首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology >Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing griseofulvin and terbinafine in the treatment of tinea capitis.
【24h】

Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing griseofulvin and terbinafine in the treatment of tinea capitis.

机译:荟萃分析比较灰黄霉素和特比萘芬治疗头癣的随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Griseofulvin has been the standard treatment for tinea capitis but newer antifungal agents, particularly terbinafine, are increasingly being used because of their shorter duration of treatment and more consistent absorption rates. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of oral griseofulvin and oral terbinafine in the treatment of tinea capitis. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Skin Group Ongoing Skin Trials Register was performed up to January 2010 for randomized controlled trials comparing griseofulvin and terbinafine in the treatment of tinea capitis in immunocompetent patients. The primary outcome measure was the complete cure rate. The mycological and clinical cure rates and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Pooling of treatment effect was accomplished using a random effects model and the I(2) test was used to check for heterogeneity among the studies. RESULTS: Seven studies involving 2163 subjects were included. There was no significant difference in efficacy between griseofulvin (mean duration of treatment 8 weeks, range 6-12 weeks) and terbinafine (mean duration of treatment 4 weeks, range 2-6 weeks); odds ratio = 1.22 favoring terbinafine (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.785-1.919; P = .37). In the pooled analysis of 5 studies in which Trichophyton species were the predominant (>/=65%) pathogenic dermatophyte, terbinafine showed a trend toward greater efficacy (odds ratio 1.49; 95% CI = 0.975-2.277; P = .065). Subgroup analysis revealed that terbinafine was more efficacious than griseofulvin in treating Trichophyton species (1.616; 95% CI = 1.274-2.051; P < .001) and griseofulvin was more efficacious than terbinafine in treating Microsporum species (0.408; 95% CI = 0.254-0.656; P < .001). Both griseofulvin and terbinafine demonstrated good safety profiles in the studies. LIMITATIONS: Data on efficacy of griseofulvin and terbinafine for separate groups of Trichophyton and Microsporum species were not available from every study. In the subgroup analysis of Microsporum species, data from only 3 studies were available. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that terbinafine is more efficacious than griseofulvin in treating tinea capitis caused by Trichophyton species, whereas griseofulvin is more efficacious than terbinafine in treating tinea capitis caused by Microsporum species.
机译:背景:灰黄霉素一直是头癣的标准治疗方法,但由于它们的治疗时间较短且吸收率更稳定,因此越来越多地使用新型抗真菌药,尤其是特比萘芬。目的:我们试图比较口服灰黄霉素和口服特比萘芬治疗头癣的疗效。方法:检索截至2010年1月的MEDLINE,EMBASE,Cochrane中央临床试验注册和Cochrane皮肤小组正在进行的皮肤试验注册,以比较灰黄霉素和特比萘芬治疗免疫功能正常的头癣的随机对照试验。主要结果指标是完全治愈率。真菌学和临床治愈率以及不良反应是次要指标。使用随机效应模型完成治疗效果的合并,并使用I(2)检验检查研究之间的异质性。结果:纳入了涉及2163名受试者的七项研究。灰黄霉素(平均疗程8周,范围6-12周)和特比萘芬(平均疗程4周,范围2-6周)之间,疗效无显着差异。特比萘芬的优势比= 1.22(95%置信区间[CI] = 0.785-1.919; P = 0.37)。在对5种以毛癣菌为主要病原性皮肤真菌的研究进行的汇总分析中,特比萘芬显示出更高的疗效趋势(比值1.49; 95%CI = 0.975-2.277; P = .065)。亚组分析显示,特比萘芬在治疗毛癣菌物种方面比灰黄霉素更有效(1.616; 95%CI = 1.274-2.051; P <.001),而灰黄霉素在治疗小孢子菌物种方面比特比萘芬更有效(0.408; 95%CI = 0.254- 0.656; P <0.001)。灰黄霉素和特比萘芬在研究中均显示出良好的安全性。局限性:并非每项研究都提供灰黄霉素和特比萘芬对毛癣菌属和小孢子菌属不同组的功效的数据。在小孢子菌种的亚组分析中,只有3个研究的数据可用。结论:这项荟萃分析表明,特比萘芬在治疗由毛癣菌引起的头癣时比灰黄霉素更有效,而灰黄霉素在治疗由小孢子菌引起的头癣方面比特比萘芬更有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号