-
Skin Research and Technology : Official... May 2024Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a rare condition characterized by localized pain and pruritus of the upper back, associated with a distinct area of hyperpigmentation....
BACKGROUND
Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a rare condition characterized by localized pain and pruritus of the upper back, associated with a distinct area of hyperpigmentation. Given the lack of standardized treatment and the uncertain efficacy of available options, applying procedural methods is of growing interest in treating NP.
AIMS
We sought to comprehensively evaluate the role of procedural treatments for NP.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science until November 14th, 2023. We also performed a citation search to detect all relevant studies. Original clinical studies published in the English language were included.
RESULTS
Out of 243 articles, sixteen studies have reported various procedural modalities, with or without pharmacological components, in treating NP. Pharmacological procedures, including injections of botulinum toxin, lidocaine, and corticosteroids, led to a level of improvement in case reports and case series. However, botulinum toxin did not show acceptable results in a clinical trial. Moreover, non-pharmacological procedures were as follows: physical therapy, exercise therapy, kinesiotherapy, acupuncture and dry needling, electrical muscle stimulation, surgical decompression, and phototherapy. These treatments result in significant symptom control in refractory cases. Physical therapy can be considered a first-line choice or an alternative in refractory cases.
CONCLUSION
Procedural modalities are critical in the multidisciplinary approach to NP, especially for patients who are refractory to topical and oral treatments. Procedural modalities include a spectrum of options that can be applied based on the disease's symptoms and severity.
Topics: Humans; Pruritus; Lidocaine; Paresthesia; Hyperpigmentation; Physical Therapy Modalities; Acupuncture Therapy; Botulinum Toxins; Anesthetics, Local; Exercise Therapy; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dry Needling
PubMed: 38696233
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13723 -
Endocrine Journal Sep 2020Androgen regulates the function of lacrimal and meibomian glands, and its deficiency is a pathological factor underlying dry eye disease (DED). However, no androgen has...
Androgen regulates the function of lacrimal and meibomian glands, and its deficiency is a pathological factor underlying dry eye disease (DED). However, no androgen has been approved for treating DED due to lack of definite evidence regarding its efficacy and safety in clinics. In this systematic review, we have summarized the clinical studies on the safety and efficacy of androgen replacement therapy (ART) for DED. Medline (via Pubmed), Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Wanfang and Chinese Clinical Trials Registry Database were searched for the relevant prospective studies, and 7 studies wherein androgen was applied topically via eye drops or systemically via oral or transdermal administration were included. The quality of these studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and methodological index for non-randomized studies. Most studies showed that androgen effectively improved dry eye-related symptoms and increased tear secretion. Furthermore, elderly men and peri-menopausal women with lower levels of circulating androgens responded better to ART. However, one study involving patients with Sjögren's syndrome showed no improvement in the ART group compared to the placebo control, or to the baseline level. Adverse effects were also common but limited to mild skin problems. In conclusion, androgen is a potential treatment for dry eye disease, especially for people with primary androgen deficiency. Short-term application is relatively safe.
Topics: Androgens; Dry Eye Syndromes; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32814731
DOI: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ20-0178 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause secondary infection in eczema, and may promote inflammation in eczema that does not look infected. There is no standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause secondary infection in eczema, and may promote inflammation in eczema that does not look infected. There is no standard intervention to reduce S. aureus burden in eczema. It is unclear whether antimicrobial treatments help eczema or promote bacterial resistance. This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions to reduce S. aureus for treating eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and three sets of conference proceedings. We checked references of trials and reviews for further relevant studies. We contacted pharmaceutical companies regarding ongoing and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of products intended to reduce S. aureus on the skin in people diagnosed with atopic eczema by a medical practitioner. Eligible comparators were a similar treatment regimen without the anti-staphylococcal agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our key outcomes were participant- or assessor-rated global improvement in symptoms/signs, quality of life (QOL), severe adverse events requiring withdrawal, minor adverse events, and emergence of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 studies (1753 analysed participants) covering 10 treatment categories. Studies were conducted mainly in secondary care in Western Europe; North America; the Far East; and elsewhere. Twelve studies recruited children; four, adults; 19, both; and six, unclear. Fifty-nine per cent of the studies reported the mean age of participants (range: 1.1 to 34.6 years). Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe. Many studies did not report our primary outcomes. Treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months; total study durations ranged from 15 weeks to 27 months. We considered 33 studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We present results for three key comparisons. All time point measurements were taken from baseline. We classed outcomes as short-term when treatment duration was less than four weeks, and long-term when treatment was given for more than four weeks. Fourteen studies evaluated topical steroid/antibiotic combinations compared to topical steroids alone (infective status: infected (two studies), not infected (four studies), unspecified (eight studies)). Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may lead to slightly greater global improvement in good or excellent signs/symptoms than topical steroid alone at 6 to 28 days follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.21; 224 participants; 3 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL in children, at 14 days follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.04; 42 participants; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: severe adverse events were rare (follow-up: between 6 to 28 days): both groups reported flare of dermatitis, worsening of the condition, and folliculitis (325 participants; 4 studies). There were fewer minor adverse events (e.g. flare, stinging, itch, folliculitis) in the combination group at 14 days follow-up (218 participants; 2 studies). One study reported antibiotic resistance in children at three months follow-up, with similar results between the groups (65 participants; 1 study). Four studies evaluated oral antibiotics compared to placebo (infective status: infected eczema (two studies), uninfected (one study), one study's participants had colonisation but no clinical infection). Oral antibiotics may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.50; 75 participants; 2 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL (in infants and children) at 14 days follow-up (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.32, 45 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal between 14 to 28 days follow-up were very rare, but included eczema worsening (both groups), loose stools (antibiotic group), and Henoch-Schönlein purpura (placebo group) (4 studies, 199 participants). Minor adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and stomach and joint pains, at 28 days follow-up were also rare and generally low in both groups (1 study, 68 infants and children). Antibiotic resistance at 14 days was reported as similar in both groups (2 studies, 98 infants and children). Of five studies evaluating bleach baths compared to placebo (water) or bath emollient (infective status: uninfected (two studies), unspecified (three studies)), one reported global improvement and showed that bleach baths may make no difference when compared with placebo at one month follow-up (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.63; 36 participants; low-quality evidence). One study showed there is probably little or no difference in QOL at 28 days follow-up when comparing bleach baths to placebo (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12) (80 infants and children; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain if the groups differ in the likelihood of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events at two months follow-up (only one dropout reported due to worsening itch (placebo group)) as the quality of evidence was very low (1 study, 42 participants). One study reported that five participants in each group experienced burning/stinging or dry skin at two months follow-up, so there may be no difference in minor adverse events between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87, 36 participants, low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence means we are also uncertain if antibiotic resistance at four weeks follow-up is different between groups (1 study, 80 participants ≤ 18 years).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence on the effects of anti-staphylococcal treatments for treating people with infected or uninfected eczema. Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult. Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Eczema; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 31684694
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003871.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure (primary closure). The surgeon covers the closed surgical wound with either a dressing or adhesive tape. The dressing can act as a physical barrier to protect the wound until the continuity of the skin is restored (within about 48 hours) and to absorb exudate from the wound, keeping it dry and clean, and preventing bacterial contamination from the external environment. Some studies have found that the moist environment created by some dressings accelerates wound healing, although others believe that the moist environment can be a disadvantage, as excessive exudate can cause maceration (softening and deterioration) of the wound and the surrounding healthy tissue. The utility of dressing surgical wounds beyond 48 hours of surgery is, therefore, controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and risks of removing a dressing covering a closed surgical incision site within 48 hours permanently (early dressing removal) or beyond 48 hours of surgery permanently with interim dressing changes allowed (delayed dressing removal), on surgical site infection.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2015 we searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further potentially-relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted with people of any age and sex, undergoing a surgical procedure, who had their wound closed and a dressing applied. We included only trials that compared early versus delayed dressing removal. We excluded trials that included people with contaminated or dirty wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised studies, and other study designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics of the trial participants, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes for each trial. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We used RevMan 5 software to perform these calculations.
MAIN RESULTS
Four trials were identified for inclusion in this review. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Three trials provided information for this review. Overall, this review included 280 people undergoing planned surgery. Participants were randomised to early dressing removal (removal of the wound dressing within the 48 hours following surgery) (n = 140) or delayed dressing removal (continued dressing of the wound beyond 48 hours) (n = 140) in the three trials. There were no statistically significant differences between the early dressing removal group and delayed dressing removal group in the proportion of people who developed superficial surgical site infection within 30 days (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.28), superficial wound dehiscence within 30 days (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.16) or serious adverse events within 30 days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51). No deep wound infection or deep wound dehiscence occurred in any of the participants in the trials that reported this outcome. None of the trials reported quality of life. The hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -2.82 to -1.18) and the total cost of treatment significantly less (MD EUR -36.00; 95% CI -59.81 to -12.19) in the early dressing removal group than in the delayed dressing removal group in the only trial that reported these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The early removal of dressings from clean or clean contaminated surgical wounds appears to have no detrimental effect on outcomes. However, it should be noted that the point estimate supporting this statement is based on very low quality evidence from three small randomised controlled trials, and the confidence intervals around this estimate were wide. Early dressing removal may result in a significantly shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced costs, than covering the surgical wound with wound dressings beyond the first 48 hours after surgery, according to very low quality evidence from one small randomised controlled trial. Further randomised controlled trials of low risk of bias are necessary to investigate whether dressings are necessary after 48 hours in different types of surgery and levels of contamination and investigate whether antibiotic therapy influences the outcome.
Topics: Bandages; Early Medical Intervention; Hospital Costs; Humans; Length of Stay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors; Wound Closure Techniques; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26331392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010259.pub3 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2020The aim was to determine the effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques (MIT) in patients with patellar tendinopathy. Database searches were performed for randomized...
The aim was to determine the effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques (MIT) in patients with patellar tendinopathy. Database searches were performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases (WOS, Cochrane Central, SportDiscus, and Medline via PubMed and PEDro). The inclusion criteria used were published in English or Spanish and involving adults with patellar tendinopathy (pain on the inferior pole of the patella for a minimum of 3 months), with at least one group receiving MIT. The quality of the relevant RCTs was evaluated using the PEDro scale. The primary outcome was functionality using the VISA-p questionnaire. Secondary outcome was focused on pain. A total of 1164 studies were screened for possible inclusion in our systematic review. Finally, 10 RCTs were included with a total of 326 individuals. Five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The quality assessment revealed that all the studies included were considered to possess high methodological quality. All studies analyzing MIT such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), dry needling, or skin-derived tenocyte-like cells, when combined with exercise, proved to be effective for patellar tendinopathy. Moreover, the PRP technique with doses greater than 4 mL together and combined with an exercise program lasting over 6 weeks obtained better results in functionality and pain than other treatments in the short term. However, in the long term, dry needling and skin-derived tenocyte-like cells are more effective than PRP. Although the infiltration of drugs was effective at posttreatment, these improvements were not maintained over time and may have secondary effects. Although there are no RCTs analyzing the effectiveness of MIT like percutaneous needle electrolysis, there has been an increasing number of publications achieving excellent results in the last years. However, it is necessary to develop RCTs analyzing not only the effect but also comparing the effectiveness between different MIT such as dry needling and percutaneous needle electrolysis.
PubMed: 32963575
DOI: 10.1155/2020/8706283