OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of ivermectin and lindane for the treatment of human scabies. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, controlled, double-blind, "double-dummy," and parallel clinical study. SETTING: A single department of dermatology at a hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. PATIENTS: Patients were outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those referred to our hospital from nursing homes and asylums. Fifty-three patients had clinical signs and symptoms compatible with scabies. INTERVENTION: Patients received either a single oral dose of ivermectin (150-200 microg/kg of body weight) or a topical application of 1% lindane solution. Treatment was repeated after 15 days if clinical cure had not occurred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical healing and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 53 patients, 43 (81%) completed the study, 19 in the group treated with ivermectin and 24 in the group treated with lindane. At day 15, 14 patients (74%; 95% confidence interval, 48.8%-90.8%) in the group receiving ivermectin showed healing of their scabies and 13 patients (54%; 95% confidence interval, 32.8%-74.4%) in the group treated with lindane were healed. At 29 days, both treatments resulted in statistically equivalent therapeutic efficacy: 18 patients (95%; 95% confidence interval, 74.0%-99.9%) were healed with ivermectin and 23 patients (96%; 95% confidence interval, 78.9%, 99.9%) were healed with lindane (P<.02). Adverse effects from the treatments were few, mild, and transient. Results from laboratory tests showed no major abnormalities and no difference between treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Ivermectin is as effective as lindane for the treatment of scabies. Ivermectin is simpler to use and, therefore, is a promising tool to improve compliance and to control infestations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of ivermectin and lindane for the treatment of humanscabies. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, controlled, double-blind, "double-dummy," and parallel clinical study. SETTING: A single department of dermatology at a hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. PATIENTS: Patients were outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those referred to our hospital from nursing homes and asylums. Fifty-three patients had clinical signs and symptoms compatible with scabies. INTERVENTION: Patients received either a single oral dose of ivermectin (150-200 microg/kg of body weight) or a topical application of 1% lindane solution. Treatment was repeated after 15 days if clinical cure had not occurred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical healing and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 53 patients, 43 (81%) completed the study, 19 in the group treated with ivermectin and 24 in the group treated with lindane. At day 15, 14 patients (74%; 95% confidence interval, 48.8%-90.8%) in the group receiving ivermectin showed healing of their scabies and 13 patients (54%; 95% confidence interval, 32.8%-74.4%) in the group treated with lindane were healed. At 29 days, both treatments resulted in statistically equivalent therapeutic efficacy: 18 patients (95%; 95% confidence interval, 74.0%-99.9%) were healed with ivermectin and 23 patients (96%; 95% confidence interval, 78.9%, 99.9%) were healed with lindane (P<.02). Adverse effects from the treatments were few, mild, and transient. Results from laboratory tests showed no major abnormalities and no difference between treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Ivermectin is as effective as lindane for the treatment of scabies. Ivermectin is simpler to use and, therefore, is a promising tool to improve compliance and to control infestations.
Authors: Fatimata Ly; Eric Caumes; Cheick Ahmet Tidiane Ndaw; Bassirou Ndiaye; Antoine Mahé Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Kate E Mounsey; Shelley F Walton; Ashlee Innes; Skye Cash-Deans; James S McCarthy Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Agnes L Castillo; Marina O Osi; John Donnie A Ramos; Jean L De Francia; Marylaine U Dujunco; Peter F Quilala Journal: J Pharmacol Pharmacother Date: 2013-01
Authors: Christian Kositz; John Bradley; Harry Hutchins; Anna Last; Umberto D'Alessandro; Michael Marks Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 2.455
Authors: Jackson Thomas; Greg M Peterson; Shelley F Walton; Christine F Carson; Mark Naunton; Kavya E Baby Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Karin Haar; Lucia Romani; Raikanikoda Filimone; Kamal Kishore; Meciusela Tuicakau; Josefa Koroivueta; John M Kaldor; Handan Wand; Andrew Steer; Margot Whitfeld Journal: Int J Dermatol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 2.736