Author Interviews, Dermatology, Infections, Pediatrics / 07.09.2016
Over the Counter Lice Remedies Unlikely to Be Effective
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_27707" align="alignleft" width="120"]
Head Louse[/caption]
William Ryan B.V.Sc.
Ryan Mitchell Associates LLC
Westfield, NJ and
Bernard Cohen, MD
Professor Dermatology and
Ellen Koch, MD
Division of Pediatric Dermatology
Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: As a group we were concerned about the misinformation that continues to be promulgated on the internet and through other sites. Importantly, the group consisted of experts with specific experience in the management of head louse infestations, from pediatric dermatology, pediatrics, school nursing and head louse research fields. Even information sources that we would have expected to be credible are outdated, unreliable or both, often continuing myths about head louse infestations and how they can be controlled. We wanted to provide a balanced and informed perspective that would help physicians and parents recognize that head louse infestations do not present a serious problem, and can be well managed with an informed approach to treatment.
The main findings are that over the counder products (permethrin/pyrethrins) are unlikely to be effective, and that that there are safe and effective products that are available by prescription.
Interestingly, head lice do affect Indian and African children in their home countries, but virtually nonexistent in African Americans in North America. There has been speculation about hair grooming regimen or structure of African American hair but the cause is unknown. In a study we performed assessing resistance to over the counter pediculicide components over a decade ago in Baltimore, we were not able to find a single African American child with head lice. We were not able to recruit any patients from the Baltimore City Schools.
Head Louse[/caption]
William Ryan B.V.Sc.
Ryan Mitchell Associates LLC
Westfield, NJ and
Bernard Cohen, MD
Professor Dermatology and
Ellen Koch, MD
Division of Pediatric Dermatology
Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: As a group we were concerned about the misinformation that continues to be promulgated on the internet and through other sites. Importantly, the group consisted of experts with specific experience in the management of head louse infestations, from pediatric dermatology, pediatrics, school nursing and head louse research fields. Even information sources that we would have expected to be credible are outdated, unreliable or both, often continuing myths about head louse infestations and how they can be controlled. We wanted to provide a balanced and informed perspective that would help physicians and parents recognize that head louse infestations do not present a serious problem, and can be well managed with an informed approach to treatment.
The main findings are that over the counder products (permethrin/pyrethrins) are unlikely to be effective, and that that there are safe and effective products that are available by prescription.
Interestingly, head lice do affect Indian and African children in their home countries, but virtually nonexistent in African Americans in North America. There has been speculation about hair grooming regimen or structure of African American hair but the cause is unknown. In a study we performed assessing resistance to over the counter pediculicide components over a decade ago in Baltimore, we were not able to find a single African American child with head lice. We were not able to recruit any patients from the Baltimore City Schools.


















Dr. Steven Woloshin[/caption]
Steven Woloshin, MD
Professor of The Dartmouth Institute
Professor of Medicine
Professor of Community and Family Medicine
New Hamphsire
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Woloshin: Drug companies are required by law to post results of trials used to support drug applications to the FDA on the clinicaltrials.gov website - but it is not clear whether posted results are complete and accurate. Recent studies attempting to validate posted results by comparing them to corresponding peer reviewed medical journal publications suggest that discrepancies are relatively common. But it is which source is more likely to be correct. We tried to validate posted results against an arguably better gold standard, the drug approval packages from the FDA (ie, the medical and statistical reviews posted on the drugs@fda.gov website). FDA reviews have an advantage over peer reviewed publications: unlike medical journal editors and peer reviewers, FDA has access to the individual participant data from the trials. This means FDA can see all the trials and all the outcomes (avoiding sleective publication) and it means FDA can independently reanalyze according to what they believe to be the best statistical practices (data can be analyzed in many ways - and different decisions, for example, how to account for missing data, can yield very different results).