Introduction: Pyogenic granulomas are benign vascular lesions of the skin and mucosa which are often a source of concern because of their recurrent bleeding even with minimal trauma. Current treatment for pyogenic granuloma is ablative; no medical therapy is standardized to date. Timolol, due to its vasoconstrictive effect, vascular growth factor inhibition and apoptosis promotion properties, is a potential therapeutic option. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical timolol in the treatment of pyogenic granulomas. Methods: A two-centre, double-blind and placebo-controlled trial (Registration CTRI/2019/04/018581) was conducted. Patients of either sex were recruited with pyogenic granuloma lesions of less than eight weeks duration. Topical treatment with 0.5% timolol or matching glycerin placebo was continued for six weeks. Changes in color, size, bleeding tendency, physicians’ and patients’ global assessments and adverse events were assessed. Results: Forty subjects were randomized between the two groups which were comparable in age, sex, duration of illness and baseline lesion size.Significant improvement was noted with timolol, with color change from first follow-up onwards and lesion size reduction from second follow-up onward. Patients’ assessment of bleeding tendency also showed imrovement from the second visit onward. Between-group comparison showed significant difference with respect to percentage reduction in size (timolol 40.9%, placebo 3.4%; P = 0.002). Rescue treatment (electrosurgery) was required in five patients on placebo and in one in the timolol group (P = 0.182). Complete resolution occurred in 2 (10%) patients with timolol and in no patients on placebo (P = 0.231). Limitations: We observed effects of treatment for only six weeks. Conclusion: Topical timolol may be a treatment option for early pyogenic granulomas but complete resolution is unlikely in six weeks. Studies of longer duration are required to assess resolution and recurrence rates.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Introduction: Chronic urticaria is common and distressing dermatosis where the search for newer agents with improved effectiveness and tolerability profile is a felt need. Bepotastine, a second-generation antihistamine, with added effect on suppression of eosinophil migration has a prospect in the management of chronic urticaria. Aims: To assess and compare effectiveness and safety of bepotastine versus levocetirizine in chronic urticaria. Materials and Methods: Single-center, investigator-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group phase IV trial (CTRI REF/2018/04/019692) conducted on adult patients of chronic urticaria of either sex. Patients were randomized into receiving either bepotastine besilate 10 mg tablet twice daily or levocetirizine 5 mg tablet once daily with fortnightly follow-up for 6 follow-up visits after thebaseline evaluation. The primary outcome measures were Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS7) and Urticaria Total Severity Score (TSS). Routine hematological, biochemical tests, treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored for safety. Results: Thirty patients in the bepotastine group and 29 patients in the levocetirizine group were analyzed by modified-intention-to-treat criteria. The study groups were comparable at the baseline with respect to the severity of chronic urticaria. UAS7 and TSS reduced significantly (P < 0.001, Friedman's ANOVA) in both treatment groups from 1st follow-up visit and 2nd follow-up visits (P < 0.05, Post Hoc Dunn's test) At the test-of-cure visit, UAS7 (5.13 ± 8.21 vs 7.48 ± 8.96) and TSS (5.10 ± 4.06 vs 7.07 ± 4.48) were less with bepotastine than levocetirizine although not statistically significant (P = 0.188 and 0.073, respectively, Mann–Whitney U test). Sedation during daytime was found to be significantly more (P < 0.001, Fischer's exact test) with levocetirizine than bepotastine (73.3% vs 17.2%). Conclusion: Bepotastine is comparable to levocetirizine with respect to its effectiveness with an edge in terms of side-effect (sedation during day time); thus, it offers a new therapeutic option in chronic urticaria.

No abstract