Pariser David M
Dr. Pariser is with the Department of Dermatology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Virginia Clinical Research, Inc. in Norfolk, Virginia.
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Apr;15(4):40-43.
There have been multiple direct and indirect comparison studies evaluating different field therapies used in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). A recent clinical trial directly compared 5% fluorouracil (5-FU), imiquimod, ingenol mebutate, and methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT), reporting that 5-FU was superior to the other treatments in achieving sustained clearance of 75 percent or greater of AK lesions compared to baseline. In this commentary, the author reviews and discusses the methods and results of this comparison study and propose these results are limited by a number of factors, such as the selected primary % clearance endpoint, grade range of included AKs, and treatments included in the comparison, when considered in the context of other clinical and real-world comparison studies evaluating AK field therapies. The author postulates that patient acceptance of and adherence to field therapy regimens for the treatment of AK may be better evaluated in a real-world setting. Additionally, the author suggests that selection of field therapy in the treatment of AK should be driven by consideration of relevant patient-, disease-, and treatment-related factors, and what is considered best may differ from patient to patient, depending on each patient's individual needs and expectations.
已有多项直接和间接比较研究评估了用于治疗光化性角化病(AK)的不同局部治疗方法。最近一项临床试验直接比较了5%氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)、咪喹莫特、鬼臼毒素酊和甲基氨基酮戊酸光动力疗法(MAL-PDT),报告称与基线相比,5-FU在使75%或更多的AK病变实现持续清除方面优于其他治疗方法。在这篇评论中,作者回顾并讨论了这项比较研究的方法和结果,并提出这些结果受到一些因素的限制,比如所选的主要清除率终点、纳入的AK的分级范围以及比较中包含的治疗方法,当在评估AK局部治疗方法的其他临床和现实世界比较研究的背景下考虑时。作者推测,在现实世界环境中可能能更好地评估患者对AK局部治疗方案的接受度和依从性。此外,作者建议,在选择AK的局部治疗方法时,应考虑相关的患者、疾病和治疗相关因素,而且被认为最佳的治疗方法可能因患者而异,这取决于每个患者的个体需求和期望。