A Comparative Study on Therapeutic Efficacy of Autologous Platelet-rich Plasma, Autologous Platelet-rich Fibrin Matrix, Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor, and Collagen Particles in Nonhealing Leg Ulcers.

Background: Nonhealing leg ulcers are challenging to manage and cause significant patient morbidity. To promote healing, newer techniques focus on delivering/enhancing dermal matrix components. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM), recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF), and collagen particles in treating nonhealing leg ulcers. Materials and Methods: Open, randomized prospective study was conducted in a single tertiary center over 2 years where after fulfilling the criteria, randomization was done into four groups. Group A: Autologous PRP (double spin, manual method, weekly); Group B: Autologous PRFM (weekly); Group C: rhEGF (daily application); and Group D: Collagen particles (weekly) along with cleansing, debris removal, and wound dressing. Treatment endpoints were complete healing/6 months of treatment, whichever was earlier. Follow-up was done two weekly by clinical assessment, photographs, and measurement of the ulcer area. Epi info 7 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 48 patients completed the study, 12 in each group, with mean age: 42.37 ± 4.56 years and male-to-female ratio 2.6:1. Underlying etiology was varicosities (43.75%), traumatic (25%), diabetes (22.91%), and leprosy (8.34%). At baseline, all groups were comparable in terms of patient and ulcer characteristics. Complete healing was seen in 79.17% at the end of 12 weeks: 91.67% of patients from Groups A and B each, and 66.67% from Groups C and D each. The mean time to complete healing was 6.9 ± 2.5 weeks, the least in Group B (4.73 ± 2.3 weeks). Differences between excellent (≥75%) ulcer healing across all groups were statistically significant at the end of 8 weeks where Group B showed maximum improvement. No major adverse events were seen. Conclusion: PRFM resulted in relatively faster ulcer healing compared with other modalities.

A single-centre prospective study comparing efficacy and safety of apremilast with cyclosporine in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Apremilast regulates several pro-inflammatory signals involved in atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: A randomized, open-labelled study was conducted at a tertiary care centre in India. Fifty patients with AD of >1 year duration were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either apremilast (30 mg twice daily after initial titration) or cyclosporine (5 mg/kg/day) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week follow-up period. Primary outcome was mean percentage change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) from baseline to week 24. Secondary outcome measures were proportion of patients achieving EASI 75, EASI 90, ≥2-point improvement in Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) 75 at week 24 and percentage of patients experiencing ≥1 adverse effect (AEs). RESULTS: Mean percentage change in EASI (standard deviation) was -67.79% [22.44] in the apremilast treatment group and -83.06% [21.20] in the cyclosporine treatment group (p < 0.05). At week 24, 52.38% of patients in the apremilast group and 78.26% in the cyclosporine group achieved EASI 75 (p < 0.05); 14.29% in the apremilast group and 52.17% in the cyclosporine group achieved EASI 90 (p < 0.05) and 80.95% in the apremilast group and 82.60% patients achieved ≥2 point reduction in IGA (p > 0.05). 57.14% of patients achieved SCORAD 75 in the apremilast group and 69.56% in the cyclosporine group (p > 0.05). Mean time taken to achieve EASI 75 in the apremilast group was 4.50 ± 4.62 weeks, while it was 3.96 ± 3.43 weeks in the cyclosporine group (p > 0.05). Incidence of AEs was 28.57% in the apremilast group and 21.74%) in the cyclosporine group. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated lesser efficacy in comparison to cyclosporine; it has the advantage of a favourable safety profile and requires no laboratory monitoring.

A Clinical-Mycological Study of Dermatophytosis in Western India with Focus on Antifungal Drug Resistance as a Factor in Recalcitrance.

Background: Dermatophytosis have assumed epidemic proportions in India. Antifungal drug resistance solely cannot explain disease magnitude and changing epidemiology. Objectives: Aim of this study was to analyse clinical-mycological aspects of dermatophytosis, and estimate contribution of drug resistance in clinical recalcitrance. Methods: This single-centre observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study was done in tertiary centre of western India after ethical approval, enrolling dermatophytosis patients of all ages and sex. After history and examination, KOH mount and culture in modified SDA medium was done. Culture positive isolates were subjected to E-strip antifungal susceptibility method to test MIC for Terbinafine, Itraconazole, Fluconazole and Griseofulvin. Results: Total 300 patients were included, with mean age of 33.83±27.5 years and male-to-female ratio of 1.22:1; tinea corporis et cruris being commonest, 39.33% (n=118). Only 11.67% (n=35) were treatment naïve, having classical annular morphology. History of topical steroid abuse was found in 81.67% (n=245), with pseudoimbricate lesions in 70.61% (n=173). 86.67% (n=260) had KOH positivity while 83.33% (n=250) had culture positivity: Trichophyton mentagrophytes 45.6% (n=114), followed by Trichophyton rubrum in 34.4% (n=86). A total of 265 patients fit into definition of recalcitrance, from which 12.45%, i.e., 33 isolates showed in-vitro fluconazole resistance. 14.33% (n=43) cases were chronic, 37% (n=111) persistent, 46% (n=138) recurrent while 17% (n=51) had relapse in their disease course. Steroid abuse was the commonest denominator. Conclusion: Role of antifungal resistance in recalcitrant dermatophytosis remains debatable. Stopping steroid abuse, which is often the commonest culprit, with adherence to standard antifungal therapy remains the paradigm in management.