Comparing the Efficacy of Chemical Cautery to Cryosurgery on CD4+ Status of HIV Patients with Condyloma Acuminata.
CD4+
HIV
chemical cautery
condyloma acuminata
cryosurgery
Journal
Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology
ISSN: 1178-7015
Titre abrégé: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101543449
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
09
07
2021
accepted:
21
09
2021
entrez:
22
10
2021
pubmed:
23
10
2021
medline:
23
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Condyloma acuminata (CA) is one of the sexually transmitted infections caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Condyloma acuminata patients are usually coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), particularly those with low CD4+ levels. Chemical cautery and cryosurgery are therapeutic modalities for CA, aiming to remove lesions and prevent recurrence, especially in patients with HIV. To compare the efficacy of chemical cautery to cryosurgery on CD4+ status of HIV patients with CA. A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted in patients with CA visiting the Dermatology and Venereology outpatient clinic and the voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) clinic of Dr. Moewardi Hospital Surakarta, Indonesia from January 2018 to December 2020. The data were taken from the medical records of patients. These subjects were grouped into CA with HIV and without HIV. The data were statistically analyzed with Seventy-eight patients with CA were included in the study, comprising 41 subjects with HIV infection and 37 subjects without HIV infection. The subjects were predominantly male (68%). Of all the subjects, 70.5% received chemical cautery, and the remaining had cryosurgery. Multivariate regression tests obtained no significant differences in CD4+ levels between chemical cautery and cryosurgery (p=0.138 vs p=0.907). Either chemical cautery or cryosurgery is effective in improving the clinical condition of patients with CA. Although chemical cautery results in a higher level of CD4+ than cryosurgery, statistically both therapies have no significant difference regarding CD4+ status.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34675581
doi: 10.2147/CCID.S328667
pii: 328667
pmc: PMC8504701
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1453-1458Informations de copyright
© 2021 Mawardi et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report that there are no conflicts of interest in this research.
Références
BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Jan 25;13:39
pubmed: 23347441
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 May;86(9):3277-81
pubmed: 2470098
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2003 Jul 15;190(2):146-56
pubmed: 12878044
Virusdisease. 2017 Jun;28(2):133-140
pubmed: 28770238
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 18;138(6):453-9
pubmed: 12639077
Clin Dermatol. 2014 Mar-Apr;32(2):299-306
pubmed: 24559567
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;118(4):831-9
pubmed: 21934446
Nature. 1990 Sep 20;347(6290):286-9
pubmed: 2144894
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Aug;34(8):1644-1653
pubmed: 32735077
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Mar;11(3):WC01-WC05
pubmed: 28511487
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 19;101(16):1120-30
pubmed: 19648510
J Autoimmun. 2004 Nov;23(3):211-20
pubmed: 15501392
Lancet. 2002 Jan 12;359(9301):108-13
pubmed: 11809252
Mol Med Rep. 2013 Aug;8(2):480-6
pubmed: 23754510
J Immunol. 2008 Jun 1;180(11):7681-6
pubmed: 18490771