Cargando…

Efficacy and Safety of Three Cryotherapy Devices for Wart Treatment: A Randomized, Controlled, Investigator-Blinded, Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION: Cutaneous warts are common skin lesions, caused by human papillomavirus. For years, liquid nitrogen is the cryogen of choice for wart treatment. Alternatively, several cryogenic devices for home treatment are commercially available. The present trial assessed efficacy and safety of a n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walczuk, Imko, Eertmans, Frank, Rossel, Bart, Cegielska, Agnieszka, Stockfleth, Eggert, Antunes, Andre, Adriaens, Els
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13555-017-0210-5
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Cutaneous warts are common skin lesions, caused by human papillomavirus. For years, liquid nitrogen is the cryogen of choice for wart treatment. Alternatively, several cryogenic devices for home treatment are commercially available. The present trial assessed efficacy and safety of a novel nitrous oxide-based cryogenic device for home use (EndWarts Freeze(®) in Europe, Compound W(®) Nitro-Freeze in the USA). METHODS: This investigator-blinded, controlled, randomized study compared the nitrous oxide device (test product) with a dimethylether propane-based product (Wartner(®); comparator 1). Subjects with common or plantar warts (50/50 ratio) were randomized into two groups (n = 58, test product; n = 40, comparator 1). Sequentially, an extra treatment arm (n = 40) was added to compare with a dimethylether-based product with metal nib (Wortie(®); comparator 2). Main objective implied comparison of the percentage cured subjects after one to maximum three treatments. Efficacy and safety was evaluated by a blinded investigator. RESULTS: After a maximum of three applications, a significantly (p = 0.001) higher cure rate of 70.7% (Intention-to-Treat analysis) was observed with test product versus 46.2% (comparator 1) and 47.5% (comparator 2). Almost three times more subjects were cured after 1 test product application (29.3%), versus comparator 1 (10.4%) and comparator 2 (12.5%). Reported side effects were transient and typical of cryotherapy. All treatments were well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: The superior cure rates for the test product versus two comparators can be explained by its design. Combination of nitrous oxide (cooling agent), the specific activation method (holding the liquid coolant in the cap), and skin-conforming polyurethane foam, results in higher cooling efficiency (− 80 °C) and more effective wart freezing. This trial demonstrated that the nitrous oxide device is a safe, user-friendly and effective wart treatment for home use, comparing favourably to dimethylether (propane) devices with higher freezing temperature, regardless of the applicator type. FUNDING: Oystershell Laboratories. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT03129373.