Published on in Vol 6 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/45388, first published .
From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Pityriasis Rosea

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Pityriasis Rosea

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Pityriasis Rosea

Authors of this article:

Alejandra Méndez1 Author Orcid Image ;   Carly Stevens2 Author Orcid Image ;   Andrea Murina2 Author Orcid Image

Research Letter

1Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States

2Department of Dermatology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States

Corresponding Author:

Alejandra Méndez, MPH

Indiana University School of Medicine

340 W 10th St

Indianapolis, IN, 46202

United States

Phone: 1 317 274 5373

Email: alemend@iu.edu



Pityriasis rosea (PR) is a benign, self-limited skin disease characterized by the eruption of multiple erythematous plaques on the trunk and proximal extremities. The proposed etiology links the eruption to the reactivation of human herpesvirus (HHV) 6 and 7 in the skin [1]. HHV-6 viral reactivation during pregnancy has been associated with adverse birth outcomes in the first trimester of pregnancy [2]. PR may be asymptomatic or mildly pruritic and usually resolves without treatment within 12 weeks. PR and PR-like eruptions may also occur after vaccinations, other infections, and medications [3]. Patients with severe symptoms or extensive skin involvement may seek medical treatments.

A 2007 Cochrane review [4] and its updated 2019 version [5] investigated the efficacy of treatments for PR. We aim to provide a summary of the findings from the systematic review in this letter. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials (N=761) assessed two primary outcomes: good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (participant-rated) and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included resolution of pruritus within 2 weeks (participant-rated), reduction in pruritus score within 2 weeks (participant-rated), good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (investigator-rated), improvement in quality of life (participant-rated), and minor participant-reported adverse events. Interventions included macrolide antibiotics (erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin), acyclovir, phototherapy, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and a traditional Chinese medicine called potenline. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for studies with similar interventions and controls. Most studies were conducted in Asia with participants ranging from the age of 2 to 60 years and the study duration lasting between 5-26 months. Three studies were funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers. There were no studies on pregnant women.

Macrolide antibiotics are not recommended for the treatment of PR. Erythromycin was shown in a single clinical trial to significantly reduce the pruritus score compared to a placebo (P<.001) [5]. However, there was no difference in investigator-rated rash improvement, and more adverse events were reported with erythromycin. Azithromycin showed no difference in investigator-rated rash improvement versus placebo.

Acyclovir monotherapy may be useful for the treatment of PR. Compared to a placebo, participants on acyclovir experienced greater resolution of pruritus (P=.04) [5]. Three trials showed a significant improvement in investigator-rated clearance with acyclovir versus a placebo (P=.004) [5]. Acyclovir and standard care (calamine lotion and cetirizine) reduced pruritus score (P<.001) and resolution of pruritus (P=.02) compared to standard care alone [5].

Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, there is moderate quality evidence to support the use of acyclovir monotherapy for the rash and pruritus of PR and low to moderate quality evidence for erythromycin to treat pruritus in PR. A range of acyclovir dosages has been used in studies with unclear evidence based on different regimens (Table 1). Antivirals for severe or recalcitrant clinical presentations of PR may be used in patients who fail standard care.

In general, the self-limited nature and overall low incidence of PR pose challenges to study designs. Additional high-quality studies are needed to determine if acyclovir or other antivirals are superior to supportive care.

Table 1. Comparison of acyclovir dose regimens.
StudyComparisonDose regimenParticipants, nOutcomeRRa or MDb (95% CI)
Ehsani et al [6], 2010Acyclovir vs erythromycin800 mg 5×/day for 10 days14
  • Resolution of pruritus within 2 weeks (participant-rated)
  • 13.22a (0.91-192.02)
Rassai et al [7], 2011Acyclovir vs no treatment400 mg 5×/day for 1 week54
  • Good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (investigator-rated)
  • 2.92a (1.51-5.66)
  • 1.52a (1.14-2.01)
Ganguly [8], 2014Acyclovir vs vitamin C800 mg 5×/day for 1 week60
  • Good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (investigator-rated)
  • 2.6a (1.54-4.4)
Das et al [9], 2015Acyclovir + calamine lotion + cetirizine vs calamine lotion + cetirizine400 mg 3×/day for 1 week24
  • Resolution of pruritus within 2 weeks (participant-rated)
  • Reduction in pruritus score within 2 weeks (participant-rated)
  • Minor participant-reported adverse events
  • 4.50a (1.22-16.62)
  • 1.26b (0.74-1.78)
  • 7.00a (0.40-122.44)
  • 2.00a (0.21-19.23)
  • 5.00a (0.27-94.34)
  • 3.00a (0.13-67.06)
Singh et al [10], 2016Acyclovir vs placebo800 mg 5×/day for 1 week27
  • Resolution of pruritus within 2 weeks (participant-rated)
  • Good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (investigator-rated)
  • Minor participant-reported adverse events
  • 0.34a (0.12-0.94)
  • 0.19a (0.01-3.56)
  • 0.31a (0.01-7.02)

aRR: risk ratio.

bMD: mean difference.

Conflicts of Interest

A Méndez and CS do not have any conflicts of interest. A Murina is a speaker for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Ortho-Dermatologics, and consultant for Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Ortho-Dermatologics and UCB.

  1. Drago F, Broccolo F, Rebora A. Pityriasis rosea: an update with a critical appraisal of its possible herpesviral etiology. J Am Acad Dermatol. Aug 2009;61(2):303-318. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Drago F, Ciccarese G, Casazza S, Parodi A. Pityriasis rosea, human herpesvirus 6 infection and pregnancy. J Med Virol. Sep 2022;94(9):4069-4070. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Drago F, Ciccarese G, Javor S, Parodi A. Vaccine-induced pityriasis rosea and pityriasis rosea-like eruptions: a review of the literature. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. Mar 2016;30(3):544-545. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Chuh A, Dofitas B, Comisel G, Reveiz L, Sharma V, Garner SE, et al. Interventions for pityriasis rosea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Apr 18, 2007(2):CD005068. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Contreras-Ruiz J, Peternel S, Jiménez Gutiérrez C, Culav-Koscak I, Reveiz L, Silbermann-Reynoso MDL. Interventions for pityriasis rosea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Oct 30, 2019;2019(10):CD005068. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Ehsani A, Esmaily N, Noormohammadpour P, Toosi S, Hosseinpour A, Hosseini M, et al. The comparison between the efficacy of high dose acyclovir and erythromycin on the period and signs of pitiriasis rosea. Indian J Dermatol. 2010;55(3):246-248. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Rassai S, Feily A, Sina N, Abtahian S. Low dose of acyclovir may be an effective treatment against pityriasis rosea: a random investigator-blind clinical trial on 64 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. Jan 2011;25(1):24-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Ganguly S. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy of oral acyclovir in the treatment of pityriasis rosea. J Clin Diagn Res. May 2014;8(5):YC01-YC04. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Das A, Sil A, Das N, Roy K, Das A, Bandyopadhyay D. Acyclovir in pityriasis rosea: an observer-blind, randomized controlled trial of effectiveness, safety and tolerability. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6(3):181-184. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Singh S, Anurag; Tiwary N. Acyclovir is not effective in pityriasis rosea: results of a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2016;82(5):505-509. [CrossRef] [Medline]


GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations
HHV: human herpesvirus
PR: pityriasis rosea


Edited by J Lipoff; submitted 02.01.23; peer-reviewed by G Ciccarese, M Mahmic Kaknjo, C Lokker, F Drago; comments to author 08.03.23; revised version received 03.05.23; accepted 23.05.23; published 05.06.23.

Copyright

©Alejandra Méndez, Carly Stevens, Andrea Murina. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 05.06.2023.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Dermatology, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://derma.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.