Thomas K S, Batchelor J M, Akram P, Chalmers J R, Haines R H, Meakin G D, Duley L, Ravenscroft J C, Rogers A, Sach T H, Santer M, Tan W, White J, Whitton M E, Williams H C, Cheung S T, Hamad H, Wright A, Ingram J R, Levell N J, Goulding J M R, Makrygeorgou A, Bewley A, Ogboli M, Stainforth J, Ferguson A, Laguda B, Wahie S, Ellis R, Azad J, Rajasekaran A, Eleftheriadou V, Montgomery A A
Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Br J Dermatol. 2021 May;184(5):828-839. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19592. Epub 2020 Dec 28.
Evidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited.
To determine the effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB, compared with TCS alone, for localized vitiligo.
A pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (9-month treatment, 12-month follow-up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and the community, aged ≥ 5 years and with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin, were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive TCS (mometasone furoate 0·1% ointment + dummy NB-UVB), NB-UVB (NB-UVB + placebo TCS) or a combination (TCS + NB-UVB). TCS was applied once daily on alternating weeks; NB-UVB was administered on alternate days in escalating doses, adjusted for erythema. The primary outcome was treatment success at 9 months at a target patch assessed using the participant-reported Vitiligo Noticeability Scale, with multiple imputation for missing data. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015.
In total 517 participants were randomized to TCS (n = 173), NB-UVB (n = 169) and combination (n = 175). Primary outcome data were available for 370 (72%) participants. The proportions with target patch treatment success were 17% (TCS), 22% (NB-UVB) and 27% (combination). Combination treatment was superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 10·9% (95% confidence interval 1·0%-20·9%; P = 0·032; number needed to treat = 10). NB-UVB alone was not superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 5·2% (95% CI - 4·4% to 14·9%; P = 0·29; number needed to treat = 19). Participants using interventions with ≥ 75% expected adherence were more likely to achieve treatment success, but the effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localized grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including three with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2·5%) participants (including one with placebo ointment).
Combination treatment with home-based handheld NB-UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localized vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was successful in only around one-quarter of participants.
白癜风治疗有效性的证据有限。
确定(i)手持式窄谱中波紫外线(NB-UVB)以及(ii)强效外用糖皮质激素(TCS)与NB-UVB联合使用,相较于单独使用TCS,对局限性白癜风的疗效。
一项实用的三臂、安慰剂对照随机对照试验(9个月治疗期,12个月随访期)。从二级医疗保健机构和社区招募年龄≥5岁、患有活动性白癜风且受累皮肤面积小于10%的成人和儿童,按1:1:1随机分组,分别接受TCS(糠酸莫米松0.1%软膏+模拟NB-UVB)、NB-UVB(NB-UVB+安慰剂TCS)或联合治疗(TCS+NB-UVB)。TCS每隔一周每日使用一次;NB-UVB隔日给药,剂量逐渐增加,并根据红斑情况进行调整。主要结局是在9个月时使用患者报告的白癜风可见度量表评估目标皮损的治疗成功情况,对缺失数据进行多重填补。该试验于2015年1月8日注册,注册号为ISRCTN17160087。
共有517名参与者被随机分配至TCS组(n = 173)、NB-UVB组(n = 169)和联合治疗组(n = 175)。370名(72%)参与者有主要结局数据。目标皮损治疗成功的比例分别为17%(TCS组)、22%(NB-UVB组)和27%(联合治疗组)。联合治疗优于TCS:调整后的组间差异为10.9%(95%置信区间1.0%-20.9%;P = 0.032;需治疗人数 = 10)。单独使用NB-UVB并不优于TCS:调整后的组间差异为5.2%(95%CI -4.4%至14.9%;P = 0.29;需治疗人数 = 19)。使用依从性≥75%的干预措施的参与者更有可能获得治疗成功,但治疗停止后效果消失。62名(12%)参与者报告有局限性3级或4级红斑(包括3名接受模拟光照者)。13名(2.5%)参与者报告有皮肤变薄(包括1名使用安慰剂软膏者)。
对于局限性白癜风的治疗,家庭手持式NB-UVB联合TCS的联合治疗可能优于单独使用TCS。联合治疗相对安全且耐受性良好,但仅约四分之一的参与者治疗成功。