首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology >Terbinafine hydrochloride oral granules versus oral griseofulvin suspension in children with tinea capitis: results of two randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, international, controlled trials.
【24h】

Terbinafine hydrochloride oral granules versus oral griseofulvin suspension in children with tinea capitis: results of two randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, international, controlled trials.

机译:头癣的儿童口服盐酸特比萘芬口服颗粒与灰黄霉素口服混悬液:两项随机,研究者盲,多中心,国际对照试验的结果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Although griseofulvin is currently considered the primary antifungal agent used to treat tinea capitis in many countries, increasingly higher doses and longer durations of treatment are becoming necessary to achieve effective treatment. Alternative antifungal therapies with shorter/simpler treatment regimens may be important to develop for this indication. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new pediatric formulation of terbinafine hydrochloride oral granules with griseofulvin oral suspension in the treatment of tinea capitis. METHOD: Children (4-12 years of age) with clinically diagnosed and potassium hydroxide microscopy-confirmed tinea capitis were randomized in two identical studies (trial 1, trial 2) to once-daily treatment with terbinafine (5-8 mg/kg; n = 1040) or griseofulvin administered per label (10-20 mg/kg; n = 509) for a period of 6 weeks followed by 4 weeks of follow-up. End-of-study complete cure (negative fungal culture and microscopy with Total Signs and Symptoms Score [TSSS] = 0), and mycologic (negative culture and microscopy) and clinical cure (TSSS = 0) were primary and secondary efficacy variables, respectively. Efficacy analysis was based on pooled data using modified intent-to-treat population (those who received at least one dose of study drug and had positive baseline fungal culture, N = 1286). Safety assessments included monitoring of the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Rates of complete cure and mycologic cure were significantly higher for terbinafine than for griseofulvin (45.1% vs 39.2% and 61.5% vs 55.5%, respectively; P .05). A majority (86.7%) of patients received griseofulvin, 10 to 19.9 mg/kg per day; complete cure rate was not found to be higher among patients who received griseofulvin more than 20 mg/kg per day compared with those who received less than 20 mg/kg per day. Complete cure rate was statistically significantly greater for terbinafine compared to griseofulvin in trial 1 (46.23% vs 34.01%) but not in trial 2 (43.99% vs 43.46%). On the basis of pooled data, clinical cure was higher for terbinafine than for griseofulvin, but the difference was not found to be statistically significant (P = .10). Subgroup analyses revealed that terbinafine was significantly better than griseofulvin for all cure rates--mycologic, clinical, and complete--among patients with Trichophyton tonsurans but not Microsporum canis (P .001). For M. canis, mycologic and clinical cure rates were significantly better with griseofulvin than with terbinafine (P .05). Approximately 50% of patients in each group reported an AE; almost all were mild or moderate in severity. Nasopharyngitis, headache, and pyrexia were most common in both groups. There were no drug-related serious AEs, no deaths, and no significant effects on weight or laboratory parameters, including liver transaminases. LIMITATIONS: In retrospect, a difference in the distribution of infecting microorganisms between the two trials was a limitation. Stringent adherence to griseofulvin doses recommended by prescribing information but smaller than those used in current clinical practice, and exclusion of adjuvant therapies such as shampoos or topical agents, which are routinely used in practice, are other limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this largest pediatric trial of terbinafine to date indicate that terbinafine is efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of tinea capitis. Terbinafine is an effective alternative to griseofulvin against T. tonsurans tinea capitis.
机译:背景:尽管灰黄霉素目前在许多国家被认为是治疗头癣的主要抗真菌药,但为达到有效的治疗效果,越来越高的剂量和更长的治疗持续时间已成为必要。对于这种适应症而言,采用较短/较简单治疗方案的其他抗真菌疗法可能很重要。目的:比较盐酸特比萘芬口服颗粒与灰黄霉素口服混悬液治疗小儿头癣的疗效和安全性。方法:在两项相同的研究(试验1,试验2)中,将经临床诊断并经氢氧化钾显微镜确诊的头癣的儿童(4-12岁)随机分为两组,分别接受特比萘芬(5-8 mg / kg;每日一次)治疗; n = 1040)或每个标签给予灰黄霉素(10-20 mg / kg; n = 509),持续6周,随后进行4周的随访。研究结束完全治愈(阴性真菌培养和显微镜检查,总体征和症状评分[TSSS] = 0),真菌学(阴性培养和显微镜检查)和临床治愈(TSSS = 0)分别是主要和次要疗效变量。功效分析基于使用改良的意向性治疗人群(接受至少一剂研究药物且基线真菌培养阳性的人群,N = 1286)收集的数据。安全评估包括监测不良事件(AE)的发生频率和严重程度。结果:特比萘芬的完全治愈率和真菌治愈率显着高于灰黄霉素(分别为45.1%比39.2%和61.5%比55.5%; P <.05)。大部分(86.7%)患者接受灰黄霉素治疗,每天剂量为10至19.9 mg / kg。每天接受灰黄霉素超过20 mg / kg的患者与每天接受少于20 mg / kg的患者相比,没有发现完全治愈率更高。在试验1中,特比萘芬的完全治愈率显着高于灰黄霉素(46.23%对34.01%),但在试验2中则不完全(43.99%对43.46%)。根据汇总数据,特比萘芬的临床治愈率高于灰黄霉素,但差异无统计学意义(P = .10)。亚组分析显示,在扁桃体毛癣菌但犬小孢子菌的所有治愈率(真菌学,临床和完全治愈)上,特比萘芬均显着优于灰黄霉素(P <.001)。对于犬莫桑比克,灰黄霉素的真菌学和临床治愈率明显优于特比萘芬(P <.05)。每组中约有50%的患者报告了AE。几乎所有患者的轻度或中度严重程度。鼻咽炎,头痛和发热是两组中最常见的。没有与药物相关的严重不良事件,没有死亡,并且对体重或实验室参数(包括肝转氨酶)无明显影响。局限性:回想起来,两次试验之间感染微生物分布的差异是局限性。其他限制因素还有严格的限制,即处方信息推荐使用灰黄霉素的剂量,但剂量要小于当前临床实践中使用的剂量,并且排除诸如洗发水或局部用药之类的辅助治疗。结论:迄今为止最大的特比萘芬儿科试验的数据表明,特比萘芬在头癣的治疗中有效且耐受性良好。特比萘芬是灰黄霉素抗扁桃体癣的有效替代品。

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