Annals of dermatology · 2021
Clindamycin Mono-Therapy of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
An Ji Hae, Moon Su Jin, Shin Jung U, Kim Dong Hyun, Yoon Moon Soo, Lee Hee Jung
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A rifampicin (RF)-clindamycin (CL) combination therapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Although the long-term use of RF requires caution due to the possibility of developing resistant bacteria, only a few studies have investigated alternatives for this combination therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of systemic CL mono-therapy and assess the prevalence and CL resistance of bacterial growth in HS patients.
METHODS: A total of 53 HS patients treated with CL mono-therapy were included. The efficacy was evaluated by identifying the rate of HS Clinical Response (Hi-SCR) achievers and comparing HS Physician's Global Assessment (HS-PGA) before (W0) and after (W8) the treatment. Purulent material from HS skin lesions was collected on the W0. Bacterial flora and antibiotic sensitivity were determined by bacterial cultures.
RESULTS: Of 53 HS patients, 34 were eligible for evaluation of the efficacy of the therapy. Twenty-one patients (61.76%) achieved Hi-SCR. The mean scoring of HS-PGA had significantly decreased from 3.24 to 2.15 (p=0.001). The prevalence of CL resistance was 15.00%. No significant differences in the efficacy of the therapy according to the presence of CL-resistant bacteria on the W0 were observed (p=0.906). Adverse events occurred in 26.42% of patients.
CONCLUSION: Systemic CL mono-therapy may be a safe and useful alternative to RF-CL combination therapy, and no significant difference in the efficacy of the therapy depending on the presence of CL-resistant bacteria was observed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of systemic CL mono-therapy and assess the prevalence and CL resistance of bacterial growth in HS patients.
METHODS: A total of 53 HS patients treated with CL mono-therapy were included. The efficacy was evaluated by identifying the rate of HS Clinical Response (Hi-SCR) achievers and comparing HS Physician's Global Assessment (HS-PGA) before (W0) and after (W8) the treatment. Purulent material from HS skin lesions was collected on the W0. Bacterial flora and antibiotic sensitivity were determined by bacterial cultures.
RESULTS: Of 53 HS patients, 34 were eligible for evaluation of the efficacy of the therapy. Twenty-one patients (61.76%) achieved Hi-SCR. The mean scoring of HS-PGA had significantly decreased from 3.24 to 2.15 (p=0.001). The prevalence of CL resistance was 15.00%. No significant differences in the efficacy of the therapy according to the presence of CL-resistant bacteria on the W0 were observed (p=0.906). Adverse events occurred in 26.42% of patients.
CONCLUSION: Systemic CL mono-therapy may be a safe and useful alternative to RF-CL combination therapy, and no significant difference in the efficacy of the therapy depending on the presence of CL-resistant bacteria was observed.