4.6 Article

Topical antimicrobial peptide omiganan recovers cutaneous dysbiosis but does not improve clinical symptoms in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in a phase 2 randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.08.132

关键词

antimicrobial peptide; atopic dermatitis; dysbiosis; omiganan; pharmacodynamics; Staphylococcus aureus

资金

  1. Cutanea Life Science, Wayne , Pennsylvania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Omiganan restored dysbiosis by reducing Staphylococcus abundance and increasing diversity. However, there was no significant clinical improvement observed.
Background: Dysbiosis and colonization with Staphylococcus aureus is considered to play an important role in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD). Recovering this dysbiosis may improve AD symptoms. Omiganan is a synthetic indolicidin analogue antimicrobial peptide with activity against S aureus and could be a viable new treatment option for AD. Objective: To explore the tolerability, clinical efficacy, and pharmacodynamics of omiganan in mild to moderate AD. Methods: Eighty patients were randomized to omiganan 1%, 1.75%, or 2.5% or vehicle twice daily for 28 days on all lesions. Weekly visits included clinical scores and microbiological and pharmacodynamic assessments of 1 target lesion. Results: In all omiganan treatment groups, dysbiosis was recovered by reducing Staphylococcus species abundance and increasing diversity. A reduction of cultured S aureus was observed in all omiganan treatment groups, with a significant reduction for omiganan 2.5% compared to vehicle (-93.5%; 95% CI, 99.2 to 28.5%; P = .02). No significant clinical improvement was observed. Conclusion: Topical administration of omiganan twice daily for up to 28 days in patients with mild to moderate AD led to a recovery of dysbiosis but without clinical improvement. Therefore, a monotreatment that selectively targets the microbiome does not appear to be a successful treatment strategy in mild to moderate AD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据