Premium
The EV erT2 (Effective Verruca Treatments 2) trial: a randomized controlled trial of needling vs. nonsurgical debridement for the treatment of plantar verrucae
Author(s) -
Hashmi F.,
Fairhurst C.,
Cockayne S.,
Cullen M.,
Bell K.,
Coleman E.,
HarrisonBlount M.,
Torgerson D.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
british journal of dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.304
H-Index - 179
eISSN - 1365-2133
pISSN - 0007-0963
DOI - 10.1111/bjd.15751
Subject(s) - dry needling , medicine , debridement (dental) , randomized controlled trial , surgery , randomization , acupuncture , verruca vulgaris , dermatology , alternative medicine , pathology
Summary Background Verrucae are a common foot skin pathology, which can in some cases persist for many years. Plantar verrucae can be unsightly and painful. There are a range of treatment options including needling. Objectives The EV erT2 (Effective Verruca Treatments 2) trial aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of the needling procedure for the treatment of plantar verrucae, relative to callus debridement. Methods This single‐centre randomized controlled trial recruited 60 participants (aged ≥ 18 years with a plantar verruca). Participants were randomized 1 : 1 to the intervention group (needling) or the control group (debridement of the overlying callus). The primary outcome was clearance of the index verruca at 12 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes included recurrence of the verruca, clearance of all verrucae, number of verrucae, size of the index verruca, pain and participant satisfaction at 12 and 24 weeks. A cost‐effectiveness analysis was carried out from the National Health Service perspective over 12 weeks. Results Sixty eligible patients were randomized (needling group n = 29, 48%; debridement group n = 31, 52%) and 53 were included in the primary analysis (needling n = 28, 97%; debridement n = 25, 81%). Clearance of the index verruca occurred in eight (15%) participants (needling n = 4, 14%; debridement n = 4, 16%; P = 0·86). The needling intervention costs were on average £14·33 (95% confidence interval 5·32–23·35) more per patient than for debridement. Conclusions There is no evidence that the needling technique is more clinically or cost‐effective than callus debridement. The results show a significant improvement in pain outcomes after needling compared with the debridement treatment alone.