Efficacy of the fixed 1.2% clindamycin phosphate, 0.025% tretinoin gel formulation (Velac®) and a proprietary 0.025% tretinoin gel formulation (Aberela®) in the topical control of facial acne

Background A formulation containing agents affecting the non-inflammatory as well as the inflammatory lesions of acne vulgaris at the same time would be efficient, probably showing a high efficacy and possibly a considerable shortening of the duration of treatment. One single formulation would simplify drug administration thereby enhancing patient compliance and possibly leading to improved therapeutic results. In two studies this seems to have been corroborated for the fixed clindamycin phosphate-tretinoin gel formulation. Objective This study was designed to assess whether the recently developed fixed formulation of 1.2% clindamycin phosphate and 0.025% tretinoin in a gel base (Velac®), further referred to as Clindamycin phosphate Tretinoin Gel is at least as effective as a proprietary 0.025% tretinoin gel formulation (Aberela®, Janssen Cilag Ab, Sollentuna, Sweden; further defined as tretinoin) showing an additional anti-inflammatory effect in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Methods In a double-blind, randomised study 72 patients were treated with CTG and 73 with tretinoin gel in a once daily regimen for 12 weeks. Responses, irritation as well as possible systemic and other adverse effects were recorded after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment and the improvement, compared to baseline, assessed in all included patients. An additional assessment of the safety parameters was carried out at week 2. Parameters of efficacy were the various acne lesion counts, the overall acne severity grade and the calculated totals of acne lesion counts. Results CTG was statistically significantly more effective than tretinoin at the P= 0.05 level in the papular and the total mean inflammatory lesion counts as well as in the estimated or calculated mean overall acne severity scores. CTG and tretinoin gel were equally effective in the remaining parameters: open and closed comedones, the calculated total mean comedone, the pustule as well as the nodule lesion counts. The onset of action was faster for CTG than for tretinoin gel and evident in all assessed parameters except in open comedone lesion counts. In the calculated total mean acne lesion counts, half of all acne lesions had disappeared by week 6 of treatment with CTG, whereas this was recorded at week 9 for tretinoin gel. No clinically relevant changes in the parameters of safety as a consequence of treatment were observed, although the burning component of irritation was shown to be significantly less for CTG than for tretinoin gel. The observed adverse effects were considered minor. Treatment had to be discontinued in five patients on CTG and three on tretinoin. Conclusion The addition of clindamycin to tretinoin, as in CTG, enhances the comedolytic efficacy of tretinoin in moderate to severe acne of the face, maintaining at the same time its anti-inflammatory efficacy thus accelerating resolution of all types of acne lesions without affecting the safety of response to both components.     

Results of a randomised, multicentre study comparing a new water-based gel of clindamycin 1% versus clindamycin 1% topical solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris

Several topical formulations of clindamycin phosphate are currently marketed for the treatment of acne vulgaris. This 12 week, multi-centre, investigator-blind, randomised, active and placebo-controlled, parallel group study assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of clindamycin 1% gel once-a-day vs clindamycin 1% solution twice-a-day, and to demonstrate its superiority vs its vehicle alone. A total of 592 subjects were included. After 12 weeks, a 65% reduction in inflammatory lesion count was observed with both active treatments. The gel was superior to its vehicle for total and inflammatory lesion reduction, Global Assessment of Improvement, and Global Severity Grade at final visit (all p < 0.01). No difference was found between the 2 active treatments for any of the evaluated criteria. Local tolerance in each active treatment group was slightly better with clindamycin gel (1.9% of subjects) relative to 3.1% in the topical solution group. In conclusion, the new water-based gel once-a-day formulation of clindamycin 1% is an effective, safe, and convenient alternative to the twice-a-day topical solution formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris.     

Comparison of tazarotene and minocycline maintenance therapies in acne vulgaris: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 3 maintenance regimens (topical tazarotene, oral minocycline hydrochloride, or both) in sustaining improvement in acne. DESIGN: Multicenter, open-label treatment phase followed by double-blind, randomized, parallel-group maintenance phase. SETTING: Ambulatory patients in research or referral centers. PATIENTS: Volunteer sample of 189 patients with moderately severe to severe acne vulgaris (110 entered maintenance phase, 90 completed, and 2 discontinued because of adverse events). INTERVENTIONS: All patients were treated with 0.1% tazarotene gel (each evening) and a 100-mg capsule (twice daily) of minocycline hydrochloride for up to 12 weeks. Patients with 75% or greater global improvement at week 12 were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of maintenance therapy with tazarotene gel plus placebo capsules, vehicle gel plus minocycline capsules, or tazarotene gel plus minocycline capsules. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall disease severity, global improvement, and lesion counts. RESULTS: All regimens were effective in sustaining improvements in acne. After 12 weeks of maintenance therapy, the mean reductions from baseline in noninflammatory and inflammatory lesion count, respectively, were 60% and 54% with tazarotene, 52% and 66% with minocycline, and 64% and 66% with tazarotene plus minocycline. At week 24, more than 80% of patients in each group had maintained a 50% or greater global improvement from baseline, and more than 50% had maintained a 75% or greater global improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of patients with moderately severe to severe acne can maintain improvement in their condition with topical retinoid monotherapy. Maintenance with combination tazarotene and minocycline therapy showed a trend for greater efficacy but no statistical significance vs tazarotene alone. Topical retinoid monotherapy should be considered for maintenance to help minimize antibiotic exposure.     

Tazarotene gel is safe and effective in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a multicenter, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study.

Retinoids reverse the abnormal pattern of keratinization seen in acne vulgaris. Tazarotene is the first of a novel family of topical receptor-selective acetylenic retinoids. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of topical tazarotene 0.1% and 0.05% gels, in comparison to vehicle gel, applied once daily for 12 weeks, in the treatment of mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. A total of 446 patients with facial acne vulgaris were enrolled, and 375 patients, ranging in age from 14 to 44 years, were evaluable in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. In comparison to vehicle gel, treatment with tazarotene 0.1% gel resulted in significantly greater reductions in noninflammatory and total lesion counts at all follow-up visits, and inflammatory lesion counts at Week 12. Tazarotene 0.05% gel resulted in significantly greater reductions in noninflammatory and total lesion counts than vehicle gel at Weeks 8 and 12. At Week 12, treatment success rates were 68% and 51% for tazarotene 0.1% and 0.05%, respectively (40% for vehicle gel). Tazarotene gel was an effective, safe, and generally well-tolerated therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris.     

A comparison of clindamycin phosphate 1 percent topical lotion and placebo in the treatment of acne vulgaris

The efficacy and skin tolerance of 1 percent clindamycin phosphate lotion were compared with those of the placebo for the lotion in a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study in forty-six patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Patients using the 1 percent clindamycin lotion experienced reductions in numbers of pustules, papules, open comedones, and nodulocystic lesions. Papule counts were also reduced in placebo-treated patients. The group using clindamycin lotion had significantly greater reductions in pustule counts at week 12 and papule counts at week 3 than the placebo-treated group. Nearly 90 percent of the evaluable patients at week 12 experienced improvement or marked improvement in their acne according to the physician's evaluation, regardless of treatment group. Both regimens were well tolerated. Although diarrhea was reported by eight patients (three taking clindamycin, five receiving placebo), no patients discontinued the protocol because of diarrhea. This study demonstrated the efficacy of 1 percent clindamycin topical lotion in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris.     

A multicentre, single-blind, randomized comparison of a fixed clindamycin phosphate/tretinoin gel formulation (Velac) applied once daily and a clindamycin lotion formulation (Dalacin T) applied twice daily in the topical treatment of acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND: A successful phase III pilot study compared the efficacy and safety of a fixed clindamycin 1%/tretinoin 0.025% gel formulation (CTG; Velac gel) applied once daily and a clindamycin 1% lotion formulation (CLN; Dalacin T lotion) applied twice daily in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to follow up this study. METHODS: The two treatment regimens were compared in a multicentre, single-blind, randomized 12-week investigation of patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris. RESULTS: At week 12, the mean percentage reduction in non-inflamed lesions (open and closed comedones) was greater in the CTG group compared with the CLN group (P = 0.05). Absolute reductions in open and closed comedones were also greater in the CTG group, consistent with the comedolytic activity of tretinoin. There was a significantly greater absolute reduction in inflamed lesions (pustules, papules and nodules) from baseline to both end-point (last observed efficacy outcome; P = 0.043) and week 12 (P = 0.018) in the CTG group compared with the CLN group. Evaluation of the calculated overall acne severity score, considering all five lesion subtypes, demonstrated a significantly greater mean percentage reduction in the CTG group compared with the CLN group, both at end-point (P = 0.01) and at week 12 (P < 0.01). The more subjective assessment of overall acne severity according to the Cook scale also demonstrated a significantly greater mean reduction in the CTG group than the CLN group after 12 weeks of therapy (P = 0.007). CTG had a more rapid effect on the onset of improvement compared with CLN; a 50% reduction in total lesion counts by day 60 was found in 77% of patients on CTG compared with 56% receiving CLN (P = 0.003). This was largely due to the reduction in open comedone counts (P = 0. 0006). For all other variables, CTG was at least as effective as CLN. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A single daily topical application of Velac gel was superior to Dalacin T lotion applied twice daily in reducing overall acne scores, and was faster acting. The simpler dosing regimen of Velac gel and its rapid effect are likely to have a positive effect on both patient compliance and cost.     

Topical retinoids in acne – an evidence‐based overview

Topical retinoids are important tools in the management of acne because they act against comedones and microcomedones and have direct anti‐inflammatory effects. The substances approved for acne treatment comprise tretinoin (all‐trans‐retinoic acid),isotretinoin (13‐cis retinoic acid) as well as the synthetic third‐generation polyaromatic retinoids adapalene and tazarotene,the latter being approved for acne treatment in the US only.Retinaldehyde is used in cosmetic preparations against acne. All topical retinoids are effective as single agents in mild to moderate acne but differ in efficacy and tolerability. Tazarotene 0.1% is more effective than tretinoin 0.025% or 0.1% microsphere gel or adapalene 0.1% gel or cream (EBM‐level 2c). Adapalene 0.1% is equally effective to tretinoin 0.025% or tretinoin microsphere 0.1% gel or tretinoin 0.05% cream or isotretinoin 0.05% gel (EBM‐level 2c). Adapalene 0.1% gel is significantly better tolerated than tazarotene 0.1% gel, tretinoin 0.025% and tretinoin 0.05% gel, tretinoin 0.05% cream,tretinoin microsphere 0.1% gel or isotretinoin 0.05% gel (EBM‐level 2c).The safety profile of topical retinoids differs from their systemic counterparts and is related mainly to local adverse effects, such as erythema, dry‐ness,itching and stinging.The currently available evidence justifies the use of topical retinoids in most types of acne and during maintenance treatment.     

Spotlight on Adapalene in Acne Vulgaris

Adapalene (Differin) is a retinoid agent indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. In clinical trials, 0.1% adapalene gel has proved to be effective in this indication and was as effective as 0.025% tretinoin gel, 0.1% tretinoin microsphere gel, 0.05% tretinoin cream and 0.1% tazarotene gel once every two days; however, the drug was less effective than once-daily 0.1% tazarotene gel. It can be used alone in mild acne or in combination with antimicrobials in inflammatory acne and has proved efficacious as maintenance treatment. Adapalene has a rapid onset of action and a particularly favorable tolerability profile compared with other retinoids. These attributes can potentially promote patient compliance, an important factor in treatment success. Adapalene is, therefore, assured of a role in the first-line treatment of acne vulgaris.     

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene 0·1% gel versus tretinoin 0·025% gel in patients with acne vulgaris: a meta-analysis of five randomized trials

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine if adapalene 0·1% gel (Differin®) provided superior efficacy and better tolerability than tretinoin 0·025% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris. All comparative studies, both published and unpublished, from the United States and Europe, that fulfilled rigorous protocol criteria (multicentre, randomized, investigator-blind) were used. Five comparative studies met these criteria. In total, the meta-analysis evaluated 900 patients (450 treated with adapalene 0·1% gel, 450 treated with tretinoin 0·025% gel) with mild-to-moderate acne from the combined clinical trials. To avoid study bias, the meta-analysis used an intention-to-treat analysis. Statistical methodology for the meta-analysis included analysis of covariance, analysis of variance and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test. All statistical tests were two-sided, with the 0·05 probability level used to establish statistical significance, and 95% confidence intervals used to assess equivalence. Adapalene demonstrated equivalent efficacy to tretinoin in terms of reducing total lesion count. Adapalene demonstrated more rapid efficacy, as evidenced by a significant difference in the reduction of inflammatory and total lesions at week 1. Adapalene also demonstrated considerably greater local tolerability at all evaluation periods. The findings from this meta-analysis suggest that adapalene 0·1% gel constitutes a pharmacologic advance over such classic retinoids as tretinoin for the treatment of acne vulgaris.     

Randomized tolerability analysis of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%-tretinoin 0.025% gel used with benzoyl peroxide wash 4% for acne vulgaris

The multiple etiologic factors involved in acne vulgaris make the use of several medications necessary to treat the condition. Use of a fixed combination of clindamycin phosphate 1.2% and tretinoin 0.025% in conjunction with a benzoyl peroxide (BPO) wash 4% targets several pathologic factors simultaneously and mitigates the potential for clindamycin-induced Propionibacterium acnes-resistant strains. New formulations may allow such regimens to be effectively used without overly reduced tolerability resulting from the irritation potential of tretinoin and BPO. This randomized, single-blind study investigated the local tolerability, irritation potential, and safety of an aqueous-based gel (clindamycin phosphate 7.2%-tretinoin 0.025% [CT gel]) when used in conjunction with a BPO wash 4% in participants with mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Participants applied the CT gel once daily in the evening for 4 weeks in conjunction with once-daily morning use of either BPO wash 4% or nonmedicated soap-free cleanser lotion (SFC). Local tolerability and irritation potential were assessed by participants and investigators using separate 6-point scales. The frequency and severity of dryness, scaling, erythema, burning/stinging, and itching increased during the first week of treatment in both treatment arms but decreased thereafter. Local tolerability reactions were slightly more frequent in the CT gel + BPO wash group versus the CT gel + SFC group at week 1 but were generally mild and improved within 1 to 2 weeks. In conclusion, therapy with CT gel + BPO wash appears safe and well-tolerated in participants with mild to moderate acne vulgaris.     

Clinical efficacy of Velac®, a new tretinoin and clindamycin phosphate gel in acne vulgaris

Velac®, a new gel formulation containing both tretinoin (0.025%) and clindamycin phosphate (1.2%), is effective in acne vulgaris using a once daily application. The single formulation enhances compliance in young patients and improves the therapeutic results. Treatment with Velac was found to be more effective than tretinoin alone in inflamed lesions and at least comparable in open and closed comedones. In two of the three studies the overall acne severity grade was significantly more reduced when compared with tretinoin. Velac is also more effective than clindamycin alone in the treatment of the non-inflamed lesions. In the two multicentre studies the reduction of the overall acne severity grade was also more favourable for the new gel formulation. A more rapid response occurred with Velac than with either component used (clindamycin or tretinoin) alone.     

Topical Retinoids in Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review

Background

Topical retinoids are a first-line treatment for acne vulgaris.

Objective

This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of topical retinoids approved in the United States for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Methods

A PubMed and Embase search was conducted using the search terms ‘adapalene,’ ‘tretinoin,’ ‘tazarotene,’ and ‘acne vulgaris.’ Selection of articles fit the following inclusion criteria: clinical trials evaluating both efficacy and safety/tolerability of topical retinoids approved in the United States for the treatment of acne vulgaris and published between January 1, 2008 and September 1, 2018. Exclusion criteria included clinical trials involving 20 subjects or fewer, subjects under 12 years of age, and topical retinoid combination therapies with moisturizers or aloe vera. Of 424 search results found, a total of 54 clinical trials were chosen based on selection criteria.

Results

Topical retinoids are superior to vehicle in improving Investigator Global Assessment and Investigator’s Static Global Assessment (24.1–28.8% and 13.3–17.3%, respectively; p < 0.001). A topical retinoid combined with benzoyl peroxide led to IGA improvement compared with vehicle (26.1–34.9% vs 7–11.8%; p < 0.001) at Week 12. Topical retinoid plus an oral antibiotic was superior to vehicle in reducing lesion counts (64–78.9% vs 41–56.8%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in efficacy between tretinoin and tazarotene. Tretinoin 0.05% resulted in 62% of patients experiencing AEs compared with adapalene 0.1% (19%) and adapalene 0.3% (40%). More patients receiving adapalene were tolerant of the AEs compared with tazarotene (55.4% vs 24.4%; p < 0.0012).

Conclusions

Topical retinoids are safe and efficacious for the treatment of acne vulgaris. They should be used in combination with benzoyl peroxide to optimize results in patients. The differences in efficacy of topical retinoids appears minor; therefore, the type of topical retinoid is not as important as choosing a particular strength of topical retinoid and combining it with an antimicrobial agent. Adapalene has a superior tolerability profile amongst topical retinoids.

     

A novel gel formulation of clindamycin phosphate-tretinoin is not associated with acne flaring

Concern exists about using topical retinoids on patients with inflammatory acne lesions, fearing that a flare in inflammation will occur. In 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trials of a clindamycin phosphate 1.2%-tretinoin 0.025% gel (CLIN/RA), clinical evaluations after 2 weeks of treatment determined if flaring occurred in participants treated with tretinoin gel 0.025% (RA) monotherapy, and the difference in inflammation when treated with the combination formulation. Flaring was assessed as an increase in inflammatory lesions of 10% or greater or 20% or greater versus baseline. Most participants experienced improvement in lesions across treatment groups. Participants with mild acne at baseline treated with RA monotherapy had significantly higher rates of flaring compared with participants treated with vehicle gel (VEH) (P < .001). Treatment with CLIN/RA or clindamycin phosphate gel 1.2% (CLIN) monotherapy resulted in significantly lower rates of flaring than RA or VEH (P < .001 for all). Participants with moderate to severe acne showed no signs of RA-induced flaring. In each comparison, the CLIN/RA combination showed the lowest percentage of increased inflammatory lesions. These results indicate that RA-induced flaring may occur with mild inflammation; combining RA with CLIN prevents this flaring. Participants with moderate to severe inflammatory acne did not show an increase in inflammatory lesions compared with participants treated with VEH. Lack of flaring may result from either the novel vehicle formulation or the antiinflammatory effects of CLIN.     

Adapalene gel 0.1% is effective and safe for Japanese patients with acne vulgaris: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND: Topical retinoids, such as adapalene, are an integral part of acne therapy in most regions and are considered appropriate first-line therapy by international guidelines for all cases of acne with the exception of the most severe. However, there are currently no topical retinoids available for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Japan. OBJECTIVE: To confirm efficacy and safety of adapalene gel 0.1% versus the corresponding gel vehicle in the treatment of Japanese patients with acne vulgaris for up to 12 weeks. METHODS: A total of 200 patients were randomized to receive adapalene gel 0.1%, or vehicle once-daily for 12 weeks. Percent reduction in lesion counts (total, inflammatory, and non-inflammatory) and subject satisfaction were evaluated. Safety was monitored through adverse events and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Adapalene gel 0.1% produced significantly better reductions in total (P<0.0001), inflammatory (P=0.0010), and non-inflammatory lesions (P<0.0001) at endpoint (week 12, last observation carried forward) than gel vehicle, with a higher overall subject satisfaction. The primary efficacy variable, the median percent reduction of total lesion counts at endpoint, was significantly greater with adapalene gel 0.1% (63.2%) compared to that with the vehicle (36.9%) in the ITT population (P<0.0001). Significantly greater results were observed as early as week 1. Adapalene was well tolerated, with adverse events that were mostly mild-to-moderate and transient in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Adapalene gel 0.1% was effective in the treatment of acne vulgaris in Japanese patients. Adapalene was safe and well tolerated, consistent with the good tolerability profile demonstrated in other patient populations.     

1 percent clindamycin phosphate solution versus 5 percent benzoyl peroxide gel in papulopustular acne

In a multicenter study, 60 patients suffering from mainly moderate papulopustular acne were treated to pically either with 1% clindamycin phosphate in alcoholic solution or with 5% benzoyl peroxide gel, 30 patients each. During the treatment period of 9 weeks, clinical controls with lesion counts were performed every 3 weeks and after a 3 weeks follow-up. The therapeutic efficacy according to the reduction of papules and pustules was 72% in the benzoyl peroxide group and 73% in the clindamycin group, the latter showing significantly less side effects. On account of its good therapeutic results, we consider topical treatment with clindamycin phosphate an important alternative to systemic antibiotic or topical benzoyl peroxide therapy in acne.     

Successful treatment of acne vulgaris using a new method: results of a randomized vehicle-controlled trial of short-contact therapy with 0.1% tazarotene gel

CONTEXT: Short-contact application of 0.1% tazarotene gel for acne was devised to minimize local adverse effects. Its efficacy and safety are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess acne improvement and tolerability during 12 weeks of short-contact treatment with 0.1% tazarotene gel vs a nonmedicated gel control. DESIGN: A randomized, masked, vehicle-controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient facilities at an urban medical school and an affiliated suburban office practice. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine volunteers with facial acne were enrolled; 81 completed the study. INTERVENTION: Thirty-three patients were randomly assigned to each of 3 groups: T + T applied 0.1% tazarotene gel twice daily, T + V applied 0.1% tazarotene gel once daily and vehicle gel once daily, and V + V applied vehicle gel twice daily. Patients adjusted the contact period as tolerated, between 30 seconds and 5 minutes per application. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acne efficacy by reduction in acne lesions, treatment success (50%-100% improvement in global response to treatment) and improvement in overall disease severity. Local adverse effects, scored from none to severe. RESULTS: By week 12, T + T and T + V achieved significantly greater improvement in acne than V + V based on mean percentage reduction in noninflammatory lesions (46% and 41% vs 2%; P =.002) and inflammatory lesions (38% and 34% vs 9%; P =.01), percentage of treatment successes (64% and 61% vs 15%; P<.001), and reduction in overall disease severity (30% and 29% vs 3%; P<.001). Local adverse effects did not differ significantly among the 3 groups after week 4. CONCLUSION: Short-contact 0.1% tazarotene gel therapy is a safe and effective new method of acne treatment.     

Daily treatment with adapalene gel 0.1% maintains initial improvement of acne vulgaris previously treated with oral lymecycline

Topical retinoids are often recommended for preventing acne recurrence, but there are relatively few well-controlled maintenance studies published. The objective of the present study was to assess the maintenance effect of adapalene gel 0.1% relative to gel vehicle in subjects successfully treated in a previous 12-week adapalene-lymecycline 300 mg combination therapy study. This was a multicentre, investigator-blind, randomised, controlled study in 19 European centres. A total of 136 subjects with moderate to moderately-severe acne vulgaris who showed at least moderate improvement from baseline when treated with either adapalene plus lymecycline or lymecycline plus gel vehicle in a previous 12 week study were included. Subjects were randomised to receive adapalene gel 0.1% or vehicle once-daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety criteria included maintenance rate, percent reduction in lesion counts (total, inflammatory, non inflammatory), global severity assessment, cutaneous tolerability, and adverse events. Adapalene provided better results relative to gel vehicle for all efficacy assessments. The maintenance rate for total lesions was 84.7% vs. 63.5% (P = 0.0049) with adapalene and the vehicle, respectively. Adapalene was safe and well tolerated in this study. This study demonstrates a clinical benefit of continued treatment with adapalene gel 0.1% as a maintenance therapy for acne.     

Comparison of micronized tretinoin gel 0.05% and tretinoin gel microsphere 0.1% in young adolescents with acne: a post hoc analysis of efficacy and tolerability data

Acne vulgaris is common in young adolescents. Retinoids are widely used but may be associated with poor tolerability. This post hoc analysis of 483 participants aged 10 to 14 years with mild to moderate acne compared efficacy and tolerability of once-daily treatment with micronized tretinoin gel 0.05%, tretinoin gel microsphere 0.1%, and vehicle over 12 weeks. In study 1, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion reduction and treatment success was comparable between tretinoin gel 0.05% and tretinoin gel microsphere 0.1%. Inflammatory (46.3%) and noninflammatory (45.7%) lesion reductions with tretinoin gel 0.05% were significantly greater than vehicle (37.1% and 27.9%, respectively) (both P<.001). In study 2, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion reductions and treatment success with tretinoin gel 0.05% (30.6%, 39.1%, and 19%, respectively) were significantly greater than vehicle (10.9%, 16.9% [both P<.001], and 4% [P=.008], respectively). Tretinoin gel 0.05% was significantly better tolerated than tretinoin gel microsphere 0.1% (P<.001); the majority of adverse events (AEs) were mild, occurring in the first 2 weeks. Fourteen percent of participants reported dry skin, 8% skin burning sensation, 5% erythema, and 5% dermatitis exfoliative with tretinoin gel 0.05% compared with 32%, 11%, 23%, and 23%, respectively, with tretinoin gel microsphere 0.1% (all P<.001, except skin burning sensation). In this secondary analysis of acne in young adolescents aged 10 to 14 years, micronized tretinoin gel 0.05% provided a comparable lesion reduction and treatment success versus tretinoin gel microsphere 0.1%, with a better cutaneous tolerability profile.     

Clindamycin/Benzoyl Peroxide Gel (BenzaClin→)

Clindamycin 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% (BenzaClin) is a combination gel indicated for use twice daily, or as directed by a physician, for the topical treatment of inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions of acne vulgaris. In well designed clinical trials in patients with mild to moderately severe acne, the efficacy of once- or twice-daily clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide in the reduction of inflammatory lesion counts was greater than that of benzoyl peroxide alone, clindamycin alone, or tretinoin plus clindamycin, and not significantly different from that of erythromycin/benzoyl peroxide. In the reduction of noninflammatory lesion counts, the efficacy of once- or twice-daily clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide was greater than that of clindamycin alone, but not significantly different to that observed with benzoyl peroxide, tretinoin plus clindamycin, or erythromycin/benzoyl peroxide. Clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide has a fairly rapid onset of action, with acne improvement usually recorded within 2-4 weeks. Despite widespread use, bacterial resistance is not associated with clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide. The product is generally well tolerated, and the main treatment-related adverse events in clinical trials were application-site dryness, irritation, peeling, and erythema. Thus, clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide is an effective and well tolerated option for the management of mild to moderately severe acne.     

Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of adapalene 0·1% gel versus tretinoin 0·025% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris, with particular reference to the onset of action and impact on quality of life

A randomized, multicentre, investigator-masked study was conducted in 105 patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris to compare the efficacy and safety of adapalene 0·1% gel with tretinoin 0·025% gel after three months of treatment, with particular emphasis on reduction in inflammatory lesion counts after one week of treatment and impact on quality of life.
  In terms of efficacy, adapalene gel was found to be superior to tretinoin gel after one week of treatment, with respect to reduction in inflammatory lesion counts (32% vs. 17%, respectively; P  = 0·001), total lesion counts (28% vs. 22%, respectively; P  = 0·042) and global severity grade (28% vs. 16%, respectively; P  = 0·001). No significant difference between the two treatments was found after 12 weeks of treatment for any of these variables. Evaluation of facial skin tolerance parameters showed significant differences between the two treatments in favour of adapalene for dryness, erythema, immediate and persistent burning and pruritus for at least one time point. One patient in the adapalene group and three patients in the tretinoin group experienced medical events which lead to discontinuation of treatment (skin irritation; NS). Quality of life scores improved more rapidly in the adapalene group than in the tretinoin group, with significant differences ( P < 0·05) appearing at week 1 for questions related to problems with partners, close friends or relatives and to skin symptoms. There was also a significantly greater improvement in social and leisure activity in the adapalene group at week 12.
  Adapalene 0·1% gel reduced inflammatory and total lesion counts more rapidly than tretinoin 0·025% gel, and was also better tolerated. These differences appear to result in an earlier and greater quality of life improvement for the patients receiving adapalene.