Wart, Genital
Conditions
Keywords
warts, trichloroacetic acid
Brief summary
Comparison of trichloroacetic acid versus cantharidine for the treatment of perenial warts.
Detailed description
Warts are one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases. They are caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV) that causes cervical cancer. Warts can grow, obstruct labor, and spread. Patients presenting to the obgyn clinic with perenial warts were randomized to treatment with trichloroacetic acid (one of the many types of treatments) or to the treatment with cantharidine group. Cantharidine is a vesicant extracted from beetle bugs which painlessly causes a small blister to form and cures the patient from the HPV infection causing the wart . We compared cosmesis, scar formation, pain and number of treatments (visits) as well as effectiveness in both groups. Objectives 1. Determine if cantharone is more effective than trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for removal of warts 2. Compare pain levels (pain during application) for each method 3. Compare patient satisfaction for each method 4. Compare scar formation and cosmesis for each method
Interventions
DRUGCantharidin
A thin film of cantharidin is applied to the surface of the wart and to 1 millimeter area surrounding the wart. After the film dries, it is covered with an occlusive dressing for 24 hours. The patient removes the area the next day and thoroughly washes the area with soap and water. Patients return to clinic a week later.
Trichloroacetic acid is applied to the surface of the wart with a wooden applicator and after drying the area is washed with soap and water in an hour.
Sponsors
University of California, San Francisco
St Vincent's Hospital
Wayne State University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)
Masking description
Patients will be randomized to receive treatment with trichloroacetic acid or cantharidine.
Intervention model description
Patients will be randomized to receive either trichloroacetic acid or cantharidine treatment.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Warts on the perenial area * Less than 4mm across.
Exclusion criteria
* Pregnancy * Less than 18 years old * Lesions larger than 4 millimeters across * Unclear diagnosis * Internal warts * Diabetes * HIV * Warts within 2 cm of mucosal areas
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pain on treatment | at 30 minutes time point from application of treatment. | Comparison of pain when treatment is applied. The patient is asked on a scale of 0-5 (with 5 being extreme pain, 4 being severe pain, 3 being moderate, 2 being mild, 1 being slight and zero being no pain, how do you rate your pain. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment of a patient's likelihood of using this method again as measured on a survey question | 2 weeks from starting therapy | A questionnaire given to the patient at the conclusion of the study and containing the question on a scale from 1-5 (5 most likely) how likely are you to recommend this method to a friend or using it again yourself. |
| Presence of scarring or skin discoloration | 2 weeks from starting therapy | At the time of wart eradication, the treatment area is examined for healing. The clinician rates cosmesis on a scale from 0-5 with 5-skin grows back perfectly, 4-slight discoloration, 3-thickened skin, 1-slight scarring and 0-scarring. |
Outcome results
None listed