A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of topical tetracaine in the treatment of herpes labialis.

BACKGROUND: Before the September 1996 approval of 1% penciclovir cream for the treatment of herpes labialis, no other prescription topical therapy was approved for the treatment of this recurrent viral disease affecting approximately 20% of the adult population of the United States. Local anesthetics, such as tetracaine, have been used in over-the-counter topical products, but are only labeled for the relief of pain and itching associated with cold sores and fever blisters. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a topical preparation of a tetracaine cream is safe and effective in the treatment of recurrent herpes labialis in immunocompetent patients. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the relative effectiveness and safety of 1.8% tetracaine equivalent in a cream base versus placebo in the treatment of herpes labialis in immunocompetent adults. In this study, patients applied medication up to 6 times daily until the lesions healed (scab loss), but for no more than 12 days. The patients were monitored on the day of enrollment, once during the course of treatment, and at a final visit after the lesions had healed. Patients assessed themselves the day of scab formation and the day the scab fell off. They also graded, on a daily basis, their perception of relief from itching and pain and the overall benefit. RESULTS: The results from 72 patients (35 = placebo; 37 = active) showed that scab formation occurred in a mean of 2.4 +/- 0.27 days for the placebo group and 2. 3 +/- 0.26 days for the active group. Healing time (scab loss) occurred in a mean 7.2 +/- 0.36 days for the placebo group and in 5. 1 +/- 0.35 days in the active group. The difference observed for healing time between the placebo and the active tetracaine cream was statistically significant (P =.0002). This represents an approximately 30% reduction in the healing time for the active group compared with the placebo group. In addition, the study patients ranked the benefit of their treatment on a daily basis and graded the overall benefit of the therapy at their final visit. The ranking was on a 1 to 10 index scale (1 = no benefit at all; 10 = very effective treatment). At the final visit there was a statistically significant difference in the benefit index for active preparation versus placebo for this subjective evaluation (placebo index, 5.9 +/- 0.6; active index, 7.3 +/- 0.48 [P =.0359]). The subjects also evaluated relief from itching and pain on a daily basis. Relief from itching was significantly greater in the active group than in the placebo group on days 2 and 3 after initiation of the treatment. Pain was not found to be severe in either the placebo or active treatment groups. At day 2 of treatment and beyond, pain scores never were greater than 3.2 +/- 0.28 for active on a scale in which 1.0 represented "no pain at all" and 10 represented "most severe pain imaginable." Although mean values for pain were always less for the active therapy, lesional pain scores never reached statistically significant lower values for active compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that a 1.8% topical tetracaine cream, when applied frequently, significantly reduces the healing time of recurrent herpes labialis lesions. Additionally, it is perceived by the study subjects to reduce itching of the lesions and to have a beneficial overall effect.

Butenafine 1% cream in the treatment of tinea cruris: a multicenter, vehicle-controlled, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Butenafine hydrochloride, a potent antifungal agent related to the allylamines, has been used in Japan for treating various cutaneous mycoses including tinea cruris. OBJECTIVE: We compared the safety and efficacy of butenafine hydrochloride and its vehicle when used once daily for 2 weeks to treat tinea cruris. METHODS: Patients (n = 93) with tinea cruris and a positive potassium hydroxide examination and mycologic culture were enrolled. Of the 76 patients assessed for efficacy, 37 applied butenafine and 39 applied vehicle once daily for 2 weeks. Assessments were made at the end of the 2-week treatment period and 4 weeks after the end of treatment. RESULTS: Patients in the butenafine group had a higher mycologic cure rate by day 7 (66% vs 13%, p < 0.0001), with marked improvement 4 weeks after the end of treatment (81% vs 13%, p < 0.0001). They also had a higher rate of effective treatment at day 7 (29% vs 5%, p < 0.01) and at 4 weeks after treatment (73% vs 5%, p < 0.0001). Adverse events definitely related to butenafine treatment were limited to one case of burning sensation after application. CONCLUSION: Butenafine applied once daily for 2 weeks is effective in treating tinea cruris. The proportion of patients cured increased between the end of treatment and 4 weeks after treatment.

Current concepts. Photoprotection.

Photoprotection encompasses all methods to prevent UV radiation (UVR) damage to the skin, including sunscreens, clothing, seeking shade, and duration and time of the day spent outdoors under UVR. As scientific research validates short- and long-term detrimental effects of UVR, physicians and the public must become increasingly aware of these problems to avoid them. Photoaging is defined. Choice of sunscreens, their Food and Drug Administration labeling, and future sunscreen products are reviewed. Hazards of UVR on the skin include acute sunburn, photocarcinogenesis, immunologic suppression, and photoaging. Distinguishing between UV-A and UV-B damage to the skin is discussed. Education of physicians and their patients is crucial to reduce future photodamage to our population, especially with a reduction of the ozone layer and with patients having more free time. The complete skin examination is emphasized as a method to detect photodamaged skin and give patients insight to provide themselves with future photoprotection. A summary of advice for patients is provided for physicians to give to their patients.

Clinical comparison of cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil in the treatment of patients with primary infections of the skin or skin structures.

This study was designed to compare the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of three oral cephalosporins, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate infections of the skin or skin structures. A total of 330 patients were enrolled at 10 centers and were randomly assigned to receive cefuroxime axetil 250 mg (n = 107), cephalexin 500 mg (n = 111) or cefadroxil 500 mg (n = 112), twice daily for 10 days. Patients were assessed for their clinical and bacteriological responses once during treatment (3-5 days) and twice after treatment (1-3 and 10-14 days). A total of 353 bacterial isolates were obtained: Staphylococcus aureus (41%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (33%) and Streptococcus pyogenes (5%). A satisfactory clinical outcome (cure or improvement) was achieved in 97% (89/92), 89% (80/90) and 94% (82/87) of the clinically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin or cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.047, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). With respect to the eradication of the bacterial pathogens, a satisfactory outcome (cure or presumed cure) was obtained in 96% (69/72), 85% (60/71) and 93% (63/68) of bacteriologically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.026, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). All three study drugs were well tolerated, with adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal system most commonly reported. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the incidence of drug-related adverse events.

Topical halcinonide and betamethasone valerate effects on plasma cortisol: acute and subacute usage studies.

The effect of topical application of halcinonide cream and betamethasone valerate cream on plasma cortisol was studied in an acute usage study as well as a subacute study, which more closely approximated common clinical usage. In the acute study, halcinonide cream caused a marked decrease in plasma cortisol, both with and without occlusion, in patients with extensive psoriasis, but only with occlusion in normal subjects. Betamethasone valerate cream decreased plasma cortisol levels in patients with extensive psoriasis when applied with occlusion and, to a lesser extent, without occlusion. In a double-blind subacute usage study without occlusion, two of 23 patients treated with halcinonide cream showed decreased plasma cortisol levels during the treatment period, while none of the 21 patients treated with betamethasone valerate cream showed such decreases. Three patients in the halcinonide group developed striae. Clinical response to halcinonide was superior to that with betamethasone valerate cream, but a similar number of patients were resistant to treatment with each medication.