Holistic Approach in the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis: Benefits and Disadvantages of 5-Fluorouracil, Imiquimod, Diclofenac and Curaderm

Abstract

Background Actinic keratosis is the most prevalent premalignant skin disorder in the white population. Current guidelines provide no clear recommendations about preferred treatments. Methods The parameters; effectiveness, treatment duration, recurrence, side effects and cost of treatment were investigated for three frequently used topical therapies which were then compared with a most recent developed topical therapy. Published clinical data obtained from the literature was used to compare these parameters for 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod and diclofenac and relate them with the newly developed Curaderm. Results A wide variation in the concentrations of the active anti-keratotic ingredients, application frequency, duration of treatment, recurrence rates and cost of treatment exist between the different topical therapies. The efficacy rates and side effects were less variable. Overall, Curaderm is the most suitable treatment for actinic keratosis. Clinical evidence is presented illustrating the effects of Curaderm on field-directed treatments and solitary treatments of actinic keratoses. Conclusions Current medical guidelines do not provide clear recommendations on which treatment approach for actinic keratosis is preferred. Direct head-to-head comparison between treatments with emphasis on efficacy, safety, treatment duration, compliance, convenience, cosmetic outcome, patient acceptance and cost should be available to the patient, the practising physician, healthcare system and should assist in therapeutic treatment guidelines and policymaking. Given the very favourable profiles of these parameters with Curaderm when compared with other home-based treatments, it should be considered that Curaderm is first-in-line.