RESUMEN

Background: Pityriasis versicolor is a common fungal infection of the superficial skin layer caused by Malassezia furfur, a normal commensal in the skin. Keratolytic agents are popular, cheap, and readily available over-the-counter treatments for pityriasis versicolor. Conventional antifungal agents are more expensive, requiring prescription, and may induce resistant strains. However, evidence of their comparative safety and efficacy is still lacking. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of synthetic antifungals compared to keratolytic agents in the topical treatment of pityriasis versicolor through a systematic review. Methods: We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (from 1966) through PubMed, CENTRAL (Issue 9 of 12, September 2021), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1987); Herdin (from 1970), www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.isrctn.com, www.trialregister.nl. We contacted researchers in the field, hand searched relevant conference abstracts, and the Journal of the Philippine Dermatological Society 1992-2019. We included all randomized controlled trials involving patients with diagnosed active pityriasis versicolor where topical antifungal was compared with a topical keratolytic for treatment. Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane collaboration tool, and extracted data from included studies. We used RevMan 5.3 to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD), using random-effects meta-analysis. We tested for statistical heterogeneity using both the Chi² test and the I² test. We presented results using forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to create a funnel plot to determine publication bias but were unable to due to few studies. A Summary of Findings table was created using GRADE profile software for the primary outcomes. Results: We included 8 RCTs with a total of 617 participants that compared azole preparations (ketoconazole, bifonazole and econazole) versus keratolytic agents (selenium sulfide, adapalene, salicylic-benzoic acid). Pooled data showed that azoles did not significantly differ from keratolytic agents for clinical cure (RR 0.99, 0.88, 1.12; 4 RCTs, N=274, I2=55%; very low-quality evidence), and adverse events (0.59 [0.17, 2.06]; very low-quality evidence) based on 6 RCTs (N=536). There were two patients given a keratolytic agent (selenium sulfide shampoo) who had acute dermatitis and discontinued treatment. Conclusion: It is uncertain whether topical azoles are as effective as keratolytic agents in clinical clearance and occurrence of adverse events in patients with pityriasis versicolor. A wider search of grey literature and local studies are warranted. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are recommended.

RESUMEN

Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of metformin extended-release (MXR) and the conventional metformin immediate-release (MIR) formulations in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and other sources were searched until 19 March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared equal daily doses of MXR and MIR in adults with T2DM. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled mean difference (MD) of change from baseline for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. Primary outcomes considered were HbA1c and key gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (abdominal discomfort or pain, diarrhea, dyspepsia, and nausea & vomiting). RESULTS: Nine RCTs that randomized a total of 2609 adults revealed that MIR was statistically associated with better HbA1c lowering (MD 0.09% [95% confidence interval or CI, 0.01%, 0.17%]), MXR only reduced dyspepsia (RR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.34, 0.98]), and both formulations were associated with similar cumulative incidence of other key GI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: MXR was associated with statistically worse but likely clinically similar HbA1c lowering and minimal improvement of GI intolerance compared to MIR. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019148008).

Asunto(s)