BMC infectious diseases · 2024
Comparing the efficacy of fluconazole and cryotherapy Versus cryotherapy alone on treating cutaneous leishmaniasis: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parhizkar Ahmad Reza, Sharafi Mehdi, Mansuri Susan, Hadibarhaghtalab Maryam, Afrashteh Sima, Fatemian Hossein, Chijan Mahsa Rostami
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) is one of the highly prevalent endemic diseases in the Middle East. The disease is a complex skin infection imposing a heavy burden on many developing countries. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of adding oral fluconazole to topical cryotherapy on the treatment efficacy and time to achieve complete recovery of CL lesions.
METHOD: This triple-blind randomized clinical trial included 52 participants with CL. Participants were allocated to receive either weekly cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen and oral fluconazole at a dose of 6 mg/kg daily at a maximum of 400 mg for 6 weeks as the interventional arm or weekly cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen plus the placebo for the same period of 6 weeks as the control arm.
RESULTS: Fifty-two eligible participants enrolled the study, with a CL lesion count of 1 to 8 (mean 1.96), and served as the interventional (n = 28) and control (n = 24) arms. The trend of the mean surface area of the lesions was significantly decreasing in both arms (P < 0.001), with no statistically significant difference between arms (P = 0.133) or all assessed time point pairwise comparisons (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in terms of the end-point recovery status (P = 0.491) or the frequency of post-treatment secretion (P = 0.437). No adverse effect was observed.
CONCLUSION: Despite a slightly higher reduction in the lesion surface in the cryotherapy and fluconazole treatment arm, the addition of fluconazole did not provide statistically significant therapeutic value to cryotherapy in the treatment of CL. However, with adjustment for the initial lesion size, the efficacy of the regimen in the interventional arm was more pronounced, though it was still insignificant.
METHOD: This triple-blind randomized clinical trial included 52 participants with CL. Participants were allocated to receive either weekly cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen and oral fluconazole at a dose of 6 mg/kg daily at a maximum of 400 mg for 6 weeks as the interventional arm or weekly cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen plus the placebo for the same period of 6 weeks as the control arm.
RESULTS: Fifty-two eligible participants enrolled the study, with a CL lesion count of 1 to 8 (mean 1.96), and served as the interventional (n = 28) and control (n = 24) arms. The trend of the mean surface area of the lesions was significantly decreasing in both arms (P < 0.001), with no statistically significant difference between arms (P = 0.133) or all assessed time point pairwise comparisons (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in terms of the end-point recovery status (P = 0.491) or the frequency of post-treatment secretion (P = 0.437). No adverse effect was observed.
CONCLUSION: Despite a slightly higher reduction in the lesion surface in the cryotherapy and fluconazole treatment arm, the addition of fluconazole did not provide statistically significant therapeutic value to cryotherapy in the treatment of CL. However, with adjustment for the initial lesion size, the efficacy of the regimen in the interventional arm was more pronounced, though it was still insignificant.