ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Targeted UVB intense pulsed light (IPL)-phototherapy has gained interest for repigmentation of vitiligo as it allows selective treatment, sparing the surrounding skin. However, optimal treatment frequency and duration are not known. OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of two treatment protocols, weekly and every two weeks, for a maximum of 12 months. Variables affecting treatment response were evaluated. PATIENTS & METHODS: 22 patients (16 female, 6 male; aged 15 - 67 years) with generalised vitiligo were evaluated retrospectively. UVB-IPL had been administered weekly (13 patients, group A), or every second week (9 patients, group B). In cases of no response, treatment stopped after 6 months. Regimentation was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS: After 6 months, 12/13 patients (A), 3/9 patients (B) showed repigmentation. Due to lack of success, treatment was stopped after 6 months in 1 group A patient and 6/9 group B patients. After 12 months, lesions on the face and trunk in group A showed a mean of 70 ± 27% and 60 ± 29% repigmentation, respectively. Moderate to good repigmentation was seen in 78% of group A patients on the ulnar region on the forearms and the shins. Side effects were minimal. Treatment success depended on treatment frequency, number of treatments and the anatomical site of lesions. CONCLUSIONS: UVB-IPL phototherapy seems to be effective and well-tolerated in non-segmental vitiligo. A treatment frequency of weekly intervals rather than every two weeks appears preferable. Our observations will help in designing a sufficiently powered prospective clinical trial to test this hypothesis.
Subject(s)
Intense Pulsed Light Therapy/methods , Ultraviolet Therapy/methods , Vitiligo/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Intense Pulsed Light Therapy/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Pigmentation , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Ultraviolet Therapy/adverse effects , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with multiclass-resistant HIV-1 have limited treatment options. Raltegravir, an inhibitor of integrase, has shown excellent efficacy when used with protease inhibitors (Pis) in patients with drug-resistant HIV-1. Limited data are available however about the outcomes when using raltegravir without Pis in this population. METHODS: Medical records of subjects who received raltegravir as part of the Merck EAP study 0518 were reviewed and abstracted at participating sites. Eligibility criteria included HIV positivity, age ≥ 16 years, limited or no treatment options due to resistance or intolerance to multiple antiretroviral regimens, detectable viremia on current treatment regimen, and documented resistance to at least one drug in each antiretroviral class (PI, NNRTI, and nucleoside analogue). Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected locally using a standardized collection form. Genotypic susceptibility scores (GSS) were determined from the most recent genotypic resistance test available prior to the initiation of raltegravir. The main objective was to compare virologic results in patients who received raltegravir with a PI versus those who received raltegravir without a PI. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-two subjects were evaluated from the respective sites in the EAP trial, of whom 340 were evaluable. The baseline mean HIV RNA was 4.6 log copies/ mL, and the mean CD4 cell count was 159 cells/µL. The median number of total and new antiretroviral agents in the background regimen was 4 and 2, respectively. Among the 254 patients who received a PI, the most common PI used was darunavir (89%). Etravirine was commonly used in both groups: 39% of the PI group and 67% of the non-PI group. At week 12, 67% of PI patients and 64% of non-PI patients achieved HIV RNA <75 copies/mL and 85% and 86%, respectively, achieved HIV RNA <400 copies/mL GSS, which was similar in both groups at baseline, predicted achieving an HIV RNA of <400 and 75 copies/mL at week 12 (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-experienced patients, the combination of raltegravir with a regimen not containing a PI (used with etravirine in two-thirds of patients) had similar virologic activity when compared to more standard regimens using raltegravir with a PI. The main determinant of efficacy was the number of active drugs as measured by GSS. These data expand the potential utility of raltegravir in patients with multidrug-resistant HIV.
