Suppr超能文献

传统低剂量和间歇性口服异维 A 酸治疗痤疮的疗效:一项随机对照比较研究。

Effectiveness of conventional, low-dose and intermittent oral isotretinoin in the treatment of acne: a randomized, controlled comparative study.

机构信息

Department of Dermatology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul 156-755, Korea.

出版信息

Br J Dermatol. 2011 Jun;164(6):1369-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10152.x. Epub 2011 May 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of conventional isotretinoin treatment (0·5-1·0 mg kg⁻¹ daily for 16-32 weeks, reaching a cumulative dose of 120 mg kg⁻¹) for acne has been well established. To date, there are many reports regarding the efficacy of low-dose and intermittent isotretinoin treatment in patients with acne. Data comparing these three therapeutic regimens simultaneously, however, are unavailable.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of low-dose and intermittent isotretinoin regimens and to compare them directly with conventional isotretinoin treatment.

METHODS

In this study, 60 patients with moderate acne were enrolled and randomized to receive either isotretinoin at 0·5-0·7 mg kg⁻¹ daily (group A), isotretinoin at 0·25-0·4 mg kg⁻¹ daily (group B) or isotretinoin at 0·5-0·7 mg kg⁻¹ daily for 1 week out of every 4 weeks (group C). The total period of drug administration was 6 weeks in group C, and 24 weeks in groups A and B. Evaluations included global acne grading system (GAGS) scores, lesion counts (inflammatory and noninflammatory), patient satisfaction and side-effects. A 1-year follow-up evaluation after the end of treatment was also performed.

RESULTS

Differences in GAGS scores were statistically significant between groups A and C (P < 0·001) and groups B and C (P = 0·044). There was no significant difference between groups A and B. For the number of inflammatory lesions, there were statistically significant differences between groups B and C (P = 0·048) and groups C and A (P = 0·005). There was no significant difference between groups A and B. For the number of noninflammatory lesions, there were statistically significant differences between groups B and C (P = 0·046) and groups C and A (P=0·006). There was no significant difference between groups A and B. These results suggest that the conventional and low-dose regimens have similar efficacy. Intermittent treatment had less effect than either conventional or low-dose treatments. Patient satisfaction was highest in group B (3·76), followed by group C (3·31), then A (3·06), with statistically significant differences between groups A and B (P = 0·003) and groups B and C (P = 0·019) but no significant difference between groups A and C. This result suggests that the low-dose regimen is superior to other regimens (conventional or intermittent) in terms of patient satisfaction. Side-effects were more frequent with conventional treatment compared with low-dose and intermittent treatments. One year after the end of treatment, two of 16 patients relapsed in group A, three of 17 patients relapsed in group B, and nine of 16 patients relapsed in group C.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that, when considering tolerability, efficacy and patient satisfaction, low-dose treatment is most suitable for patients with moderate acne.

摘要

背景

常规异维 A 酸治疗(每日 0.5-1.0mg/kg,持续 16-32 周,累积剂量达到 120mg/kg)治疗痤疮的疗效已得到充分证实。迄今为止,有许多关于低剂量和间歇性异维 A 酸治疗痤疮患者的疗效的报告。然而,目前尚无同时比较这三种治疗方案的数据。

目的

评估低剂量和间歇性异维 A 酸治疗方案的临床疗效和耐受性,并直接比较它们与常规异维 A 酸治疗的效果。

方法

本研究纳入了 60 例中重度痤疮患者,随机分为三组,分别接受 0.5-0.7mg/kg 每日剂量的异维 A 酸(A 组)、0.25-0.4mg/kg 每日剂量的异维 A 酸(B 组)或 0.5-0.7mg/kg 每周服用 1 次的间歇性异维 A 酸治疗(C 组)。C 组的总用药时间为 6 周,A 组和 B 组的总用药时间为 24 周。评估包括全球痤疮分级系统(GAGS)评分、皮损计数(炎性和非炎性)、患者满意度和不良反应。治疗结束后还进行了为期 1 年的随访评估。

结果

A 组和 C 组(P<0.001)以及 B 组和 C 组(P=0.044)之间的 GAGS 评分差异具有统计学意义。A 组和 B 组之间没有显著差异。对于炎性皮损数量,B 组和 C 组(P=0.048)以及 C 组和 A 组(P=0.005)之间存在统计学差异。A 组和 B 组之间没有显著差异。对于非炎性皮损数量,B 组和 C 组(P=0.046)以及 C 组和 A 组(P=0.006)之间存在统计学差异。A 组和 B 组之间没有显著差异。这些结果表明常规和低剂量方案具有相似的疗效。间歇性治疗的效果不如常规或低剂量治疗。B 组患者的满意度最高(3.76),其次是 C 组(3.31),然后是 A 组(3.06),A 组与 B 组(P=0.003)和 B 组与 C 组(P=0.019)之间差异具有统计学意义,但 A 组与 C 组之间无显著差异。这表明低剂量方案在患者满意度方面优于其他方案(常规或间歇性)。与低剂量和间歇性治疗相比,常规治疗的不良反应更频繁。治疗结束 1 年后,A 组有 2 例患者复发,B 组有 3 例患者复发,C 组有 9 例患者复发。

结论

我们的研究表明,在考虑耐受性、疗效和患者满意度时,低剂量治疗最适合中重度痤疮患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验