Background Topical occlusive agents, such as petroleum jelly and silicone oils, kill head lice by coating and blocking its excretory system and are unlikely to induce treatment resistance. Although a popular alternative to neurotoxic pediculicides, their efficacy and safety remain unclear. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, HERDIN (from inception to October 31, 2017), and other relevant sources for randomized controlled trials that compared topical occlusive agents with neurotoxic pediculicides to treat patients with head lice infestation. Using Cochrane collaboration methods, we selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and pooled similar studies. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADEPro. Results Seventeen trials (N = 2005) testing occlusive agents met inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was moderate across trials, mainly from lack of blinding of participants and personnel. As a class, occlusive agents may be more pediculicidal than neurotoxic agents (final cure rate, RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02, 1.41; 16 RCTs, N = 1779; I2 = 88%; low certainty of evidence). Post hoc subgroup analysis suggests that this benefit may be limited to synthetic combination occlusive products. Adverse effects, such as skin and eye irritation, are similar between groups (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17; 15 RCTs, N = 1790; I2 = 28%; low certainty of evidence). Conclusions In treating head louse infestation, evidence suggests occlusive agents may be superior to or equally efficacious as neurotoxic pediculicides. Adverse effects are few and minor. Future trials should use appropriate comparators and consider effects of confounders such as neurotoxin resistance. Additionally, optimal occlusive formulation and dosing regimen need to be determined.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

No abstract

Objective. The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Senna alata (akapulko) plant extracts compared with topical antifungals in the treatment of superficial fungal skin infections. Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that studied patients with diagnosed cutaneous tinea or dermatophytosis (excluding hair and nail), tinea versicolor, or cutaneous candidiasis, via microscopy or culture, and compared the efficacy and safety of S. alata (akapulko) extract versus topical antifungals. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of merged search results from electronic databases (The Cochrane Skin Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE (January 1990 to December 2011), Health Research and Development Information Network (HERDIN), and reference lists of articles), assessed eligibility, assessed the risk of bias using the domains in the Cochrane Risk Bias tool and collected data using a pretested Data extraction form (DEF). Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. Results. We included seven RCTs in the review. There is low certainty of evidence that S. alata 50% lotion is as efficacious as sodium thiosulfate 25% lotion (RR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.04; 4 RCTs, n=216; p=0.15; I2=52%) and high quality evidence that S. alata cream is as efficacious as ketoconazole (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.09; 1 RCT, n=40; p=0.44) and terbinafine cream (RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.01; 1 RCT, n=150; p=0.09) in mycologic cure. For adverse effects, there is very low certainty of evidence of increased harm with S. alata 50% lotion compared to sodium thiosulfate 25% lotion (RR 1.26, 95% CI, 0.46, 3.44; 2 RCTs, n=120; p=0.65; I2=19%). Adverse effects were few and mild. Conclusion. S. Alata 50% lotion may be as efficacious as sodium thiosulfate 25% lotion and is as efficacious as ketoconazole 2% and terbinafine 1% creams. There is insufficient evidence to compare the safety of S. alata 50% lotion with sodium thiosulfate 25% lotion

KEY FINDINGSAmong patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and hypertension, there is insufficient evidence that RASantagonists are associated with mortality or severe COVID-19 disease.• There is uncertainty with regards to the safe use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) antagonists, such asangiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), for COVID-19 patientswith hypertension and other comorbidities (heart failure, chronic kidney disease) because of two possiblecontradictory mechanisms 1) upregulation of ACE2 receptors that may facilitate the virus entry into the lung.and 2) control of unabated angiotensin II levels reducing acute lung injury.• Based on very low-quality retrospective cohort studies, there is insufficient evidence that RAS antagonists areassociated with increased mortality (6 studies) or severe disease (10 studies) among patients with confirmedCOVID-19 infection and hypertension.• There are 36 ongoing studies (21 RCTs, 1 single-arm trial, 4 prospective cohorts, 4 retrospective cohorts, 4 casecontrol, and 2 cross-sectional) on this topic.• The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Council on Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension(ISH) and the joint statement by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA),and Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) all caution against discontinuing RAS-related treatments inpatients with hypertension who become infected with COVID-19.

Background. Herbal medicine is a growing and innovative field in Philippine dermatology. There is a need to assess the quality of reporting of published herbal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dermatology since these will serve to guide rational development and use of medicinal plants in the Philippines. Objective. The study aimed to assess the quality of reporting of published herbal RCTs in dermatology from the Philippines based on the hCONSORT checklist. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, HERDIN (from inception to 20 September 2018), and other secondary sources for published randomized controlled trials that used any herbal preparation as intervention for the treatment or prevention of a dermatologic disease or for maintenance of healthy skin, hair, or nails. We determined the percentage of reported items based from the hCONSORT checklist. Results. We included 41 trials, majority of which were on infections, infestations, and bites (66%). The three most common families of herbs used were Fabaceae/Leguminosae (22%) (Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp. [kakawati]; Senna alata (L.) Roxb. / Cassia alata (L.) [akapulko]); Arecaceae (12%) (Cocos nucifera L. [coconut]); and Myrtaceae (12%) (Eucalyptus sp [eucalyptus], Psidium guajava L.[guava], and Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel [tea tree]). Most of the trials (27/41, 66%) were conducted in accredited dermatology training programs of the Philippine Dermatological Society. Only 11 trials (27%) were published in PubMED-indexed journals. More than half of articles were published after the CONSORT publication in 2006 (59%). The mean percentage of reported hCONSORT checklist items in included studies was 39.6% (SD 9.9), with only seven studies reporting more than 50% of the hCONSORT checklist items. Conclusion. Published herbal RCTs in dermatology from the Philippines are poorly reported based on the hCONSORT checklist. There is a need for dissemination of the hCONSORT to local researchers and journal editors to ensure thorough and quality reporting.

Background. Oral azole drugs are a second-line option for the treatment of pityriasis versicolor but evidence on their efficacy and safety is unclear. Objectives. To determine the efficacy and safety of oral azoles in the treatment of patients with pityriasis versicolor. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and HERDIN, from inception to the period between January to February 2014. We did not restrict the search by language or publication status.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of oral azoles with placebo or no treatment, with topical agents, other oral azoles or dosing regimens in the treatment of pityriasis versicolor, and that measured any of the pre-specified outcomes (mycologic cure, clinical cure, recurrence, duration to cure, timeto-cure, and quality of life). For adverse effects, we also included non-randomized studies (NRS). We used Cochrane methods to select studies, extract data, assess risk of bias, pool studies, and calculate for treatment effects. Results. We included 38 RCTs (n=2894) and 56 NRS (n=3452). Overall, there were few pooled studies and evidence was low to moderate quality. Oral azoles were more effective than placebo (mycologic cure, RR 11.34, 95% CI 4.90, 26.28; 3 RCTs, n=131; I2=0%; low quality of evidence) and as effective as topical agents (mycologic cure, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86, 1.21; 4 RCTs, n=232; I2=60%; moderate quality of evidence).There were few adverse effects and were mostly minor and transient. Conclusions. Oral azoles may be more effective than placebo, and are probably as effective as topical agents in the treatment of PV. Triazoles are probably as effective as ketoconazole. Adverse effects were few, mostly minor, and transient.

KEY FINDINGS There is lack of clinical evidence supporting the role of oral fatty acid supplements as prevention and adjunctive therapy for COVID-19. Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) mediate inflammation and adaptive immune responses. Omega-3 fatty acids promote anti‐inflammatory effects and reduce influenza virus replication. No clinical evidence supporting the use of oral fatty acid supplements as prevention and adjunctive therapy of COVID-19 was found. We found indirect evidence from one systematic review on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and two longitudinal cohort studies on community-acquired pneumonia that showed non-significant and inconsistent results. The most common known side effects of omega-3-fatty acids are gastrointestinal in nature. They may also cause allergy and affect blood clotting if taken with other medications that affect clotting. There are 2 ongoing clinical trials on eicosapentaenoic fatty acids as an adjunctive therapy to standard oral nutrition supplements or standard of care in COVID-19 patients. WHO Interim guidelines, CDC interim guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America COVID-19 treatment guidelines, and the American Thoracic Society did not give any recommendation on the use of nutritional supplements in patients with COVID-19.