Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#173 Acid, freeze, or duct tape: What works best for common warts?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What is the efficacy of commonly used treatments for non-genital warts?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Highest quality primary care evidence finds warts resolve with cryotherapy (39%) and salicylic acid (24%) more than no treatment (16%) at 13 weeksCryotherapy has more pain and blistering (up to ~80%)but greater patient satisfaction (~70%). Evidence for duct tape is limited and inconsistent.  



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Highest-quality primary care Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT):1 240 children and adults, new warts, cryotherapy (2-10 seconds via cotton applicator three times every two weeks), daily 40% salicylic acid (SA), or no treatment. Cure a13 weeks: 
    • All warts: Cryotherapy 39%, SA 24%, no treatment 16%. 
      • Versus no treatment: SA Number Needed to Treat (NNT)=13, cryotherapy NNT=5. 
    • Plantar warts: Cryotherapy 30%, SA 33%, no treatment 23% (none statistically significant): 
      • No patient >12 years old had spontaneous resolution of plantar warts. 
    • Other outcomes cryotherapy versus SA: 
      • Patient satisfaction: 69% versus 24%, NNT=3. 
      • Adverse effects:  
        • Pain: 81% versus 12%, Number Needed to Harm (NNH)=2. 
        • Blistering: 51% versus 9%, NNH=3. 
  • High quality primary/secondary care RCT:2 229 patients >12 years oldmostly recalcitrant plantar warts (median duration >1 year), randomized to cryotherapy (~10 seconds via spray or probe, every 2-3 weeks) or daily 50% SA. At 12 weeks, cryotherapy versus SA: 
    • Cure: No difference (both 14%). 
    • Patient satisfaction62% versus 41% SA, NNT=5. 
      • Blistering: 2% versus 0. 
  • Systematic review of RCTs.3 
    • Limitations: Small heterogeneous studies, incomplete reporting, high risk of bias 
    • Cryotherapy not significantly better than placebo (three RCTs, 227 patients) but equivalent to SA (four RCTs, 707 patients) which is superior to placebo with NNT=6, (six RCTs, 486 patients) 
  • Duct tape: Inconsistent RCT findings.4-6  
    • Cure: 17versus 12% placebo (not statistically significant). 
    • Limitations: Short follow-up (six weeks),4 added clear duct tape to moleskin5 and no evidence of blinding or intention-to-treat.6   
Context:   
  • Warts affect up to 1/3 of school-aged children7 
    • Transmission appears increased: 
      • When family member or classmates have warts.8 
      • With communal shower use (plantar warts).9 
  • Spontaneous resolution occurs in ~50% at ~1 year10 and appears greater in: 
    • Younger children.1,10  
    • Non-plantar warts.1 


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Caitlin Finley BHSc
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP
  • Michael R Kolber BSc MD CCFP MSc

1. Bruggink SC, Gussekloo J, Berger MY, et al. CMAJ. 2010; 182:1624-30.

2. Cockayne S, Hewitt C, Hicks K, et al. BMJ. 2011; 342:d3271.

3. Kwok CS, Gibbs S, Bennett C, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; (9):CD001781.

4. de Haen M, Spigt MG, van Uden CJT, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006; 160:1121-5.

5. Wenner R, Askari SK, Cham PMH, et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007; 143:309-13.

6. Focht III DR, Spicer C, Fairchok MP. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002; 156:971-74.

7. van Haalen FM, Bruggink SC, Gussekloo J, et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009; 161:148-52.

8. Bruggink SC, Eekhof JAH, Egberts PF, et al. Pediatrics. 2013; 131:928-34.

9. Johnson LW. J Fam Pract. 1995; 40:136-8.

10. Bruggink SC, Eekhof JAH, Egberts PF, et al. Ann Fam Med. 2013; 11:437-41.

Authors do not have any conflicts to disclose.