Scabies in the Philippines: A secondary analysis of local patient registries

Background@#Scabies is the second most common cause of disability among skin diseases in the Philippines as of 2019. There is no large nationwide study describing the epidemiologic profile of scabies in the country. Objective. This study aimed to describe the demographic, seasonal, and geographic profile of scabies in the Philippines.@*Methods@# We compared secondary data of two local patient registries (Philippine Dermatological Society, PDS, 2010 to 2021; and Philippine Pediatric Society, PPS, 2009 to 2021) for reported cases of scabies in the Philippines. We reported the frequency and percentage distribution according to age, sex, month, year, and type of diagnosis, and region. @*Results@#The median annual frequency of scabies cases (mostly outpatient) for PDS (from year 2010) was 4087 (range ([QR], 342-6422 [3271.5]), while it was 183 (range [IQR], 64-234 [96.5]) (all inpatient) for PPS (from year 2009). There was a reduction to one-third (PDS) and one-fourth (PPS) of pre-pandemic numbers during the pandemic years (2020- 2021). The peak months for scabies cases were the cooler months: January (median, 12.1% of annual cases; range [IQR], 2.6%-31.4% [3.6%]) to February (median, 10.0% of annual cases; range [IQR], 1.5%-27.8% [2.5%]) based on PDS data, and November (median, 10.0% of annual cases; range [IQR], 0.0%-24.3% [7.0%]) to January (median, 9.0% of annual cases; range [IQR], 0.0%-24.3% [6.6%]) for PPS data. Overall, for PDS, age 1-4 years is the most affected age group (median, PDS, 17.5% of annual cases; range [IQR], 11.9%-25.4% [8.1%]), while it was the less than 1-yearolds (median annual cases, 48.9%; range [IQR], 29.1%-67.3% [13.20%]) among PPS pediatric population aged 0 to 18 years. Males (median, 53.9% of annual cases; range [IQR], 45.0%-67.2% [8.8%]) were more affected than females in PPS. While for PDS during earlier years (prior to 2015), males (median, 51.6% of annual cases from 2010 to 2014; range [IQR], 47.4%-52.9% [0.2%]) were more affected than females. However, males became less affected than females with median, 44.7% of annual cases from 2015 onwards (range [IQR], 43.4%-46.5% [1.2%]). NCR was the region with the highest frequency of cases in PPS (median, 52.6% of annual cases; range [IQR], 22.7%-75.0% [20.4%]). The 2nd most affected regions were Central/Eastern Visayas (34.2%, 2009-2013; range [IQR], 17.9%-54.1% [5.3%]), Bicol region (12%; 2014 to 2018; range [IQR], 17.9%-54.1% [7.4%]), Central Luzon (18%; 2019), Central/Eastern Visayas (29%, 2020), and Northern/Central Mindanao (17%, 2021). @*Conclusion@#Scabies was commonly seen in the younger age group, slightly more in females in the PDS, while slightly more among males in the PPS, in the cooler months of the year, and in the urbanized NCR.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on synthetic antifungal versus keratolytic agents for topical treatment of Pityriasis Versicolor

Background@#Pityriasis versicolor is a common fungal infection of the superficial skin layer caused by Malassezia furfur, a normal commensal in the skin. Keratolytic agents are popular, cheap, and readily available over-the-counter treatments for pityriasis versicolor. Conventional antifungal agents are more expensive, requiring prescription, and may induce resistant strains. However, evidence of their comparative safety and efficacy is still lacking. @*Objectives@#To assess the efficacy and safety of synthetic antifungals compared to keratolytic agents in the topical treatment of pityriasis versicolor through a systematic review.@*Methods@#We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (from 1966) through PubMed, CENTRAL (Issue 9 of 12, September 2021), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1987); Herdin (from 1970), www.clinicaltrials.gov, www. isrctn.com, www.trialregister.nl. We contacted researchers in the field, hand searched relevant conference abstracts, and the Journal of the Philippine Dermatological Society 1992-2019. We included all randomized controlled trials involving patients with diagnosed active pityriasis versicolor where topical antifungal was compared with a topical keratolytic for treatment. Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane collaboration tool, and extracted data from included studies. We used RevMan 5.3 to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD), using random-effects meta-analysis. We tested for statistical heterogeneity using both the Chi² test and the I² test. We presented results using forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to create a funnel plot to determine publication bias but were unable to due to few studies. A Summary of Findings table was created using GRADE profile software for the primary outcomes. @*Results@#We included 8 RCTs with a total of 617 participants that compared azole preparations (ketoconazole, bifonazole and econazole) versus keratolytic agents (selenium sulfide, adapalene, salicylic-benzoic acid). Pooled data showed that azoles did not significantly differ from keratolytic agents for clinical cure (RR 0.99, 0.88, 1.12; 4 RCTs, N=274, I2=55%; very low-quality evidence), and adverse events (0.59 [0.17, 2.06]; very low-quality evidence) based on 6 RCTs (N=536). There were two patients given a keratolytic agent (selenium sulfide shampoo) who had acute dermatitis and discontinued treatment. @*Conclusion@#It is uncertain whether topical azoles are as effective as keratolytic agents in clinical clearance and occurrence of adverse events in patients with pityriasis versicolor. A wider search of grey literature and local studies are warranted. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are recommended.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on Synthetic Antifungal versus Keratolytic Agents for Topical Treatment of Pityriasis Versicolor

Background@#Pityriasis versicolor is a common fungal infection of the superficial skin layer caused by Malassezia furfur, a normal commensal in the skin. Keratolytic agents are popular, cheap, and readily available over-the-counter treatments for pityriasis versicolor. Conventional antifungal agents are more expensive, requiring prescription, and may induce resistant strains. However, evidence of their comparative safety and efficacy is still lacking. @*Objectives@#To assess the efficacy and safety of synthetic antifungals compared to keratolytic agents in the topical treatment of pityriasis versicolor through a systematic review. @*Methods@#We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (from 1966) through PubMed, CENTRAL (Issue 9 of 12, September 2021), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1987); Herdin (from 1970), www.clinicaltrials.gov, www. isrctn.com, www.trialregister.nl. We contacted researchers in the field, hand searched relevant conference abstracts, and the Journal of the Philippine Dermatological Society 1992-2019. We included all randomized controlled trials involving patients with diagnosed active pityriasis versicolor where topical antifungal was compared with a topical keratolytic for treatment. Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane collaboration tool, and extracted data from included studies. We used RevMan 5.3 to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD), using random-effects meta-analysis. We tested for statistical heterogeneity using both the Chi² test and the I² test. We presented results using forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to create a funnel plot to determine publication bias but were unable to due to few studies. A Summary of Findings table was created using GRADE profile software for the primary outcomes. @*Results@#We included 8 RCTs with a total of 617 participants that compared azole preparations (ketoconazole, bifonazole and econazole) versus keratolytic agents (selenium sulfide, adapalene, salicylic-benzoic acid). Pooled data showed that azoles did not significantly differ from keratolytic agents for clinical cure (RR 0.99, 0.88, 1.12; 4 RCTs, N=274, I2=55%; very low-quality evidence), and adverse events (0.59 [0.17, 2.06]; very low-quality evidence) based on 6 RCTs (N=536). There were two patients given a keratolytic agent (selenium sulfide shampoo) who had acute dermatitis and discontinued treatment. @*Conclusion@#It is uncertain whether topical azoles are as effective as keratolytic agents in clinical clearance and occurrence of adverse events in patients with pityriasis versicolor. A wider search of grey literature and local studies are warranted. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are recommended.

Rapid review on the use of personal protective equipment in the wards, intensive care unit and emergency room in the prevention of COVID-19 infection

Objective@#We investigated the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on prevention of COVID-19 on health care workers (HCW) assigned in the wards, intensive care (ICU) and emergency room (ER). @*Methods@#We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL as of 30 April 2021, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites. We included studies that compared use of PPE versus no use in the prevention of COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE approach. @*Results@#Five observational studies (three cohort and two case control) were found. There was moderate certainty of evidence that the use of Level 2 PPE (OR 0.03 [95% CI 0, 0.19]; 1 study, n = 5542) was protective for HCW. Level 2 PPE used N95 or higher standard respirators, goggles/protective mask, medical protective clothing and disposable hats, gloves and shoe covers. We also confirmed with moderate certainty evidence the protective use of N95 respirators (OR 0.035 [95% CI 0.002, 0.603]; 1 study, n = 493). There was very low certainty of evidence that demonstrated the protective effect of face shield (OR 0.338 [95% CI 0.272, 0.420]; 2 studies, n = 6717, I2 = 45% P < 0.00001). Very low certainty of evidence showed no significance difference with use of face/surgical mask (OR 1.40 [95% CI 0.30, 6.42]; 1 study, n = 186), gowns (OR 0.768 [95% 0.314, 1.876]; 1 study, n = 179) and disposable gloves (OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.13, 2.90]; 1 study, n = 179) when attending to patients with COVID-19. @*Conclusion@#There was lower odds of COVID-19 infection in HCW assigned to the wards, ICU and ER with possible direct contact with COVID-19 patients who wear Level 2 PPE including N95 respirators and face shields.

Should vitamin D supplements be used as adjunct treatment for COVID-19: A rapid review

Background@#Pooled data from observational studies suggest that patients with serum vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL had an increased risk of infection and mortality from COVID-19. This rapid review aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of vitamin D as an adjunct treatment for COVID-19. @*Methods@#We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and CENTRAL up to July 18, 2021. We also searched trial registries, gray literature, and reference lists of included and excluded studies in the search as well as COVID-19 guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, collected data, and assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted, and an evidence profile table using GRADEpro was generated. Outcomes included were mortality, need for mechanical ventilator or progression of oxygen support, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, hospital length of stay, SARS-CoV-2 positivity at day 21, and adverse events.@*Results@#We found four RCTs (3 low risk of bias and 1 high risk of bias). The sources of bias among the RCTs were unclear allocation, lack of blinding of patients, caregivers, and outcome assessors, and high drop-out rate. This rapid review found that the effects of vitamin D are inconclusive for the following outcomes: mortality (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI [0.16 to 2.41], I2=49%; n=443, 3 RCTs, very low certainty of evidence), need for mechanical ventilator or progression of oxygen support (RR 0.52, 95% CI [0.24 to 1.13], n=237, 1 RCT, low certainty of evidence), and ICU admission (pooled RR 0.37, 95% CI [0.09 to 1.61], I2=78%; n=443, 3 RCTs, very low certainty of evidence. No significant reduction in hospital length of stay was found among those treated with vitamin D (MD 0 days, 95% CI [-1.19 to 1.09], low certainty of evidence). The duration of mechanical ventilation was also was also not significantly shortened in the treatment group (15 days) compared with placebo (12.8 days), MD 2.2 days, 95% CI [-8.4 to 12.8], low certainty of evidence. Interestingly, a higher proportion of those supplemented with vitamin D showed virologic clearance for COVID-19 on day 21 (RR 3.0, 95% CI [1.26 to 7.14], n=40, 1 RCT). At dosages between 60,000 to 200,000 IU of cholecalciferol, only one episode of vomiting (0.8%) was reported. @*Conclusion@#Based on the evidence found, we are uncertain whether vitamin D is beneficial or harmful for patients with COVID-19. There is very low certainty of evidence to recommend the use of vitamin D supplements as an adjunct treatment for patients with COVID-19. Vitamin D supplementation for patients with COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trials or among those with proven vitamin D deficiency. More published studies are awaited to explore the benefit or harm of vitamin D for COVID-19.

Rapid review: Diagnostic accuracy of pooled Testing versus individual testing using RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 for screening and surveillance of individuals with suspected COVID-19

Background@#Pooled testing has been implemented on a limited scale, mainly for screening and surveillance in populations with a low prevalence of COVID-19 to save on limited resources. @*Objective@#To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pooled compared with individual RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in individuals suspected of COVID-19.@*Methods@#We searched websites of living CPGs on COVID-19 (Australian COVID-19, COVID NMA, CEBM Oxford), Philippine DOH HTA, databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, medRXIV/bioRXIV), and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies that used pooled testing on individuals suspected of COVID-19. When appropriate, we pooled data for sensitivity and specificity and obtained the range and median of other data, such as positive predictive value and resource savings. We did a priori subgroup analysis for pool size, presence or absence of symptoms and use case, type of specimen, cutoff for positivity, type of kit, and post hoc subgroup analysis for method of pooling and timing of processing. @*Results@#We included 21 studies: 6 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 15 clinical validation studies. Studies had varying populations, index test kit and performance characteristics, positivity rate (0.02 to 15%), and pool size (5 to 16). There was moderate pooled sensitivity, 81% (95% CI 72, 88; I2=73.6%; 6 studies, 776 pools) and high pooled specificity, 99% (95% CI, 98 to 100; I2=1.84%; 5 studies, 666 pools). Positive predictive value based on 21 studies ranged from 67% to 100%. Resource savings in the number of test kits used ranged from 49 to 89%. Identified harms of pooled testing were delayed turnaround time for positive samples and laboratory errors.@*Conclusion@#There is moderate sensitivity and high specificity with pooled testing for the screening of individuals with suspected COVID-19. We recommend further studies to validate the utility based on community prevalence and other test variables.