Hydrocortisone Butyrate 0.1% Cream in the Treatment of Chronic Dermatitis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THERAPEUTICS FOR THE CLINICIAN Hydrocortisone Butyrate 0.1% Cream in the Treatment of Chronic Dermatitis Joseph F. Fowler, Jr, MD; Anthony F. Fransway, MD; J. Mark Jackson, MD; Nestor Rohowsky, MA This multicenter, randomized, double-blind clini- opical corticosteroids remain the mainstay cal trial involving 89 subjects (86 with chronic of therapy for inflammatory skin conditions hand dermatitis and 3 with atopic dermatitis) T such as hand dermatitis and atopic dermati- compared the safety, efficacy, and cosmetic tis.1,2 The appearance of treatment alternatives acceptability of 4 medium-potency topical corti- involving combinations of corticosteroids with costeroid products: hydrocortisone butyrate newer immunomodulating agents3,4 has led to an (HB) 0.1% cream (Locoid Lipocream®), flutica- increase in the demand for a variety of treatment sone propionate (FP) 0.05% cream (Cutivate®), options, including corticosteroids of different prednicarbate (PC) 0.1% cream (Dermatop®), and potencies and in different vehicles. Use of the mometasone furoate (MF) 0.1% cream (Elocon®). various treatment options is highly individualized, Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treat- based on factors such as extent and severity of the ment groups (HB vs FP, HB vs PC, or HB vs MF) condition, treatment history, patient age, allergic and further randomized to HB on the right or the and irritant sensitivity, and cosmetic acceptabil- left side, and FP, PC, or MF on the contralateral ity. This clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate side. Treatments were self-administered twice daily the safety, efficacy, and cosmetic acceptability of a for 2 weeks. Assessments of efficacy were based high-lipid emollient cream formulation of hydro- on the investigator ratings of signs and the sub- cortisone butyrate (HB) 0.1% (Locoid Lipocream®) ject ratings of signs and symptoms. Cosmetic as compared with 3 other medium-potency acceptability was assessed by direct compar- corticosteroid cream products—fluticasone propi- isons between products using a subject ques- onate (FP) 0.05% cream (Cutivate®), prednicar- tionnaire. The results indicated comparable bate (PC) emollient 0.1% cream (Dermatop®), efficacy of all 4 medium-potency corticosteroid and mometasone furoate (MF) 0.1% cream products and suggested that, compared to other (Elocon®)—in the treatment of chronic atopic corticosteroid creams, the HB vehicle yielded and hand dermatitis. somewhat greater subject preference with respect to cosmetic appeal. Methods Cutis. 2005;75:125-131. Subjects—Subjects were included in the study pop- ulation if they were between 18 and 65 years of age with moderate hand dermatitis or atopic dermatitis that had persisted for at least 2 weeks prior to their Accepted for publication August 6, 2004. entering the study. The study was designed to make Drs. Fowler and Jackson are from the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Kentucky. Dr. Fransway is from Fort Meyers, unbiased within-subject comparisons of treatment Florida. Mr. Rohowsky is from Integrated Data Consultation effectiveness; therefore, subjects had to have Services, Inc, La Grange Park, Illinois. approximately symmetrical bilateral involvement at This study was supported by a grant from Ferndale Laboratories, the baseline visit. A total of 89 subjects (86 with Inc. Dr. Fowler is a consultant and investigator and Mr. Rohowsky hand dermatitis and 3 with atopic dermatitis) were is a consultant for Ferndale Laboratories, Inc. Drs. Fransway and Jackson report no conflict of interest. randomized to the study. Subjects could not use Reprints: Joseph F. Fowler, Jr, MD, 444 S First St, Louisville, other medications known to affect dermatitis, KY 40202 (e-mail: [email protected]). including systemic treatments, for one month prior VOLUME 75, FEBRUARY 2005 125 Hydrocortisone Butyrate for Chronic Dermatitis to the baseline visit or topical corticosteroids for HB on the right or the left side, and FP, PC, or MF one week prior to the baseline visit. on the contralateral side. At the baseline study Study Design—This was a multicenter, random- visit, subjects were instructed in the use of the ized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial of 2 weeks’ study products. Subjects also made their first appli- duration. Subjects were randomized in balanced cation of the products under supervision of the cohorts to 3 parallel-treatment groups, each group clinical staff. For the next 2 weeks, the subjects receiving a pair of treatments, HB vs FP, HB vs self-administered the treatments twice daily fol- PC, or HB vs MF. All subjects were treated with lowing written instructions. The instructions Table 1. Clinical Assessments of Dermatitis Severity Score Sign/Symptom 0ϭNone 1ϭMild 2ϭModerate 3ϭSevere Erythema None Mild pinkness Moderate pink to red Intense redness Cracking/fissuring None A few shallow Moderate, early fissures Deep fissures (1 mm) cracks Scaling None Diffuse mild Moderate, with or Thick scaling plaques flaking without plaques Papules/vesicles None A few Multiple Large bullae papules/vesicles papules/vesicles, or widespread contained papules/vesicles Table 2. Percentage of Subjects Showing Improvement in Signs of Dermatitis*† Treatment HB vs FP (nϭ26) HB vs PC (nϭ28) HB vs MF (nϭ31) Sign Rated by HB FP HB PC HB MF Erythema Investigator 31 23 46 46 42 39 Subject 50 35 46 39 61 52 Cracking/fissuring Investigator 62 54 43 21 48 42 Subject 46 50 43 43 48 52 Scaling Investigator 65 54 43 54 48 48 Subject 54 54 43 61 48 42 Papules/vesicles Investigator 27 23 36 36 26 19 Subject 27 15 21 29 19 10 *HB indicates hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% cream; FP, fluticasone propionate 0.05% cream; PC, prednicarbate emollient 0.1% cream; MF, mometasone furoate 0.1% cream. †Individual pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (PϽ.05) only for subject rating of erythema in the HB vs FP group and investigator rating of cracking/fissuring in the HB vs PC group. 126 CUTIS® Hydrocortisone Butyrate for Chronic Dermatitis Table 3. Mean Investigator Total Signs Score Ϯ SD* Treatment HB vs FP (nϭ26) HB vs PC (nϭ28) HB vs MF (nϭ31) HB FP HB PC HB MF Baseline 4.9Ϯ1.1 4.8Ϯ1.2 5.0Ϯ1.3 5.1Ϯ1.3 5.1Ϯ1.5 5.1Ϯ1.7 Final 3.3Ϯ2.4 3.7Ϯ2.4 3.4Ϯ1.3 3.8Ϯ1.7 3.6Ϯ2.2 3.4Ϯ2.3 Change from baseline Ϫ1.6Ϯ2.0 Ϫ1.2Ϯ2.2 Ϫ1.6Ϯ1.7 Ϫ1.3Ϯ1.3 Ϫ1.5Ϯ1.7 Ϫ1.7Ϯ1.6 Within-treatment P value .0004 .0112 Ͻ.0001 Ͻ.0001 Ͻ.0001 Ͻ.0001 Between-treatment .0626 .3493 .5195 P value (within group) *HB indicates hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% cream; FP, fluticasone propionate 0.05% cream; PC, prednicarbate emollient 0.1% cream; MF, mometasone furoate 0.1% cream. included details regarding the application of Safety Assessments—Product safety was assessed specifically labeled products (labeled “left” or through the collection and evaluation of adverse “right”) to the appropriate side of the body using events, either observed by the investigator or volun- new vinyl gloves at each application to prevent the teered by the subjects. intermixing of the materials from one side to the Statistical Analysis—Changes from baseline to other. The medications were dispensed to the sub- final visit for each investigator’s signs score and jects in blind-labeled tubes that were clearly each subject’s signs and symptoms score were cate- marked with the subject’s identification number gorized as “improved,” “worsened,” or “no change.” and the word “left” or “right.” At the end of the The distribution of subjects across these 3 cate- 2-week treatment period, the subjects returned to gories was then compared between treatments using the study site for a final examination. the McNemar test. The investigator total scores, Clinical Assessments—As shown in Table 1, at the subject total scores, and in patients with hand the baseline and final visits, the investigators and dermatitis, the percentage of hand involvement the subjects independently rated the severity of (palm, dorsum, and combined) were analyzed typical signs of dermatitis using a 4-point ordinal within treatment group using the t test for paired scale (0ϭnone, 1ϭmild, 2ϭmoderate, and data. The scores and percentages were analyzed 3ϭsevere). In addition, the subject rated 2 addi- between treatment groups using comparisons of tional symptoms, pruritus and pain/burning. The changes from baseline derived from the results of total signs score for investigators was calculated the t test for paired data. Demographic and back- by summing the separate signs scores. The total ground parameters were compared between treat- signs and symptoms score for subjects was calcu- ment groups using analysis of variance and 2 tests, lated by summing each patient’s signs and symp- as appropriate. No statistical tests were performed toms scores. The percentage of hand involvement for the questionnaire responses or the incidence of for hand dermatitis or the size of the target area for adverse events. atopic dermatitis also was recorded. Subject Questionnaires—At the final visit, sub- Results jects completed a questionnaire in which they com- Subjects—A total of 89 subjects were enrolled in pared both study products with respect to which the study; 27 were randomized to the HB versus FP cream felt more soothing upon application, which group, 28 to the HB versus PC group, and 34 to the cream moisturized the skin better, and which cream HB versus MF group. The mean overall age of sub- was preferred overall. jects was 46 years old; 52 of the subjects (58%) VOLUME 75, FEBRUARY 2005 127 Hydrocortisone Butyrate for Chronic Dermatitis 6 5 5.1 5.1 5 4.8 4 3.7 3.8 3.4 3.4 3 Total Score 2 1 0 HB* FP PC MF Product A 9 8 7.4 7.1 7.2 Figure 1. Mean investigator 7 7 total signs score (A) and mean subject total signs 6 and symptoms score (B).