Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32734366›Full record

ArticleDermatology and therapy2020

A Multicentre, Randomised Clinical Trial to Compare a Topical Nitrizinc

Paolo Pontini, Luca Mastorino, Valeria Gaspari, Corinne Granger, Stefano Ramoni, Sergio Delmonte, Valeria Evangelista, Marco Cusini

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Trace element zinc and skin disorders.Frontiers in medicine · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Paolo PontiniUnit of Dermatology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Pace 9, 20122, Milan, Italy. pontini.p@gmail.com.
Luca MastorinoDermatology Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza-University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Valeria GaspariUnit of Dermatology, Head and Neck Department, Sant'Orsola Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Corinne GrangerInnovation and Development, ISDIN, Barcelona, Spain.
Stefano RamoniUnit of Dermatology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Pace 9, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Sergio DelmonteDermatology Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza-University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Valeria EvangelistaUnit of Dermatology, Head and Neck Department, Sant'Orsola Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Marco CusiniUnit of Dermatology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Pace 9, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITPoliclinico S.Orsola-Malpighi · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITIsdin (Spain) · ESUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAnogenital warts (AGW) are a relevant clinical issue in the field of sexually transmitted disease, and to date no treatment provides a satisfactory clearance rate. Treatment can be both medical and surgical, and be provided by a healthcare provider or by the patient. Cryotherapy (CRYO) is among the most common treatments for AGW. Nitrizinc® Complex solution (NZCS) is a solution containing organic acids, nitric acid and zinc and copper salts that is applied topically to warts, producing mummification of the damaged tissue. It is considered to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for genital and common warts. The aim of our study was to compare NZCS to CRYO in the treatment of AGW.

methodsWe performed a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, randomised, superiority clinical study involving 120 patients, aged 18-55 years, diagnosed with a first episode of AGW, with each patient having from three to ten AGW. The patients were treated either with NZCS or CRYO for a maximum of four treatments. Primary endpoints were: (1) comparison of the clinical efficacy of CRYO and NZCS, based on response to treatment (clearance of AGW) within four treatment sessions; and (2) tolerability, assessed via a short questionnaire at the end of each treatment session. Secondary endpoints were: (1) number of treatments needed for clearance; and (2) recurrence at 1 and 3e months after confirmed clearance. The results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

resultsA complete response was achieved in 89.7% of the NZCS group and in 75.4% of the CRYO group (p = 0.0443). NZCS was found to be better tolerated. There was no difference between the NZCS and CRYO treatment arms in the number of sessions needed to clear the lesions. Recurrence occurred after 1 month in 18.4% of the NZCS group and 38.1% of the CRYO group (p = 0.0356), and after 3 months in 25 and 40.6% of these groups, respectively (p = 0.1479).

conclusionsNitrizinc® Complex solution can be considered to be as effective as CRYO for the treatment of small (< 5 mm) external AGW, with a better tolerability profile and lower rate of recurrence.

trial registrationISRCTN identifier, ISRCTN36102369.

Indexed as

Anogenital wartsCryotherapyNitrizinc complex solutionTreatment

Identifiers

PMID32734366
PMCPMC7477018
OpenAlexW3046759608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.