Réda Saib, Elisa Joly, Sébastien Fouere, Christian Derancourt, Babacar Tounkara, Cyril Ferdynus, Antoine Bertolotti
{"title":"Adverse Effects of Treatments for Anogenital Warts in Non-immunocompromised Adults: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Réda Saib, Elisa Joly, Sébastien Fouere, Christian Derancourt, Babacar Tounkara, Cyril Ferdynus, Antoine Bertolotti","doi":"10.1007/s13555-026-01857-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>International guidelines for the management of anogenital warts (AGWs) propose multiple first-line options but do not prioritize treatments based on safety or tolerability. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of topical, systemic, and ablative treatments used for external AGWs in immunocompetent adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published through August 2025 was performed. Adverse events (AEs) were classified as low-, moderate-, or high-grade local AEs (LGL, MGL, HGL) and low-grade general AEs (LGG). Relative risks were estimated using random-effects models with placebo as the reference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 107 RCTs involving 12,423 participants. Ablative procedures were associated with higher rates of moderate-to-severe local AEs compared with topical therapies. Among topical treatments, imiquimod 5% and cidofovir cream were associated with lower rates of severe AEs, whereas podophyllotoxin was more often associated with LGL. SUCRA rankings placed topical treatments above ablative therapies in terms of tolerability. Cidofovir cream demonstrated the best safety profile, followed by imiquimod 5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This network meta-analysis highlights significant differences in tolerability across AGW treatments and offers a comparative framework for patient-centered therapeutic decision-making. It also emphasizes the need for standardized AE reporting in future trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":11186,"journal":{"name":"Dermatology and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"4325-4340"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13558487/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-026-01857-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: International guidelines for the management of anogenital warts (AGWs) propose multiple first-line options but do not prioritize treatments based on safety or tolerability. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of topical, systemic, and ablative treatments used for external AGWs in immunocompetent adults.
Methods: A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published through August 2025 was performed. Adverse events (AEs) were classified as low-, moderate-, or high-grade local AEs (LGL, MGL, HGL) and low-grade general AEs (LGG). Relative risks were estimated using random-effects models with placebo as the reference.
Results: We included 107 RCTs involving 12,423 participants. Ablative procedures were associated with higher rates of moderate-to-severe local AEs compared with topical therapies. Among topical treatments, imiquimod 5% and cidofovir cream were associated with lower rates of severe AEs, whereas podophyllotoxin was more often associated with LGL. SUCRA rankings placed topical treatments above ablative therapies in terms of tolerability. Cidofovir cream demonstrated the best safety profile, followed by imiquimod 5%.
Conclusion: This network meta-analysis highlights significant differences in tolerability across AGW treatments and offers a comparative framework for patient-centered therapeutic decision-making. It also emphasizes the need for standardized AE reporting in future trials.
期刊介绍：
Dermatology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance). The journal is dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of dermatological therapies. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health and epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to all clinical aspects of dermatology, such as skin pharmacology; skin development and aging; prevention, diagnosis, and management of skin disorders and melanomas; research into dermal structures and pathology; and all areas of aesthetic dermatology, including skin maintenance, dermatological surgery, and lasers.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/case series, trial protocols, and short communications. Dermatology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an International and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. The journal appeals to a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
