van Zuuren Esther J, Fedorowicz Zbys, Carter Ben, van der Linden Mireille M D, Charland Lyn
Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, B1-Q, Leiden, Netherlands, 2300 RC.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 28;2015(4):CD003262. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003262.pub5.
Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often involved and thickening of the skin with enlargement (phymas), especially of the nose, can occur in some people. A range of treatment options are available but it is unclear which are most effective.
To assess the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea.
We updated our searches, to July 2014, of: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Science Citation Index (from 1988). We searched five trials registers and checked reference lists for further relevant studies.
Randomised controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea.
Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors.
We included 106 studies, comprising 13,631 participants. Sample sizes of 30-100 and study duration of two to three months were most common. More women than men were included, mean age of 48.6 years, and the majority had papulopustular rosacea, followed by erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.A wide range of comparisons (67) were evaluated. Topical interventions: metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin, brimonidine or other topical treatments. Systemic interventions: oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments, i.e. isotretinoin. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment.The majority of studies (57/106) were assessed as 'unclear risk of bias', 37 'high risk ' and 12 'low risk'. Twenty-two studies provided no usable or retrievable data i.e. none of our outcomes were addressed, no separate data reported for rosacea or limited data in abstracts.Eleven studies assessed our primary outcome 'change in quality of life', 52 studies participant-assessed changes in rosacea severity and almost all studies addressed adverse events, although often only limited data were provided. In most comparisons there were no statistically significant differences in number of adverse events, most were mild and transient. Physician assessments including investigators' global assessments, lesion counts and erythema were evaluated in three-quarters of the studies, but time needed for improvement and duration of remission were incompletely or not reported.The quality of the body of evidence was rated moderate to high for most outcomes, but for some outcomes low to very low.Data for several outcomes could only be pooled for topical metronidazole and azelaic acid. Both were shown to be more effective than placebo in papulopustular rosacea (moderate quality evidence for metronidazole and high for azelaic acid). Pooled data from physician assessments in three trials demonstrated that metronidazole was more effective compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 3.02). Four trials provided data on participants' assessments, illustrating that azelaic acid was more effective than placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.63). The results from three studies were contradictory on which of these two treatments was most effective.Two studies showed a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in favour of topical ivermectin when compared to placebo (high quality evidence). Participants' assessments in these studies showed a RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.11) and RR of 1.92 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.32),which were supported by physicians' assessments. Topical ivermectin appeared to be slightly more effective than topical metronidazole for papulopustular rosacea, based on one study, for improving quality of life and participant and physician assessed outcomes (high quality evidence for these outcomes).Topical brimonidine in two studies was more effective than vehicle in reducing erythema in rosacea at all time points over 12 hours (high quality evidence). At three hours the participants' assessments had a RR of 2.21 (95% CI 1.52 to 3.22) and RR of 2.00 (95% CI 1.33 to 3.01) in favour of brimonidine. Physicians' assessments confirmed these data. There was no rebound or worsening of erythema after treatment cessation.Topical clindamycin phosphate combined with tretinoin was not considered to be effective compared to placebo (moderate quality evidence).Topical ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion demonstrated effectiveness and improved quality of life for people with ocular rosacea (low quality evidence).Of the comparisons assessing oral treatments for papulopustular rosacea there was moderate quality evidence that tetracycline was effective but this was based on two old studies of short duration. Physician-based assessments in two trials indicated that doxycycline appeared to be significantly more effective than placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.47 and RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.99) (high quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between 100 mg and 40 mg doxycycline, but there was evidence of fewer adverse effects with the lower dose (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54) (low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence from one study (assessed at high risk of bias) that doxycycline 100 mg was as effective as azithromycin. Low dose minocycline (45 mg) was effective for papulopustular rosacea (low quality evidence).Oral tetracycline was compared with topical metronidazole in four studies and showed no statistically significant difference between the two treatments for any outcome (low to moderate quality evidence).Low dose isotretinoin was considered by both the participants (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43) and physicians (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36) to be slightly more effective than doxycycline 50-100 mg (high quality evidence).Pulsed dye laser was more effective than yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser based on one study, and it appeared to be as effective as intense pulsed light therapy (both low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of topical azelaic acid, topical ivermectin, brimonidine, doxycycline and isotretinoin for rosacea. Moderate quality evidence was available for topical metronidazole and oral tetracycline. There was low quality evidence for low dose minocycline, laser and intense pulsed light therapy and ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion for ocular rosacea. Time needed to response and response duration should be addressed more completely, with more rigorous reporting of adverse events. Further studies on treatment of ocular rosacea are warranted.
酒渣鼻是一种常见的慢性皮肤病,累及面部,其特征为潮红、发红、丘疹、脓疱和血管扩张。眼睛常受累,部分患者皮肤会增厚并出现肿大(瘤样病变),尤其是鼻子。有多种治疗方法可供选择,但哪种方法最有效尚不清楚。
评估酒渣鼻治疗方法的疗效和安全性。
我们更新了检索,截至2014年7月,检索了以下数据库:Cochrane皮肤组专业注册库、Cochrane图书馆中的CENTRAL(2014年第6期)、MEDLINE(1946年起)、EMBASE(1974年起)和科学引文索引(1988年起)。我们检索了五个试验注册库,并查阅参考文献列表以查找更多相关研究。
针对中度至重度酒渣鼻患者的随机对照试验。
由两位作者独立进行研究选择、数据提取、偏倚风险评估和分析。
我们纳入了106项研究,共13631名参与者。样本量为30 - 100且研究持续时间为两到三个月的情况最为常见。纳入的女性多于男性,平均年龄为48.6岁,大多数患者为丘疹脓疱型酒渣鼻,其次是红斑毛细血管扩张型酒渣鼻。评估了广泛的比较(67种)。局部干预措施:甲硝唑、壬二酸、伊维菌素、溴莫尼定或其他局部治疗。全身干预措施:口服抗生素、与局部治疗联合或其他全身治疗,即异维A酸。多项研究评估了激光或光基治疗。大多数研究(57/106)被评估为“偏倚风险不明”,37项为“高风险”,12项为“低风险”。22项研究未提供可用或可检索的数据,即未涉及我们的任何结局,未报告酒渣鼻的单独数据或摘要中的数据有限。11项研究评估了我们的主要结局“生活质量变化”,52项研究由参与者评估酒渣鼻严重程度的变化,几乎所有研究都涉及不良事件,尽管通常仅提供有限的数据。在大多数比较中,不良事件数量无统计学显著差异,大多数为轻度且短暂。四分之三的研究评估了医生的评估,包括研究者整体评估、皮损计数和红斑,但改善所需时间和缓解持续时间报告不完整或未报告。大多数结局的证据质量被评为中等至高,但某些结局为低至极低。几种结局的数据仅可汇总局部用甲硝唑和壬二酸。两者在丘疹脓疱型酒渣鼻中均显示比安慰剂更有效(甲硝唑为中等质量证据,壬二酸为高质量证据)。三项试验中医生评估的汇总数据表明,甲硝唑比安慰剂更有效(风险比(RR)1.98,95%置信区间(CI)1.29至3.02)。四项试验提供了参与者评估的数据,表明壬二酸比安慰剂更有效(RR 1.46,95% CI 1.30至1.63)。关于这两种治疗哪种最有效,三项研究的结果相互矛盾。两项研究表明,与安慰剂相比,局部用伊维菌素在统计学上有显著且具有临床意义的改善(高质量证据)。这些研究中的参与者评估显示RR为1.78(95% CI 1.50至2.11)和RR为1.92(95% CI 1.59至2.32),得到了医生评估的支持。基于一项研究,局部用伊维菌素在改善生活质量以及参与者和医生评估的结局方面,似乎比局部用甲硝唑对丘疹脓疱型酒渣鼻稍更有效(这些结局为高质量证据)。两项研究中,局部用溴莫尼定在12小时内的所有时间点比赋形剂在减轻酒渣鼻红斑方面更有效(高质量证据)。在三小时时,参与者评估显示RR为2.21(95% CI 1.52至3.22)和RR为2.00(95% CI 1.33至3.01),支持溴莫尼定。医生评估证实了这些数据。停药后红斑无反弹或加重。与安慰剂相比,局部用克林霉素磷酸酯联合维甲酸不被认为有效(中等质量证据)。局部用环孢素眼用乳剂对眼部酒渣鼻患者显示出有效性并改善了生活质量(低质量证据)。在评估丘疹脓疱型酒渣鼻口服治疗的比较中,有中等质量证据表明四环素有效,但这基于两项持续时间短的旧研究。两项试验中基于医生的评估表明,多西环素似乎比安慰剂显著更有效(RR 1.59,95% CI 1.02至2.47和RR 2.37,95% CI 1.12至4.99)(高质量证据)。100 mg和40 mg多西环素在有效性上无统计学显著差异,但有证据表明低剂量的不良反应较少(RR 0.25,95% CI 0.11至0.54)(低质量证据)。一项研究(评估为高偏倚风险)提供了极低质量证据,表明100 mg多西环素与阿奇霉素效果相同。低剂量米诺环素(45 mg)对丘疹脓疱型酒渣鼻有效(低质量证据)。四项研究比较了口服四环素与局部用甲硝唑,两种治疗在任何结局上均无统计学显著差异(低至中等质量证据)。参与者(RR 1.23,95% CI 1.05至1.43)和医生(RR 1.18,95% CI 1.03至1.36)均认为低剂量异维A酸比50 - 100 mg多西环素稍更有效(高质量证据)。基于一项研究,脉冲染料激光比钇铝石榴石(Nd:YAG)激光更有效,且似乎与强脉冲光疗法效果相同(均为低质量证据)。
有高质量证据支持局部用壬二酸、局部用伊维菌素、溴莫尼定、多西环素和异维A酸治疗酒渣鼻的有效性。局部用甲硝唑和口服四环素有中等质量证据。低剂量米诺环素、激光和强脉冲光疗法以及环孢素眼用乳剂治疗眼部酒渣鼻有低质量证据。应更全面地探讨反应所需时间和反应持续时间,并更严格地报告不良事件。有必要进一步研究眼部酒渣鼻的治疗。