size should be expressed as 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
The results of meta-analysis showed that: The total effective rate of PE (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.30, P < .01; I2 = 32%, Q = 0.17). The cure rate of PE (RR: 3.37, 95% CI: 2.30, 4.94, P < .01; I2 = 21% Q = 0.26). The recurrence rate of PE (RR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.48, P < .01; I2 = 31%Q = 0.23). Itchy points (MD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.19, 0.27; I2 = 26%) Skin damage area (MD: -0.37, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.19; I2 = 26%). Skin damage form (MD: -0.59, 95% CI: -0.81. -0.36; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION
A total of 11 articles were included in this study for meta-analysis, and the results showed that Chinese medicine ointment is more helpful in improving the skin lesion area and skin damage form, significantly improve the response rate and cure rate, reduce the recurrence rate. Chinese herbal ointment has guiding significance for clinical practice which deserve to use ointments by further experimental and clinical investigation.
Topics: Humans; Ointments; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Eczema; Drugs, Chinese Herbal
PubMed: 37478223
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034397 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Hand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social stigma, and impairment in employment. Many different interventions of unknown effectiveness are used to treat hand eczema.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical and systemic interventions for hand eczema in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following up to April 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, LILACS, GREAT, and four trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared interventions for hand eczema, regardless of hand eczema type and other affected sites, versus no treatment, placebo, vehicle, or active treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant- and investigator-rated good/excellent control of symptoms, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 60 RCTs, conducted in secondary care (5469 participants with mild to severe chronic hand eczema). Most participants were over 18 years old. The duration of treatment was short, generally up to four months. Only 24 studies included a follow-up period. Clinical heterogeneity in treatments and outcome measures was evident. Few studies performed head-to-head comparisons of different interventions. Risk of bias varied considerably, with only five studies at low risk in all domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded.Eighteen trials studied topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors; 10 studies, phototherapy; three studies, systemic immunosuppressives; and five studies, oral retinoids. Most studies compared an active intervention against no treatment, variants of the same medication, or placebo (or vehicle). Below, we present results from the main comparisons.Corticosteroid creams/ointments: when assessed 15 days after the start of treatment, clobetasol propionate 0.05% foam probably improves participant-rated control of symptoms compared to vehicle (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 3.91; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 8; 1 study, 125 participants); the effect of clobetasol compared to vehicle for investigator-rated improvement is less clear (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.40). More participants had at least one adverse event with clobetasol (11/62 versus 5/63; RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 6.06), including application site burning/pruritus. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.When assessed 36 weeks after the start of treatment, mometasone furoate cream used thrice weekly may slightly improve investigator-rated symptom control compared to twice weekly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.61; 1 study, 72 participants) after remission is reached. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Some mild atrophy was reported in both groups (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.83; 5/35 versus 3/37). This evidence was rated as low certainty.Irradiation with ultraviolet (UV) light: local combination ultraviolet light therapy (PUVA) may lead to improvement in investigator-rated symptom control when compared to local narrow-band UVB after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.16; 1 study, 60 participants). However, the 95% CI indicates that PUVA might make little or no difference. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Adverse events (mainly erythema) were reported by 9/30 participants in the narrow-band UVB group versus none in the PUVA group. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Topical calcineurin inhibitors: tacrolimus 0.1% over two weeks probably improves investigator-rated symptom control measured after three weeks compared to vehicle (14/14 tacrolimus versus 0/14 vehicle; 1 study). Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Four of 14 people in the tacrolimus group versus zero in the vehicle group had well-tolerated application site burning/itching.A within-participant study in 16 participants compared 0.1% tacrolimus to 0.1% mometasone furoate but did not measure investigator- or participant-rated symptoms. Both treatments were well tolerated when assessed at two weeks during four weeks of treatment.Evidence from these studies was rated as moderate certainty.Oral interventions: oral cyclosporin 3 mg/kg/d probably slightly improves investigator-rated (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.99; 1 study, 34 participants) or participant-rated (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.27) control of symptoms compared to topical betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% after six weeks of treatment. The risk of adverse events such as dizziness was similar between groups (up to 36 weeks; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.86, n = 55; 15/27 betamethasone versus 19/28 cyclosporin). The evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Alitretinoin 10 mg improves investigator-rated symptom control compared with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.07; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6.3 to 26.5; 2 studies, n = 781) and alitretinoin 30 mg also improves this outcome compared with placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.43; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 2 studies, n = 1210). Similar results were found for participant-rated symptom control: alitretinoin 10 mg RR 1.73 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.40) and 30 mg RR 2.75 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.48). Evidence was rated as high certainty. The number of adverse events (including headache) probably did not differ between alitretinoin 10 mg and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; 1 study, n = 158; moderate-certainty evidence), but the risk of headache increased with alitretinoin 30 mg (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.45 to 4.81; 2 studies, n = 1210; high-certainty evidence). Outcomes were assessed between 48 and 72 weeks.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most findings were from single studies with low precision, so they should be interpreted with caution. Topical corticosteroids and UV phototherapy were two of the major standard treatments, but evidence is insufficient to support one specific treatment over another. The effect of topical calcineurin inhibitors is not certain. Alitretinoin is more effective than placebo in controlling symptoms, but advantages over other treatments need evaluating.Well-designed and well-reported, long-term (more than three months), head-to-head studies comparing different treatments are needed. Consensus is required regarding the definition of hand eczema and its subtypes, and a standard severity scale should be established.The main limitation was heterogeneity between studies. Small sample size impacted our ability to detect differences between treatments.
Topics: Calcineurin Inhibitors; Eczema; Emollients; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Odds Ratio; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31025714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004055.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Breakdown of the developmentally immature epidermal barrier may permit entry for micro-organisms leading to invasive infection in preterm infants. Topical emollients may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Breakdown of the developmentally immature epidermal barrier may permit entry for micro-organisms leading to invasive infection in preterm infants. Topical emollients may improve skin integrity and barrier function and thereby prevent invasive infection, a major cause of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of topical application of emollients (ointments, creams, or oils) on the incidence of invasive infection, other morbidity, and mortality in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to August 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of prophylactic application of topical emollient (ointments, creams, or oils) on the incidence of invasive infection, mortality, other morbidity, and growth and development in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 18 eligible primary publications (21 trial reports). A total of 3089 infants participated in the trials. The risk of bias varied with lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation in half of the trials and lack of blinding of caregivers or investigators in all of the trials being the main potential sources of bias.Eight trials (2086 infants) examined the effect of topical ointments or creams. Most participants were very preterm infants cared for in health-care facilities in high-income countries. Meta-analyses did not show evidence of a difference in the incidence of invasive infection (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.31; low quality evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.03; low quality evidence).Eleven trials (1184 infants) assessed the effect of plant or vegetable oils. Nine of these trials were undertaken in low- or middle-income countries and all were based in health-care facilities rather than home or community settings. Meta-analyses did not show evidence of a difference in the incidence of invasive infection (typical RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.01; low quality evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; moderate quality evidence). Infants massaged with vegetable oil had a higher rate of weight gain (about 2.55 g/kg/day; 95% CI 1.76 to 3.34), linear growth (about 1.22 mm/week; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44), and head growth (about 0.45 mm/week; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70). These meta-analyses contained substantial heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available data do not provide evidence that the use of emollient therapy prevents invasive infection or death in preterm infants in high-, middle- or low-income settings. Some evidence of an effect of topical vegetable oils on neonatal growth exists but this should be interpreted with caution because lack of blinding may have introduced caregiver or assessment biases. Since these interventions are low cost, readily accessible, and generally acceptable, further randomised controlled trials, particularly in both community- and health care facility-based settings in low-income countries, may be justified.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Cross Infection; Dermatitis; Emollients; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Ointments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26824786
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001150.pub3 -
Ophthalmic Research 2021This review aims to summarise the role of different cells, genes, proteins and lipid in regulating cornea epithelial-stromal homeostasis.
INTRODUCTION
This review aims to summarise the role of different cells, genes, proteins and lipid in regulating cornea epithelial-stromal homeostasis.
METHODS
We performed an Entrez PubMed literature search using keywords "human," "cornea," "epithelial," "stromal," "homeostasis," "fibrosis response," and "pathogenesis" on 24th of September 2019, resulting in 35 papers, of which 18 were chosen after filtering for "English language" and "published within 10 years" as well as curation for relevance by the authors.
RESULTS
The 18 selected papers showed that corneal epithelial cells, fibroblasts and telocytes, together with genes such as Klf4, Pax6 and Id found in the cells, play important roles in achieving homeostasis to maintain corneal integrity and transparency. Proteins classified as pro-fibrotic ligands and anti-fibrotic ligands are responsible for regulating cornea stromal fibrosis and extracellular matrix deposition, thus regulators of scar formation during wound healing. Anti-inflammatory ligands and wound repairing ligands are critical in eliciting protective inflammation and promoting epithelial healing, respectively. Protein receptors located on cellular membrane play a role in maintaining intercellular connections as well as corneal hydration.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
These studies prompt development of novel therapeutic strategies such as tear drops or ointments that target certain proteins to maintain corneal homeostasis. However, more in vitro and in vivo studies are required to prove the effectiveness of exogenous administration of molecules in improving healing outcome. Hence, future investigations of the molecular pathways highlighted in this review will reveal novel therapeutic tools such as gene or cell therapy to treat corneal diseases.
Topics: Animals; Corneal Diseases; Corneal Stroma; Epithelium, Corneal; Homeostasis; Humans; Kruppel-Like Factor 4
PubMed: 32474566
DOI: 10.1159/000509030 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our...
BACKGROUND
Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents; Bias; Burns; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Facial Injuries; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32725896
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub3