Podophyllin 0.5% or 2.0% v podophyllotoxin 0.5% for the self treatment of penile warts: a double blind randomised study

Local Management of Anogenital Warts in Non-Immunocompromised Adults: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

No hierarchy of first-line treatments for anogenital warts (AGWs) is provided in international guidelines. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of topical treatments and ablative procedures for the management of AGWs.

METHODS

Twelve electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunocompetent adults with AGWs who received at least 1 provider-administered or patient-administered treatment in at least 1 parallel group were included. Risk of bias assessment followed the Cochrane Handbook. The study endpoint was complete lesion response after clearance and recurrence assessment. A network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A network geometry was constructed based on 49 of the 70 RCTs included in our systematic review. All but 4 RCTs had a high risk of bias. The most efficacious treatments compared to placebo were surgery (RR 10.54; CI 95% 4.53-24.52), ablative therapy + imiquimod (RR 7.52; CI 95% 4.53-24.52), and electrosurgery (RR 7.10; CI 95% 3.47-14.53). SUCRA values confirmed the superiority of surgery (90.9%), ablative therapy + imiquimod (79.8%), and electrosurgery (77.1%). The most efficacious patient-administered treatments were podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (63.5%) and podophyllotoxin 0.5% cream (62.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

With low-level evidence of most included RCTs, surgery and electrosurgery were superior to other treatments after clearance and recurrence assessment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% was the most efficacious patient-administered treatment. Combined therapies should be evaluated in future RCTs in view of their identified effectiveness. The results of future RCTs should systematically include clinical type, number and location of AGWs, and sex of the patient, to refine therapeutic indications.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42015025827.

Local Management of Anogenital Warts in Non-immunocompromised Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Several therapeutic options are available to manage anogenital warts (AGWs). However, no hierarchy of treatments is provided in the latest European and American recommendations. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of local treatments for the management of AGWs.

METHODS

A search was conducted through 12 databases from inception to August 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which at least one parallel treatment group composed of immunocompetent adults with AGWs received at least one provider-administered or patient-administered treatment were included. Risk of bias assessment and meta-analyses of aggregated study data were performed on the basis of the Cochrane Handbook, and quality of evidence evaluation followed the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary endpoints were complete clearance and recurrence at 3 months.

RESULTS

Seventy RCTs (9931 patients) were included. All but four RCTs had a high risk of bias. CO2 laser was slightly more efficacious than cryotherapy [risk ratio (RR) 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-2.62], with fewer recurrences at 3 months (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09-0.89). Electrosurgery was slightly more efficacious than cryotherapy. No differences in efficacy or side effects were found between cryotherapy and imiquimod or trichloroacetic acid. Podophyllotoxin gel was slightly more efficacious than podophyllotoxin cream. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) was slightly more efficacious and caused less erosion than CO2 laser (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.11-1.70).

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of included RCTs had a low level of evidence, thereby preventing the establishment of a hierarchy of treatments. Nevertheless, our results provide an overview of the main AGW treatments available for general practitioners and specialists. While provider-administered treatments are superior, patient-administered treatments (e.g., imiquimod, podophyllotoxin) are useful solutions for compliant patients.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42015025827.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of anogenital warts: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Typically occurring on the external genitalia, anogenital warts (AGWs) are benign epithelial skin lesions caused by human papillomavirus infection. AGWs are usually painless but can be unsightly and physically uncomfortable, and affected people might experience psychological distress. The evidence base on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for AGWs is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments for AGWs and to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) were searched from inception (or January 2000 for Web of Science) to September 2014. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify potentially relevant studies. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing and planned studies.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out according to standard methods and a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) undertaken. The model implemented for each outcome was that with the lowest deviance information criterion. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model structure was informed through a systematic review of the economic literature and in consultation with clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the MTC. Costs were obtained from the literature and standard UK sources.

RESULTS

Of 4232 titles and abstracts screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness, 60 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 19 interventions were included. Analysis by MTC indicated that ablative techniques were typically more effective than topical interventions at completely clearing AGWs at the end of treatment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (Condyline(®), Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Warticon(®) solution, Stiefel Laboratories Ltd) was found to be the most effective topical treatment evaluated. Networks for other outcomes included fewer treatments, which restrict conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In total, 84 treatment strategies were assessed using the economic model. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution first line followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) laser therapy second line if AGWs did not clear was most likely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources at a willingness to pay of £20,000-30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. The result was robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted.

LIMITATIONS

Limited reporting in identified studies of baseline characteristics for the enrolled population generates uncertainty around the comparability of the study populations and therefore the generalisability of the results to clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were planned based on type, number and size of AGWs, all of which are factors thought to influence treatment effect. Lack of data on clinical effectiveness based on these characteristics precluded analysis of the differential effects of treatments in the subgroups of interest. Despite identification of 60 studies, most comparisons in the MTC are informed by only one RCT. Additionally, lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing key treatments, together with minimal reporting of results in some studies, precluded comprehensive analysis of all treatments for AGWs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results generated by the MTC are in agreement with consensus opinion that ablative techniques are clinically more effective at completely clearing AGWs after treatment. However, the evidence base informing the MTC is limited. A head-to-head RCT that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of interventions used in clinical practice would help to discern the potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual treatments. The results of the economic analysis suggest that podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution is likely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment option. More expensive effective treatments, such as CO2 laser therapy or surgery, may represent cost-effective second-line treatment options. No treatment and podophyllin are unlikely to be considered cost-effective treatment options. There is uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of treatment with imiquimod, trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005457.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Biochemical composition and antioxidant capacity of extracts from Podophyllum hexandrum rhizome

BACKGROUND

Podophyllum hexandrum Royle (P. hexandrum) is a perennial herb and widely used in clinic. The present study was designed to separate and identify the biochemical composition and antioxidant capacity of extracts from P. hexandrum rhizome.

METHODS

The ethyl acetate and ethanol extracts from P. hexandrum rhizome were analyzed by GC-MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry), and the antioxidant capacity of the extracts and the components was tested by using the DPPH (2, 2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl) and FRAP (Ferric reducing/antioxidant power) assays.

RESULTS

The rhizome extracts had greater antioxidant capacity than the petiole extracts in DPPH and FRAP assays. About 16 kinds of main reactive oxygen components were identified in the extracts. Components of PADE (Phthalic acid, diisobutyl ester), BADE (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diisooctyl ester), Polyneuridine, PODD (Podophyllotoxin, deoxy), β-Sitosterol and POD (Podophyllotoxin) showed the antioxidant capacity in some degree. PODD, POD, and Polyneuridine showed stronger antioxidant capacity with the IC50 and FRAP values of 9.61 ± 0.81 and 2923.98 ± 21.89 μM, 9.98 ± 0.24 and 2847.27 ± 14.82 μM, and 13.37 ± 0.35 and 2404.32 ± 36.88 μM, respectively, than the positive control ASA (Ascorbic acid) with the values of 60.78 ± 1.22 and 1267.5 ± 30.24 μM (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PODD, POD, and Polyneuridine are very critical for the antioxidant capacity in the extract of P. hexandrum rhizome. These results provide useful biochemical basis and information for the potential use of this plant.

Production of podophyllotoxin from Podophyllum hexandrum: a potential natural product for clinically useful anticancer drugs

Podophyllum hexandrum Royle of family Berberidaceae is an endangered medicinal plant. Rhizome ofP.hexandrum contains several lignans which posses antitumor activity. Podphyllotoxin is the most active cytotoxic natural product. It is used as starting compound for the synthesis of anticancer drug etoposide and teniposide. Podophyllotoxin acts as an inhibitor of microtubule assembly. These drugs are used for lung cancer, testicular cancer, neuroblastoma, hepatoma and other tumors. Besides this, it also shows antiviral activities by interfering with some critical viral processes. Availabilityof podophyllotoxin from plants has its limitations because of its intense collection from nature and lack of organized cultivation. The chemical synthesis of podophyllotoxin is considered to be very complicated as yet. The use of biotechnological approaches for the production of podophyllotoxin using cell cultures, organ cultures, and biotransformation route or by manipulating biosynthetic pathway proves to be an attractive alternative for production of podophyllotoxin. The present paper discusses the current status of research, limitations and future prospects for theproduction of podophyllotoxinin vitro.

Warts (genital)

INTRODUCTION

External genital warts (EGWs) are sexually transmitted benign epidermal growths caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), on the anogenital areas of both females and males. About 50% to 60% of sexually active women aged 18 to 49 years have been exposed to HPV infection, but only 10% to 15% will have genital warts.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for external genital warts? What are the effects of interventions to prevent transmission of external genital warts? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 55 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bi- and trichloroacetic acid; condoms; cryotherapy; electrosurgery; imiquimod; intralesional, topical, or systemic interferons; laser surgery; podophyllin; podophyllotoxin; surgical excision; and vaccines.

Warts (genital)

INTRODUCTION

External genital warts (EGWs) are sexually transmitted benign epidermal growths caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), on the anogenital areas of both females and males. About 50-60% of sexually active women aged 18-49 have been exposed to HPV infection, but only 10-15% will have genital warts.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for external genital warts? What are the effects of interventions to prevent transmission of external genital warts? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 47 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bi- and trichloroacetic acid; condoms; cryotherapy; electrosurgery; imiquimod; intralesional, topical, or systemic interferons; laser surgery; podophyllin; podophyllotoxin; surgical excision; and vaccines.