OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% in pediatric patients with moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: 141 patients (aged 2-17 years) were randomized to treatment with pimecrolimus cream 1% (n=71) or tacrolimus ointment 0.03% (n=70) twice daily for 6 weeks. RESULTS: At day 4, local, application-site reactions were less common and of shorter duration with pimecrolimus than with tacrolimus. Incidence of erythema/irritation was 8% (6/71) with pimecrolimus compared with 19% (13/70) with tacrolimus (P=.039). Fewer patients receiving pimecrolimus (0%, 0/6) experienced erythema/irritation lasting >30 minutes, compared with those receiving tacrolimus (85%, 11/13; P <.001). Fewer patients reported itching with pimecrolimus (8%; 6/71) than with tacrolimus (20%; 14/70; P=.073). Incidence of warmth, stinging, and burning was similar in both groups; however, reactions lasting >30 minutes were fewer with pimecrolimus (0%, 0/14) than with tacrolimus (67%, 8/12; P <.001). More patients receiving pimecrolimus rated ease of application as 'excellent' or 'very good', compared with tacrolimus (76% vs 59%, respectively; P <.020). Efficacy was similar in both groups at day 43. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION:Pimecrolimus cream 1% had better formulation attributes and local tolerability than tacrolimus ointment 0.03% while providing similar efficacy and overall safety in pediatric patients with moderate AD.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pimecrolimuscream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.03% in pediatric patients with moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: 141 patients (aged 2-17 years) were randomized to treatment with pimecrolimuscream 1% (n=71) or tacrolimus ointment 0.03% (n=70) twice daily for 6 weeks. RESULTS: At day 4, local, application-site reactions were less common and of shorter duration with pimecrolimus than with tacrolimus. Incidence of erythema/irritation was 8% (6/71) with pimecrolimus compared with 19% (13/70) with tacrolimus (P=.039). Fewer patients receiving pimecrolimus (0%, 0/6) experienced erythema/irritation lasting >30 minutes, compared with those receiving tacrolimus (85%, 11/13; P <.001). Fewer patients reported itching with pimecrolimus (8%; 6/71) than with tacrolimus (20%; 14/70; P=.073). Incidence of warmth, stinging, and burning was similar in both groups; however, reactions lasting >30 minutes were fewer with pimecrolimus (0%, 0/14) than with tacrolimus (67%, 8/12; P <.001). More patients receiving pimecrolimus rated ease of application as 'excellent' or 'very good', compared with tacrolimus (76% vs 59%, respectively; P <.020). Efficacy was similar in both groups at day 43. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION:Pimecrolimuscream 1% had better formulation attributes and local tolerability than tacrolimus ointment 0.03% while providing similar efficacy and overall safety in pediatric patients with moderate AD.
Authors: William Abramovits; Mark Boguniewicz; Amy S Paller; Diane L Whitaker-Worth; Mary M Prendergast; Michael Tokar; Kuo B Tong Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Lawrence F Eichenfield; Wynnis L Tom; Timothy G Berger; Alfons Krol; Amy S Paller; Kathryn Schwarzenberger; James N Bergman; Sarah L Chamlin; David E Cohen; Kevin D Cooper; Kelly M Cordoro; Dawn M Davis; Steven R Feldman; Jon M Hanifin; David J Margolis; Robert A Silverman; Eric L Simpson; Hywel C Williams; Craig A Elmets; Julie Block; Christopher G Harrod; Wendy Smith Begolka; Robert Sidbury Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Hye One Kim; Yoon Seok Yang; Hyun Chang Ko; Gyung Moon Kim; Sang Hyun Cho; Young Joon Seo; Sang Wook Son; Jong Rok Lee; Joong Sun Lee; Sung Eun Chang; Jae We Che; Chun Wook Park Journal: Ann Dermatol Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 1.444