Sachan Suvigya, Sethy Mitanjali, Chatterjee Shibashis, Besra Laxman, Sahu Satyajit, Kar Hemanta K
Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprosy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, IND.
Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprosy, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Cureus. 2025 May 7;17(5):e83684. doi: 10.7759/cureus.83684. eCollection 2025 May.
Palmoplantar hyperkeratotic eczema is quite disabling and affects a person's daily quality of life. Among the various treatment options available, oral methotrexate was quite effective. However, it was associated with systemic and cutaneous side effects. Therefore, delivery of methotrexate through Iontophoresis was an option to reduce the adverse effects and to enhance the absorption and efficacy.
To observe the efficacy and the adverse effects of methotrexate iontophoresis as compared to oral methotrexate therapy in the treatment of hyperkeratotic palmoplantar eczema.
This unblinded, randomized, parallel-group controlled trial included 88 patients. Group A (= 44, 50%) received weekly iontophoresis of injectable methotrexate for four weeks, then biweekly for up to three months. Group B ( = 44, 50%) received oral methotrexate (7.5 mg/week) with gradual dose increases. Efficacy was assessed using Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) scores, digital photography, and follow-up evaluations conducted three months after study completion.
Both groups showed significant improvement in HECSI scores ( < 0.05) for palms and soles, with no statistical difference in percentage improvement. Group A reported cutaneous side effects like blistering and itching, while Group B had systemic side effects, including headache, nausea, and elevated liver enzymes. Relapse rates were 9.1% ( = 4) in Group A and 2.27% ( = 1) in Group B.
Iontophoretic delivery of methotrexate in palmoplantar hyperkeratotic eczema was equally effective as oral methotrexate.
掌跖角化性湿疹极具致残性,会影响患者的日常生活质量。在现有的各种治疗方案中,口服甲氨蝶呤颇为有效。然而,它会引发全身和皮肤方面的副作用。因此,通过离子电渗疗法给药甲氨蝶呤是一种既能减少不良反应,又能增强吸收和疗效的选择。
观察甲氨蝶呤离子电渗疗法与口服甲氨蝶呤疗法在治疗掌跖角化性湿疹方面的疗效及不良反应。
这项非盲、随机、平行组对照试验纳入了88例患者。A组(n = 44,50%)接受每周一次的注射用甲氨蝶呤离子电渗疗法,持续四周,之后每两周一次,持续三个月。B组(n = 44,50%)接受口服甲氨蝶呤(7.5毫克/周),并逐渐增加剂量。使用手部湿疹严重程度指数(HECSI)评分、数码摄影以及在研究结束三个月后进行的随访评估来评估疗效。
两组患者手掌和脚底的HECSI评分均有显著改善(P < 0.05),改善百分比无统计学差异。A组报告有皮肤副作用,如起泡和瘙痒,而B组有全身副作用,包括头痛、恶心和肝酶升高。A组的复发率为9.1%(n = 4),B组为2.27%(n = 1)。
甲氨蝶呤离子电渗疗法治疗掌跖角化性湿疹的效果与口服甲氨蝶呤相当。