Interventions for pityriasis rosea

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Pityriasis Rosea

Collapse

Atypical pityriasis rosea in a young Colombian woman. Case report

Introduction: Pityriasis rosea is an acute and self-limited exanthemfirst described by Gilbert in 1860. Its treatment is symptomatic, and although there is no conclusive evidence, it has been associated with the reactivation of the human herpesviruses 6 and 7 (HHV-6 and HHV-7). Case presentation: A 28-year-old woman, from Bogotá, Colombia, ahealth worker, attended the emergency room due to the onset ofsymptoms that began 20 days earlier with the appearance of punctiformlesions in the left arm that later spread to the thorax, abdomen, opposite arm, and thighs. The patient reported a history of bipolar II disorder and retinal detachment. After ruling out several infectious diseases, and due to the evolution of the symptoms, pityriasis rosea was suspected. Therefore, treatment was started with deflazacort 30mg for 21 days, obtaining a favorable outcome and improvement of symptoms after 2 months. At the time of writing this case report, the patient had not consulted for recurrence. Conclusion: Primary care physicians should have sufficient training indermatology to recognize and treat dermatological diseases since manyof them are diagnosed based on clinical findings. This is an atypicalcase, in which the patient did not present with some of the pathognomonic signs associated with 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.

Effectiveness of acyclovir in the treatment of pityriasis rosea. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence to support acyclovir administration in pityriasis rosea.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of acyclovir in patients with typical pityriasis rosea.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE and others, from January 1990 to October 2016 on acyclovir for pityriasis rosea. Random effect model was used to find the pooled Risk Ratio. Outcomes, evaluated between weeks 1 to 8, were regression of lesions, cessation of lesions, decrease of symptoms and duration of disease. Comparisons were acyclovir vs. placebo; acyclovir vs. symptomatic treatment; acyclovir vs. antibiotic; acyclovir vs. observation and combined therapy (acyclovir plus symptomatic treatment) vs. symptomatic treatment alone.

RESULTS

Seven papers were analyzed with 324 participants, of which 159 received acyclovir and 165 were controls. Acyclovir was superior to placebo for complete regression of lesions at week 1 (Risk Ratio 5.72, CI95% 2.36-13.88). However, combined therapy was not superior to symptomatic treatment at week 4 (Risk Ratio 1.46, CI95% 0.93-2.29). Individual studies showed the superiority of acyclovir for the control of symptoms and pruritus.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

We faced differences designs of trials and inconsistency between reports.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic treatment is a reasonable option for pityriasis rosea, and the addition of acyclovir is justified for the control of symptoms and pruritus.

[Paraviral exanthems]

Paraviral exanthems are distinct skin diseases due to infections with different viruses. Although no virus has been identified so far in some exanthems, the main age of manifestation, the clinical course of the exanthem, and the extracutaneous symptoms are suggestive for a viral genesis. While many viral infections are a direct result of the infection, paraviral exanthems reflect the response of the immune system to the infectious pathogens. Viruses cannot be identified in the skin. Typical paraviral exanthems include Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, pityriasis lichenoides, papular-purpuric gloves and sock syndrome, and asymmetrical periflexural exanthema. Unilateral mediothoracic exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis are rare and eruptive hypomelanosis has been described recently.

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.

Pityriasis Rosea: A Comprehensive Classification

Pityriasis rosea (PR) is an acute, self-limiting exanthematous disease associated with the endogenous systemic reactivation of human herpesvirus (HHV)-6 and/or HHV-7. The disease typically begins with a single, erythematous plaque followed by a secondary eruption with lesions on the cleavage lines of the trunk (configuration of a 'Christmas tree'). The duration may vary from 2 weeks to a few months. Besides the typical presentation of PR, atypical forms have been described. The previous classifications of PR are mainly based on its atypical morphological features rather than on the pathogenetic mechanisms that underlie the different presentations of the disease. Notably, most of the morphologically atypical forms follow a course amenable to the classic form. The classification that we propose, taking into account the pathogenesis, clinical features, and course of the disease, is easy and intuitive and may be helpful in identifying the atypical forms of PR in order to avoid misdiagnosis and establish the best treatment options. Finally, this classification provides indications for managing potentially harmful forms of PR (such as PR in pregnancy) and PR-like eruptions.

Pityriasis Rosea, Gianotti-Crosti Syndrome, Asymmetric Periflexural Exanthem, Papular-Purpuric Gloves and Socks Syndrome, Eruptive Pseudoangiomatosis, and Eruptive Hypomelanosis: Do Their Epidemiological Data Substantiate Infectious Etiologies?

Many clinical and laboratory-based studies have been reported for skin rashes which may be due to viral infections, namely pityriasis rosea (PR), Gianotti-Crosti syndrome (GCS), asymmetric periflexural exanthem/unilateral laterothoracic exanthem (APE/ULE), papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome (PPGSS), and eruptive pseudo-angiomatosis (EP). Eruptive hypomelanosis (EH) is a newly discovered paraviral rash. Novel tools are now available to investigate the epidemiology of these rashes. To retrieve epidemiological data of these exanthema and analyze whether such substantiates or refutes infectious etiologies. We searched for articles published over the last 60 years and indexed by PubMed database. We then analyzed them for universality, demography, concurrent patients, temporal and spatial-temporal clustering, mini-epidemics, epidemics, and other clinical and geographical associations. Based on our criteria, we selected 55, 60, 29, 36, 20, and 4 articles for PR, GCS, APE/ULE, PPGSS, EP, and EH respectively. Universality or multiple-continental reports are found for all exanthema except EH. The ages of patients are compatible with infectious causes for PR, GCS, APE/ULE, and EH. Concurrent patients are reported for all. Significant patient clustering is demonstrated for PR and GCS. Mini-epidemics and epidemics have been reported for GCS, EP, and EH. The current epidemiological data supports, to a moderate extent, that PR, GCS, and APE could be caused by infectious agents. Support for PPGSS is marginal. Epidemiological evidences for infectious origins for EP and EH are inadequate. There might be growing epidemiological evidence to substantiate or to refute our findings in the future.

Applicability of proposed diagnostic criteria of pityriasis rosea: results of a prospective case-control study in India

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of pityriasis rosea (PR) is generally clinical. Previous studies usually recruited relatively small numbers of patients and control subjects, leading to low power of study results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses cannot be readily performed, as the inclusion and exclusion criteria of these studies were not uniform. We have previously validated a set of diagnostic criteria (DC) in Chinese patients with PR.

AIM

Our aim is to evaluate the validity and applicability of the DC of PR in Indian patients with PR.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective unblinded pair-matched case-control study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The setting is a dermatology clinic in India served by one board-certified dermatologist. We recruited all 88 patients seen by us during five years diagnosed to have PR to join our study. For each study subject, we recruited the next patient who consulted us with differential diagnoses of PR as control subjects. We applied the DC of PR on all study and control subjects.

RESULT

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the DC were all 100%. Two-tailed Fisher's exact probability test result was 0.036. Φ was 1.00.

CONCLUSION

The set of DC can be validly applied to Indian patients with PR.

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.

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.

Pityriasis rosea: an update with a critical appraisal of its possible herpesviral etiology

Pityriasis rosea is an acute, self-healing exanthem characterized by oval erythematous-squamous lesions of the trunk and limbs, that usually spares face, scalp, palms, and soles. Constitutional symptoms, which have the character of true prodromes; clinical features, which resemble those of the known exanthems; and many epidemiologic data all suggest an infectious origin. A host of infectious agents have been incriminated, but, recently, human herpesvirus 6 and 7 have been extensively studied. The goal of this review is to outline the epidemiologic, clinical, histologic, and ultrastructural features of pityriasis rosea, but mainly to stress its possible human herpesvirus nature. In addition, clues have been added to help the reader to go through the complex subtleties of the virologic investigation.