ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK OF SKIN LESIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEMODEX MITES IN STUDENTS WITH ACNE VULGARIS
Abstract
The study of comorbid pathologies that influence the severity of the disease and impair the effectiveness of treatment is carried out to optimize the treatment of the main disease.
Materials and methods. The total of 132 medical students was divided into two groups: the 1st group: 56 students who didn`t have acne elements, the 2nd group: 76 students with mild acne vulgaris. At the baseline and after 12 months epithelial tape-test was performed to define Demodex mites presence. The theory of chances was used to assess the impact of acne on the occurrence of Demodex mites.
Results. The presence of Demodex mites was observed in 3.57% of students in the 1st group and in 21.05% of students in the 2nd group on repeated tape-test. The probability value (P) among students of the 1st group was P1 = 0.037; among students of the 2nd group – P2 = 0.266. The odds (O) indicator in the 1st group of students without acne elements was O1 = 0.04, in the 2nd group diagnosed with acne – O2 = 0.21. The odds ratio (OR) value in the case/control groups was 7.20. Confidence intervals (95% CI) – (1.582, 32.765): the lower limit of the confidence interval (2.019, + ∞); the upper limit of the confidence interval (-∞, 25680). Significance test p-value was 0.00533.
Conclusion. Acne vulgaris is one of aggravating factor that increases the risk of Demodex mites.
Downloads
References
Fromstein SR, Harthan JS, Patel J, Opitz DL. Demodex blepharitis: clinical perspectives. Clinical Optometry. 2018;10(10): 57–63. doi:10.2147/opto. s142708
Ospina PA, Nydam DV, DiCiccio TJ. Technical note: The risk ratio, an alternative to the odds ratio for estimating the association between multiple risk factors and a dichotomous outcome. J. Dairy Sci. 2012; 95(5):2576-84. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4515
Radko AS, Melekhovets OK, Kharchenko TO, Melekhovets YuV. Epidemiology of acne vulgaris and its comorbidity with demodicosis and functional gallbladder disorder. RJPBCS. 2019; 10(4):50–4. doi.org/10.33887/rjpbcs/2019.10.4.7
Lee J, Tan CS, Chia KS. A practical guide for multivariate analysis of dichotomous outcomes. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2009; 38(8):714-9
Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: logistic regression. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2017; 42(4):342-348. doi:10.5395/rde.2017.42.4.342
Janani L, Mansournia MA, Nourijeylani K, Mahmoodi M, Mohammad K. Statistical Issues in Estimation of Adjusted Risk Ratio in Prospective Studies. Arch Iran Med. 2015;18(10):713-719. doi:0151810/AIM.0012
Sedgwick Ph. Odds and odds ratios. BMJ. 2013; 347(16):f5067 doi:10.1136/bmj.f5067
Ronna M, Ott B. P value interpretations and considerations. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2016; 8(9):E928-E931. doi:10.21037/jtd.2016.08.16
Greenland S, Senn S, Rothman K, Carlin J, Poole Ch, Goodmanm S, Altman D. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2016; 31(4):337-50. doi 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Szumilas M. Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent. 2010; 19(3):227–229
Hazra A. Using the confidence interval confidently. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2017;9(10):4124-4129. doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.09.14
Zhao YE, Hu L, Wu LP, Ma JX. A meta-analysis of association between acne vulgaris and Demodex infestation. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. 2012; 13 (3):192–202. doi:10.1631/jzus. B1100285
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
ISSN: 
