Aim: Chronic anal fissure (CAF) is an extremely frequent finding in clinical practice. Several topical agents have been proposed for its treatment with the common goal of increasing anodermal blood flow to promote healing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a Propionibacterium extract gel (PeG) and 0.4% glyceryl trinitrate ointment (GTN) in patients with CAF.Method: Patients were randomly allocated to a PeG or GTN group and medication was administered every 12 h for 40 days. The primary outcome was the success rate, as measured by a decrease in the REALISE scoring system for anal fissure at 10, 20 and 40 days after initiating either treatment. The secondary outcomes recorded at the same time points were healing rate, visual analogue scales for itching and burning, rate of complications and adverse events, patient quality of life and satisfaction, and cost analysis.Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled, and 96 patients (PeG, n = 53; GTN, n = 43) completed the primary outcomes. A significant decrease over time in the REALISE score was observed in both groups. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the GTN group than in the PeG group, peaking at visit 1 [37 (63.8%) vs. 2 (3.4%), respectively], with headache being the most prevalent. The between-treatment cumulative average costs per patient were significantly higher for GTN than that for PeG at each follow-up visit. There were no other significant differences between the two groups for any of the other outcomes.Conclusion: While there was no difference in healing rates between the two treatments, PeG was more cost-effective and associated with fewer adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of Propionibacterium extract gel versus glyceryl trinitrate ointment in the treatment of chronic anal fissure: a randomized controlled trial

Fulginiti, Serena;Curro', Giuseppe;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Aim: Chronic anal fissure (CAF) is an extremely frequent finding in clinical practice. Several topical agents have been proposed for its treatment with the common goal of increasing anodermal blood flow to promote healing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a Propionibacterium extract gel (PeG) and 0.4% glyceryl trinitrate ointment (GTN) in patients with CAF.Method: Patients were randomly allocated to a PeG or GTN group and medication was administered every 12 h for 40 days. The primary outcome was the success rate, as measured by a decrease in the REALISE scoring system for anal fissure at 10, 20 and 40 days after initiating either treatment. The secondary outcomes recorded at the same time points were healing rate, visual analogue scales for itching and burning, rate of complications and adverse events, patient quality of life and satisfaction, and cost analysis.Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled, and 96 patients (PeG, n = 53; GTN, n = 43) completed the primary outcomes. A significant decrease over time in the REALISE score was observed in both groups. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the GTN group than in the PeG group, peaking at visit 1 [37 (63.8%) vs. 2 (3.4%), respectively], with headache being the most prevalent. The between-treatment cumulative average costs per patient were significantly higher for GTN than that for PeG at each follow-up visit. There were no other significant differences between the two groups for any of the other outcomes.Conclusion: While there was no difference in healing rates between the two treatments, PeG was more cost-effective and associated with fewer adverse events.
2023
Propionibacterium
anal fissure
glyceryl trinitrate
headache
healing
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12317/85331
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact