A double‐blinded randomised control study to compare the effectiveness and safety of intralesional vitamin D3 with intralesional triamcinolone and its correlation with tissue expression of vitamin D receptors in patients with keloid.

Intralesional steroids commonly used for keloid treatment have adverse effects like cutaneous atrophy and telangiectasias. Safer and more effective therapies are needed. Preliminary studies suggest intralesional vitamin D as a potential alternative treatment. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of intralesional vitamin D with triamcinolone for keloids, and correlate tissue expression of vitamin D receptors (VDRs) with treatment outcomes. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (intralesional vitamin D) and Group B (intralesional triamcinolone). Four injections were given at 4‐week intervals, with an 8‐week follow‐up. Biopsies were taken pre‐ and post‐treatment to examine VDR expression levels and treatment response correlation. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% reduction in Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse effects, and changes in VDR expression before and after treatment. Baseline VSS scores were 9.73 ± 1.01 (vitamin D group) and 10.13 ± 1.07 (triamcinolone group). After treatment, mean VSS decreased to 5.17 ± 0.59 (vitamin D group, p < 0.001) and 4.77 ± 0.77 (triamcinolone group, p < 0.001), with significantly better response in latter (p = 0.03). More than 50% reduction in VSS score was higher in the triamcinolone group (76.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.032). No recurrences were noted during the 8‐week follow‐up. Hypopigmentation (80% vs. 36.7%, p < 0.001) and atrophy (73.3% vs. 40%, p = 0.009) were more common in the triamcinolone group. No significant difference in pre‐ and post‐treatment VDR receptor expression was observed in either group. Both triamcinolone acetonide and vitamin D were effective for keloids. Triamcinolone was more efficacious, whereas vitamin D was safer, suggesting it as a viable alternative for keloid management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]