TITLE:
Treatment of Localized Vitiligo with 1% Pimecrolimus Cream versus 0.05% Clobetasol Propionate Cream—Single, Blinded, Comparative Therapeutic Trial
AUTHORS:
Khalifa E. Sharquie, Hayder R. Al-Hamamy, Adil A. Noaimi, Kholod A. Ali
KEYWORDS:
Localized Vitiligo, Pimecrolimius, Clobetasol Propionate
JOURNAL NAME:
Journal of Cosmetics, Dermatological Sciences and Applications,
Vol.5 No.2,
June
12,
2015
ABSTRACT: Background: Calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus and
pimecrolimus are new modality of treatment of localized vitiligo. Objective: To
compare the effectiveness and side effects of 1% pimecrolimus cream in
comparison with 0.05% clobetasol propionate cream as a treatment of localized
type of vitiligo. Patients and Methods: Fifty two patients with localized
vitiligo were included in this single, blind, comparative therapeutic trial.
Full history and examination for each patient was done. Wood’s light was used
when needed to confirm the diagnosis. Thirty (57.7%) were females and 22
(42.3%) males, female to male ratio of 1.36:1. Their ages ranged between 3 - 40
(13.15 ± 7.9) years, while disease duration ranged from 6 - 84 (29.62 ± 20.56)
months. Total numbers of lesions were 114 lesions with a mean of 2.2 lesions
per patient. The surface area of the lesions ranged between 1 - 31 (7.15 ±
6.98) cm2. Vitiliginous patches were most commonly located on face 48 (42.1%)
lesions, and lower limbs 35 (30.7%) lesions. Patients were divided in to two
groups according to the type of therapeutic modality.GroupAconsisted of 25 patients (52 lesions)
receiving 1% pimecrolimus cream andGroupB27
patients (62 lesions) treated with 0.05% clobetasol propionate cream, both used
twice daily. The amount of cream per area was applied according to rule of
fingertip unit. Measuring the surface area of the lesions and calculating the
reduction rate were done every month till the end of the 6thmonth.
Then patients were asked to stop the use of medication to be re-evaluated again
after 3 months without any treatment and to record any local or systemic side
effects. Results: After 6 months of treatment there was 79.67% reduction in the
surface area of lesions inGroupA, while inGroupBthere was 82.59% reduction in the
surface area with no statistically significant difference between the two
groups. The reduction rate was early as there was statistically significant
reduction for both groups after one month of treatment (p value