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.
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.
Comparison of acyclovir dose regimens.
Study
Comparison
Dose regimen
Participants, n
Outcome
RRa or MDb (95% CI)
Ehsani et al [6], 2010
Acyclovir vs erythromycin
800 mg 5×/day for 10 days
14
Resolution of pruritus within 2 weeks (participant-rated)
13.22a (0.91-192.02)
Rassai et al [7], 2011
Acyclovir vs no treatment
400 mg 5×/day for 1 week
54
Good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (investigator-rated)
2.92a (1.51-5.66)
1.52a (1.14-2.01)
Ganguly [8], 2014
Acyclovir vs vitamin C
800 mg 5×/day for 1 week
60
Good or excellent rash improvement within 2 weeks (investigator-rated)
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], 2016
Acyclovir vs placebo
800 mg 5×/day for 1 week
27
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.
AbbreviationsGRADE
Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations
HHV
human herpesvirus
PR
pityriasis rosea
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.
DragoFBroccoloFReboraAPityriasis rosea: an update with a critical appraisal of its possible herpesviral etiology2009086123031810.1016/j.jaad.2008.07.04519615540S0190-9622(08)00936-5DragoFCiccareseGCasazzaSParodiAPityriasis rosea, human herpesvirus 6 infection and pregnancy2022099494069407010.1002/jmv.2785235556254DragoFCiccareseGJavorSParodiAVaccine-induced pityriasis rosea and pityriasis rosea-like eruptions: a review of the literature201603303544510.1111/jdv.1294225545307ChuhADofitasBComiselGReveizLSharmaVGarnerSEChuFInterventions for pityriasis rosea200704182CD00506810.1002/14651858.CD005068.pub217443568Contreras-RuizJPeternelSJiménez GutiérrezCCulav-KoscakIReveizLSilbermann-ReynosoMDLInterventions for pityriasis rosea20191030201910CD00506810.1002/14651858.CD005068.pub331684696PMC6819167EhsaniAEsmailyNNoormohammadpourPToosiSHosseinpourAHosseiniMSayanjaliSThe comparison between the efficacy of high dose acyclovir and erythromycin on the period and signs of pitiriasis rosea2010553246810.4103/0019-5154.7067221063515PMC2965909RassaiSFeilyASinaNAbtahianSLow dose of acyclovir may be an effective treatment against pityriasis rosea: a random investigator-blind clinical trial on 64 patients20110125124610.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03676.x20477925JDV3676GangulySA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy of oral acyclovir in the treatment of pityriasis rosea20140585YC01410.7860/JCDR/2014/8140.436024995231PMC4080052DasASilADasNRoyKDasABandyopadhyayDAcyclovir in pityriasis rosea: an observer-blind, randomized controlled trial of effectiveness, safety and tolerability201563181410.4103/2229-5178.15638926009712IDOJ-6-181PMC4439746SinghSAnuragTiwaryNAcyclovir is not effective in pityriasis rosea: results of a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial2016825505910.4103/0378-6323.18279127212277182791