| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2020 | Volume
: 13
| Issue : 3 | Page : 217-221 |
|
|
Comparison of intralesional measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and needling in the treatment of recurrent warts
Surabhi R Kolte, Vidyadhar R Sardesai
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence Address:
Vidyadhar R Sardesai
102 Alliance Nakshatra, 48 Tulshibagwale Colony, Sahakarnagar 2, Pune, Maharashtra.
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_164_19
|
|
|
Context: Warts constitute 21% of all the cases in a dermatology clinic. Their causative agent is the human papillomavirus (HPV). Most of the cutaneous warts are cosmetically disfiguring and their treatment requires patience by both the practitioner and the patients. Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intralesional measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and needling in the treatment of recurrent warts. Settings and Design: This was a prospective, comparative, and interventional study. Subjects and Methods: This hospital-based study was conducted in a tertiary health-care center from September 2017 to August 2019. Overall 40 patients of recurrent warts were included in the study. Statistical Analysis: Fisher test, Student t test, and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Improvement was noted in patients belonging to both the groups. However, after applying chi-square test, it was found that results were statistically significant in the needling group only. When both the groups were compared using chi-square test, needling showed statistically significant results after 4 and 6 weeks. Conclusion: Needling was observed to be a better treatment modality as compared to intralesional MMR vaccine at the end of 4 and 6 weeks. More number of sessions were required in the intralesional MMR vaccine group for complete clearance of the lesions as compared to needling. Hence, the response was better and faster in the needling group as compared to the intralesional MMR group. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
