4.6 Article

Efficacy and safety of 15(R/S)-methyl-lipoxin A4 in topical treatment of infantile eczema

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 168, 期 1, 页码 172-178

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11177.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Emphasis Grant, Government of Jiangsu Province, People's Republic of China [56RC2002056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Lipoxins are potential anti-inflammatory mediators and serve as an endogenous 'braking signal' in the inflammatory process. Accumulating evidence has indicated the efficacy of lipoxin A(4) (LXA(4)) and its analogs in the treatment of many animal models of inflammatory diseases. Objectives This study investigates the efficacy and safety of 15(R/S)-methyl-lipoxin A4 in the topical treatment of infantile eczema. Patients and methods In this two-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-groups comparative study, 60 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the 15(R/S)-methyl-lipoxin A(4) cream, mometasone furoate (Eloson, Schering-Plough, Shanghai, China) or placebo for 10 days. The efficacy was determined using the Severity Scale Score (SSS), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and the Infants' Dermatitis Quality of Life Index (IDQOL). Safety was monitored by physical examination, laboratory investigation and documentation of clinical adverse events. Results The treatment of eczema with 15(R/S)-methyl-LXA(4) cream significantly relieved the severity, induced a recovery, and improved the quality of life of the patients, as demonstrated by significantly reduced SSS, EASI and IDQOL, respectively, in a way similar to the efficacy of Eloson. All safety parameters remained within normal limits. No clinical adverse event was found in the three patient groups. Conclusions 15(R/S)-methyl-LXA(4) was well tolerated, and significantly reduced the severity of eczema. The results of this small exploratory study suggest that 15(R/S)-methyl-LXA(4) warrants further investigation in the treatment of eczema.

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