Azithromycin does not cure pityriasis rosea

Interventions for pityriasis rosea

BACKGROUND

Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Pityriasis Rosea: An Update on Etiopathogenesis and Management of Difficult Aspects

Pityriasis rosea (PR) is a benign papulosquamous disorder seen commonly in clinical practice. Despite its prevalence and benign nature, there are still times when this common disorder presents in an uncommon way or course posing diagnostic or management problems for the treating physician. The etiopathogenesis of PR has always been a dilemma, and extensive research is going on to elicit the exact cause. This review focuses mainly on the difficult aspects of this benign common disorder such as etiopathogenesis, atypical manifestations, recurrent cases, differential diagnosis, therapy and pregnancy considerations. Although we could not find a black and white solution to all these problems, we have tried to compile the related literature to draw out some conclusions.

Acyclovir in pityriasis rosea: An observer-blind, randomized controlled trial of effectiveness, safety and tolerability

BACKGROUND

Pityriasis rosea (PR) is an acute inflammatory dermatosis. The association of human herpes virus 6 and 7 suggests the utility of use of antiviral agents in this disease.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acyclovir in the treatment of PR.

METHODS

An observer-blind, randomized (1:1), parallel group, add-on trial was conducted on 24 adult patients with PR. Subjects of both Group A and B received the standard of care in the form of cetirizine 10 mg OD and calamine. Group A in addition received acyclovir 400 mg tablets thrice daily for 7 days. Both groups were followed up for four consecutive weeks for assessment of effectiveness and adverse events.

RESULTS

Group A complained of significantly fewer new lesions than Group B (P = 0.046). A complete response was obtained in all patients of Group A and 83% patients of Group B at the end of the follow up period. There was significant reduction in both lesional score and pruritus at second week follow-up in Group A and third week follow-up in Group B (P < 0.05). Minor adverse effects were observed in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Acyclovir offered rapid resolution of clinical severity of PR from second week onwards without significantly increased adverse events as compared to supportive therapy alone.

Antibiotics used in nonbacterial dermatologic conditions

The majority of nonbacterial dermatological conditions treated with antibiotics benefit from the anti-inflammatory properties of these medications, usually dapsone or tetracycline. Many other antimicrobials are used to treat noninfectious conditions. The following chapter is an overview of select noninfectious dermatological conditions for which antibiotics are used, with a focus on the most common antibiotics used for their nonantimicrobial properties.

Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, asymmetrical periflexural exanthem, unilateral mediothoracic exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, and papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome: a brief review and arguments for diagnostic criteria

Several exanthems including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, asymmetrical periflexural exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, and papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome are suspected to be caused by viruses. These viruses are potentially dangerous. Gianotti-Crosti syndrome is related to hepatitis B virus infection which is the commonest cause of hepatocellular carcinoma, and Epstein-Barr virus infection which is related to nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Pityriasis rosea has been suspected to be related to human herpesvirus 7 and 8 infections, with the significance of the former still largely unknown, and the latter being a known cause of Kaposi's sarcoma. Papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome is significantly associated with human B19 erythrovirus infection which can lead to aplastic anemia in individuals with congenital hemoglobinopathies, and when transmitted to pregnant women, can cause spontaneous abortions and congenital anomalies. With viral DNA sequence detection technologies, false positive results are common. We can no longer apply Koch's postulates to establish cause-effect relationships. Biological properties of some viruses including lifelong latent infection, asymptomatic shedding, and endogenous reactivation render virological results on various body tissues difficult to interpret. We might not be able to confirm or refute viral causes for these rashes in the near future. Owing to the relatively small number of patients, virological and epidemiology studies, and treatment trials usually recruit few study and control subjects. This leads to low statistical powers and thus results have little clinical significance. Moreover, studies with few patients are less likely to be accepted by mainstream dermatology journals, leading to publication bias. Aggregation of data by meta-analyses on many studies each with a small number of patients can theoretically elevate the power of the results. Techniques are also in place to compensate for publication bias. However, these are not currently feasible owing to different inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical studies and treatment trials. The diagnoses of these rashes are based on clinical assessment. Investigations only serve to exclude important differential diagnoses. A wide spectrum of clinical features is seen, and clinical features can vary across different populations. The terminologies used to define these rashes are confusing, and even more so are the atypical forms and variants. Previously reported virological and epidemiological results for these rashes are conflicting in many aspects. The cause of such incongruence is unknown, but low homogeneity during diagnosis and subject recruitment might be one of the factors leading to these incongruent results. The establishment and proper validation of diagnostic criteria will facilitate clinical diagnosis, hasten recruitment into clinical studies, and allow results of different studies to be directly compared with each another. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews would be more valid. Diagnostic criteria also streamline clinical audits and surveillance of these diseases from community perspectives. However, over-dependence on diagnostic criteria in the face of conflicting clinical features is a potential pitfall. Clinical acumen and the experience of the clinicians cannot be replaced by diagnostic criteria. Diagnostic criteria should be validated and re-validated in response to the ever-changing manifestations of these intriguing rashes. We advocate the establishment and validation of diagnostic criteria of these rashes. We also encourage the ongoing conduction of studies with a small number of patients. However, for a wider purpose, these studies should recruit homogenous patient groups with a view towards future data aggregation.

The comparison between the efficacy of high dose acyclovir and erythromycin on the period and signs of pitiriasis rosea

Background:

Pityriasis Rosea (PR) is an acute inflammatory and self-limiting skin disorder, sometimes with troublesome symptoms. To date, there are few treatments available for this disorder.

Aim:

Compare the traditional treatment with erythromycin to a newly introduced antiviral treatment acyclovir for PR.

Materials and Methods:

Patients with clinically confirmed diagnosis of PR, matching our exclusion criteria, were enrolled. They were randomized in two groups that received high-dose oral acyclovir or erythromycin. The participants were evaluated two, four, and eight weeks after commencement of the study and followed for one year.

Results:

A total of 30 patients including 15 males and 15 females completed the study. After eight weeks, 13 patients in the acyclovir group experienced complete response, while in the erythromycin group only six patients had complete response (P < 0.05). Also, patients in the acyclovir group experienced faster resolution of pruritus in comparison with the erythromycin group (not significant). No adverse drug reaction was detected in both groups.

Conclusion:

It seemed that a high-dose of oral acyclovir was a safe and effective therapy for PR, although this remained to be confirmed in larger studies.

Dermatology for the allergist

Abstract:

Allergists/immunologists see patients with a variety of skin disorders. Some, such as atopic and allergic contact dermatitis, are caused by abnormal immunologic reactions, whereas others, such as seborrheic dermatitis or rosacea, lack an immunologic basis. This review summarizes a select group of dermatologic problems commonly encountered by an allergist/immunologist.

An update on pityriasis rosea and other similar childhood exanthems

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pityriasis rosea is a common skin condition seen in children and adults. Whereas pityriasis rosea is a benign condition, it is important to distinguish it from other childhood exanthems.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pityriasis rosea can present in a variety of manners. Most often a herald patch precedes the generalized eruption, although this is not always the case. Pityriasis rosea may lead to undesirable outcomes when affecting pregnant women. Guttate psoriasis, secondary syphilis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, capillaritis, pityriasis versicolor, nummular eczema, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma are important to consider in the differential diagnosis of pityriasis rosea.

SUMMARY

Pityriasis rosea is self-limiting, usually lasting 1-3 months. Treatment may be considered in certain cases, although there is a paucity of medical studies supporting any definitive treatment. However, treatment may be warranted for other conditions that mimic pityriasis rosea.

Pitiríase rósea

Pitiríase rósea é doença inflamatória aguda da pele, que regride espontaneamente, normalmente sem deixar seqüelas, em período que varia de quatro a oito semanas. Clinicamente é caracterizada pelo aparecimento de típicas lesões eritêmato-pápulo-escamosas. Atinge todas as idades, embora seja mais comumente observada entre 10 e 35 anos. Apesar de exaustivas pesquisas, sua etiologia ainda permanece desconhecida. São discutidos alguns aspectos epidemiológicos, anatomoclínicos, diagnósticos diferenciais, doenças associadas, com ênfase no tratamento e etiologia da doença.