Combination therapy with adapalene-benzoyl peroxide and oral lymecycline in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled study

Background Oral antibiotics in association with a topical retinoid with or without benzoyl peroxide (BPO) are the recommended first‐line option in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral lymecycline 300 mg with adapalene 0·1%–BPO 2·5% (A/BPO) fixed‐dose gel in comparison with oral lymecycline 300 mg with a vehicle gel in subjects with moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Methods A total of 378 subjects were randomized in a double‐blind, controlled trial to receive once‐daily lymecycline with either A/BPO or vehicle for 12 weeks. Evaluations included percentage changes from baseline in lesion counts, success rate (subjects ‘clear’ or ‘almost clear’), skin tolerability, adverse events and patients’ satisfaction. Results The median percentage reduction from baseline in total lesion counts at week 12 was significantly higher (P < 0·001) in the lymecycline with A/BPO group (?74·1%) than in the lymecycline with vehicle group (?56·8%). The success rate was significantly higher (47·6% vs. 33·7%, P = 0·002) in subjects treated with lymecycline and A/BPO. Both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions were significantly reduced at week 12 (both P < 0·001) with a rapid onset of action from week 2 for noninflammatory lesions (P < 0·001) and week 4 for inflammatory lesions (P = 0·005). The A/BPO and lymecycline combination was well tolerated. The proportion of satisfied and very satisfied subjects was similar in both groups, but the number in the A/BPO group who were ‘very satisfied’ was significantly greater (P = 0·031). Conclusion These results demonstrate the clinical benefit of combining A/BPO with lymecycline in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris.     

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.     

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.     

Adapalene–benzoyl peroxide, a unique fixed-dose combination topical gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a transatlantic, randomized, double-blind, controlled study in 1670 patients

Background  Combination therapy utilizing agents with complementary mechanisms of action is recommended by acne guidelines to help simultaneously target multiple pathogenic factors. A unique, topical, fixed-dose combination gel with adapalene 0·1% and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 2·5% has recently been developed for the once-daily treatment of acne.
Objectives  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adapalene 0·1%–BPO 2·5% fixed-dose combination gel (adapalene–BPO) relative to adapalene 0·1% monotherapy (adapalene), BPO 2·5% monotherapy (BPO), and the gel vehicle (vehicle) in a large population for the treatment of acne vulgaris.
Methods  In total, 1670 subjects were randomized in a double-blind controlled trial to receive adapalene–BPO, adapalene, BPO or vehicle for 12 weeks (1 : 1 : 1 : 1 randomization). Evaluations included success rate (subjects 'clear' or 'almost clear'), percentage change in lesion count from baseline, cutaneous tolerability and adverse events.
Results  Adapalene–BPO was significantly more effective than corresponding monotherapies, with significant differences in percentage lesion count change observed as early as 1 week. Cutaneous tolerability profile was similar to adapalene. Adverse events were more frequent with the combination therapy (mainly due to an increase in mild-to-moderate dry skin), occurred early in the study, and were transient.
Conclusions  Adapalene–BPO provides significantly greater and synergistic efficacy and a faster onset of action with an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of acne vulgaris when compared with the corresponding vehicle and the adapalene and BPO monotherapies.     

0.1%阿达帕林凝胶预防和减轻寻常痤疮复发的多中心随机对照临床试验

目的评价0.1%阿达帕林凝胶维持治疗对于预防和减轻寻常痤疮复发的作用.方法采用多中心、区组随机、开放、对照的方法,共入选患者246例,均为经过阿达帕林和克林霉素(特丽仙)联合治疗或特丽仙单独治疗获得有效(改善≥25%)的寻常痤疮患者,随机分为两组,一组外用0.1%阿达帕林凝胶,另一组不用药,均观察12周.结果239例患者完成治疗和观察,阿达帕林组121例,对照组118例.治疗4周后阿达帕林组炎性皮损数的减少显著优于对照组(P＜0.05),并维持至12周;治疗8周后阿达帕林组皮损总数和非炎性皮损数的减少也显著优于对照组(P＜0.01),并维持至12周.治疗结束后,阿达帕林组总体改善率为66.9%,对照组为4.2%(P＜0.01);阿达帕林组总复发率为4.1%,对照组为83.9%;两组间差异有显著性(P＜0.01).阿达帕林组有个别病例有轻度局部刺激反应,两组间不良反应差异无显著性(P＜0.05).结论阿达帕林凝胶可有效地治疗寻常痤疮,并维持治疗效果,且不增加局部刺激反应,对于减少病情复发具有显著效果.     

Adapalene gel, 0.1%, as maintenance therapy for acne vulgaris: a randomized, controlled, investigator-blind follow-up of a recent combination study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the maintenance effect of adapalene gel, 0.1%, relative to gel vehicle in subjects successfully treated in a previous 12-week study of adapalene-doxycycline, 100 mg, combination therapy. DESIGN: Multicenter, investigator-blind, randomized, controlled study. SETTING: Thirty-four US centers. SUBJECTS: A total of 253 subjects with severe acne vulgaris who showed at least moderate improvement from baseline (50% improvement from baseline) when treated with either adapalene plus doxycycline or doxycycline plus gel vehicle in a previous 12-week study. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to receive adapalene gel, 0.1%, or gel vehicle once daily for 16 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy and safety criteria included maintenance rate (subjects maintaining at least 50% improvement in lesion counts from previous therapy), lesion counts (total, inflammatory, and noninflammatory), global severity assessment, cutaneous tolerability, and adverse events. RESULTS: Adapalene maintenance therapy resulted in significantly larger maintenance rates (75% vs 54%; P<.001) and significantly lower lesion counts (total [P = .005], inflammatory [P = .01], and noninflammatory [P = .02]) compared with gel vehicle. Adapalene was safe and well tolerated in this study.Conclusion This study demonstrates a clinical benefit of continued treatment with adapalene gel, 0.1%, as a maintenance therapy for acne.     

The efficacy and safety of adapalene gel 0.3% in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A randomized, multicenter, investigator-blinded, controlled comparison study versus adapalene gel 0.1% and vehicle

A randomized, multicenter, investigator-blinded, active- and vehicle-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adapalene gel 0.3% versus adapalene gel 0.1% and the corresponding gel vehicle. Subjects were assigned randomly to receive either adapalene gel 0.3%, adapalene gel 0.1%, or vehicle once daily for 12 weeks. A total of 214 subjects with moderate to moderately severe acne vulgaris were enrolled, and 85% of subjects completed the study. Adapalene gel 0.3% was significantly superior to adapalene gel 0.1% in total and noninflammatory lesion counts and in global severity score (P < .05 for all). A concentration-dependent increase in clinical benefit for all efficacy assessments was observed. As expected, there were also statistically significant differences in all efficacy parameters in the adapalene gel 0.3% group relative to the vehicle group (P < .001 for all). Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild-to-moderate and similar between active groups. The results of this study show that adapalene gel 0.3% was superior to adapalene gel 0.1% and vehicle in the treatment of moderate to moderately severe acne while retaining a similar safety and tolerability profile to adapalene 0.1% gel.     

Moderate and Severe Inflammatory Acne Vulgaris Effectively Treated with Single-Agent Therapy by a New Fixed-Dose Combination Adapalene 0.3 %/Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5 % Gel: A Randomized,Double-Blind,Parallel-Group,Controlled Study

Background

A need exists for topical treatments in managing more severe inflammatory acne.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adapalene 0.3 %/benzoyl peroxide 2.5 % (0.3 % A/BPO) topical gel in subjects with moderate and severe inflammatory acne.

Methods

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Randomization was stratified by acne severity (50 % moderate and 50 % severe). Subjects received 0.3 % A/BPO, 0.1 % A/BPO (benchmark), or vehicle (comparator) once daily for 12 weeks. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were success rate at week 12 (the percentage of subjects rated ‘clear’ or ‘almost clear’ with at least a 2-grade improvement on Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA]) and change in inflammatory (IN) and noninflammatory (NIN) lesion counts from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy endpoints were percent changes in IN and NIN lesion counts. Safety endpoints were incidence of adverse events (AEs) and local tolerability signs/symptoms.

Results

A total of 503 subjects were randomized: 217, 217, and 69 subjects in the 0.3 % A/BPO, 0.1 % A/BPO, and vehicle groups, respectively. For success rate (subjects rated ‘clear’ or ‘almost clear’ with ≥2-grade improvement in IGA), 0.3 % A/BPO was superior to vehicle, with a treatment difference of 22.7 % (33.7 vs. 11.0 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 12.8–32.6, p < 0.001). At week 12, 0.3 % A/BPO was superior to vehicle for mean reduction from baseline in IN (27.0 vs. 14.4) and NIN lesion counts (40.2 vs. 18.5), as well as for percentage reduction from baseline in IN (68.7 vs. 39.2 %) and NIN lesion counts (68.3 vs. 37.4 %) (all p < 0.001). Among subjects with severe inflammatory acne (IGA = 4), 0.1 % A/BPO did not reach statistical significance for success rate compared with vehicle (p = 0.443), whereas 0.3 % A/BPO demonstrated significantly greater efficacy (p = 0.029, requiring ≥3-point IGA improvement). Additionally, 0.3 % A/BPO was safe and well-tolerated.

Conclusions

Results of this clinical trial demonstrate the significantly greater efficacy of adapalene 0.3 % A/BPO topical gel compared with vehicle as well as a good safety profile in the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory non-nodulocystic acne, which increases patients’ treatment options.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier

NCT01880320.

     

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 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.     

Is benzoyl peroxide 3% topical gel effective and safe in the treatment of acne vulgaris in Japanese patients? A multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,vehicle‐controlled,parallel‐group study

Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) as an anti‐acne medication is not yet approved in Japan. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a once‐daily topical application of BPO 3% gel versus an inert vehicle gel in Japanese acne patients. Three hundred and sixty patients were randomized to receive BPO 3% or vehicle for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end‐point was absolute change in number of total lesions (TL) from baseline to week 12 to demonstrate the superiority of BPO 3% versus vehicle. Secondary efficacy end‐points were absolute and percent change in TL, inflammatory lesions (IL), non‐inflammatory lesions (non‐IL) and Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA). Change in TL counts from baseline to week 12 for BPO 3% was superior to vehicle (difference, ?21.0; P < 0.001). Absolute and percent reductions in TL, IL and non‐IL counts were greater for BPO 3% at all study visits. The proportion of patients with improvement in ISGA scores was significantly higher with BPO 3% than with vehicle from week 2. All adverse events were mild or moderate. Adverse drug‐related reactions were higher for BPO 3% (30%) than with vehicle (5%). Local tolerability scores of grade 1 or more (slight to moderate) were more frequent with BPO 3% than vehicle with the most significant differences observed in dryness (56% vs 27% at week 1–4), peeling (19% vs 9% at week 1–2) and burning/stinging (58% vs 15% at week 1–12). These results indicate that BPO 3% is effective while maintaining a favorable safety and tolerability profile in Japanese acne patients.     

Systematic review on the rapidity of the onset of action of topical treatments in the therapy of mild‐to‐moderate acne vulgaris

The time until a patient achieves a relevant improvement during the treatment of a skin disease is important for selecting a therapy, but has been largely neglected in reviews and guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the time until the onset of action (TOA) of topical acne treatments. The primary outcome was the TOA defined as the time until a 25% reduction in the mean number of inflammatory lesions had been achieved. A systematic literature search in Medline and Embase was carried out. Clinical trials that evaluated head‐to‐head comparisons of treatments in patients suffering from mild‐to‐moderate papulopustular acne were included. Abstract and full‐text screening and data extraction were done independently by two investigators. With respect to inflammatory lesions, different concentrations of benzoyl peroxide (BPO) or adapalene did not seem to influence the TOA. BPO seemed to act more quickly than isotretinoin and tretinoin. Adapalene showed a shorter TOA than isotretinoin. Conflicting results were seen when comparing adapalene with tretinoin, with a tendency for adapalene to be faster. Clindamycin/BPO seemed to act more quickly than adapalene. Inconsistent results were seen for the comparison of clindamycin/BPO and BPO alone with a slight indication of a shorter TOA for clindamycin/BPO. Adapalene/BPO and clindamycin/BPO showed comparable TOA. When interpreting the data, the different study designs and the limited study quality need to be taken into account. Further research is needed to identify treatments that offer an early onset of action and possibly help to optimize patients' adherence. TOA should be considered as an additional outcome in acne trials.     

Open‐label,randomized, multicenter,phase III study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of benzoyl peroxide gel in long‐term use in patients with acne vulgaris: A secondary publication

An open‐label, randomized, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of long‐term use of 2.5% and 5% benzoyl peroxide (BPO) gels administrated once daily for 52 weeks to Japanese patients with acne vulgaris. The efficacy of the study drugs was evaluated by counting inflammatory lesions and non‐inflammatory lesions. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events, local skin tolerability scores and laboratory test values. In total, 458 subjects were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. The total lesion count, the efficacy end‐point, was similarly changed both in the 2.5% and 5% BPO groups over the course of the study. The median rates of reduction from baseline to week 12 were approximately 65%. Thereafter, the counts were maintained at a reduced level without increasing until week 52. The median rates at week 52 were approximately 80%. Similar trends were observed for inflammatory and non‐inflammatory lesion counts. Bacteriological evaluation indicated similar distribution of the minimum inhibitory concentration of each of the antibacterial drugs against Propionibacterium acnes between the values at baseline and at week 52, suggesting that long‐term use did not result in changes in the drug sensitivity. The incidence of adverse events was 84.0% in the 2.5% BPO group and 87.2% in the 5% BPO group. Many of the adverse events occurred within the first month and were mild or moderate in severity and transient. The results suggest that both 2.5% and 5% BPO gels are effective and safe for long‐term treatment of patients with acne vulgaris.     

Clinical and bacteriological evaluation of adapalene 0.1% gel plus nadifloxacin 1% cream versus adapalene 0.1% gel in patients with acne vulgaris

This multicenter, randomized parallel group study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene 0.1% gel plus nadifloxacin 1% cream (combination therapy) compared with adapalene gel (monotherapy) during 12‐week treatment of acne vulgaris. A total of 184 Japanese patients aged above 12 years with moderate to severe acne as indicated by the Japanese severity grading criteria were randomized to combination therapy (n = 84) and monotherapy (n = 100) groups, both having comparable demographic and baseline characteristics. Adapalene was applied only to inflammatory acne lesions in order to minimize skin irritation and ensure the treatment results. Efficacy and safety evaluations, treatment compliance and satisfaction with drug application were periodically monitored. The combination therapy provided a significantly greater efficacy than adapalene in decrement of inflammatory papulopustular lesions at 4 weeks and thereafter (P = 0.0056). The overall judgment of the therapeutic efficacy by the physician at the end of study revealed a significant difference (P = 0.02496) between the groups in favor of combination therapy. Dryness was reported in a greater proportion of patients undergoing monotherapy than combination therapy at weeks 2 and 4 (P = 0.04652). The patient self‐assessment in satisfaction with the drug application at the end of study revealed a significant difference (P = 0.00268) between the groups in favor of combination therapy. Among 76 strains of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from 87 patients, no strain was resistant to nadifloxacin. Thus, the simultaneous use of adapalene and nadifloxacin may provide an additive and complementary effect, resulting in clinical superiority and greater patient adherence compared to adapalene monotherapy.     

Prospective, open-label, comparative study of clindamycin 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel with adapalene 0.1% gel in Asian acne patients: efficacy and tolerability

Background  Used as individual agents, topical antibiotics and benzoyl peroxide are known to be effective in treatment of acne. Clindamycin phosphate 1% with benzoyl peroxide 5% (CDP/BPO) is a new combination gel, made by rationale, in that combination drug is more effective than either ingredients used alone. Adapalene 0.1% (ADA) is the third-generation retinoid, shown to be as effective as other topical retinoid with well tolerability.
Objectives  To compare the efficacy and tolerability in combination of CDP/BPO in comparison with ADA in Asian patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris.
Methods  Total of 69 patients, including 31 patients for CDP/BPO group and 38 for ADA group, with mild to moderate acne vulgaris were enrolled for a 12-week prospective, randomized, open-label comparative study of topical agents. Efficacy was assessed by lesion counts, acne grading system, and global improvement. Adverse events were also evaluated in scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe).
Results  Both CDP/BPO and ADA were effective in reducing lesion counts and acne severity scale and showed significant global improvement. However, CDP/BPO offered greater efficacy against inflammatory lesions than ADA. Both drugs were well tolerated with minimal adverse drug reactions.
Conclusion  Combination formulation of CDP/BPO and ADA were shown to be both effective in decreasing total, inflammatory, and non-inflammatory lesion counts along with well tolerability in Asian patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris.

Conflicts of interest

None declared     

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.     

Randomised,controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of adapalene gel 0.1% and tretinoin cream 0.05% in patients with acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials have shown that adapalene gel produces less irritation than tretinoin gels and tretinoin 0.025% cream. Short term results have shown that adapalene is less irritating than tretinoin gels and creams. This study is the first to compare the 0.1% formulation of adapalene gel with the 0.05% strength of tretinoin cream in a formal clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene gel 0.1% compared with tretinoin cream 0.05% in patients with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. METHODS: Ten-week, multicentre, randomised, investigator-masked, active-controlled, parallel group study in 409 patients with acne vulgaris. RESULTS: Adapalene gel 0.1% demonstrated equivalent efficacy in reduction of acne lesion counts and global improvement of acne severity over 10 weeks' treatment and was significantly better tolerated than tretinoin cream 0.05% in terms of erythema, dryness, desquamation and stinging/burning. CONCLUSION: Adapalene gel 0.1% showed equivalent efficacy and was significantly better tolerated than tretinoin cream 0.05% in patients with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris.     

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/benzoyl peroxide 3% fixed‐dose combination gel versus topical combination therapy of adapalene 0.1% gel and clindamycin phosphate 1.2% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris in Japanese patients: A multicenter,randomized, investigator‐blind,parallel‐group study

Adapalene 0.1% (ADA) with clindamycin phosphate 1.2% (CLNP; ADA + CLNP) and the fixed‐dose combination containing CLNP and benzoyl peroxide 3% (CLNP/BPO 3%) are strongly recommended for the early treatment of acne vulgaris in Japan. Here, we compare the early efficacy and safety of CLNP/BPO 3% with Japanese standard topical use of ADA + CLNP in the treatment of acne vulgaris. In this phase IV, multicenter study, 351 patients were randomized to receive CLNP/BPO 3% or ADA + CLNP for 12 weeks. The primary end‐point was percentage change from baseline in total lesion (TL) counts at week 2. Secondary end‐points included the percentage change from baseline in TL, inflammatory and non‐inflammatory lesion (IL and non‐IL) counts, Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA), quality of life (QoL [Skindex‐16]) and patient preference. Local tolerability scores and adverse events were also recorded. CLNP/BPO 3% provided a significantly greater percentage reduction from baseline in TL compared with ADA + CLNP at week 2, and week 4. Compared with ADA + CLNP, CLNP/BPO 3% was superior at reducing IL (but not non‐IL) over weeks 2–12, was more effective at improving patient QoL and ISGA, and scored higher in patient‐preference assessments. Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse drug reactions occurred more frequently in patients receiving ADA + CLNP (37%) than in those receiving CLNP/BPO 3% (17%). In conclusion, CLNP/BPO 3% showed greater efficacy for the early treatment of acne vulgaris in Japan, with a more favorable safety profile compared with ADA + CLNP.     

Adapalene 0.1%/Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5% Gel

Adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (Epiduo?, Tactuo?) is the only fixed-dose combination product available that combines a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide; it targets three of the four main pathophysiologic factors in acne. This article reviews the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of topical adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel in the treatment of patients aged ≥ 12 years with acne vulgaris, as well as summarizing its pharmacologic properties. In three 12-week trials in patients aged ≥12 years with moderate acne, success rates were significantly higher with adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel than with adapalene 0.1% gel or benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel alone, and combination therapy had an earlier onset of action. In addition, significantly greater reductions in total, inflammatory, and noninflammatory lesion counts were seen in patients receiving adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel than in those receiving adapalene 0.1% gel or benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel alone. Adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel did not significantly differ from clindamycin 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel in terms of the reduction in the inflammatory, noninflammatory, or total lesion counts in patients with mild to moderate acne, according to the results of a 12-week trial. Twelve-week studies showed that topical adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel in combination with oral lymecycline was more effective than oral lymecycline alone in patients with moderate to severe acne, and topical adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel in combination with oral doxycycline hyclate was more effective than oral doxycycline hyclate alone in patients with severe acne. In patients with severe acne who responded to 12 weeks’ therapy with topical adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel plus oral doxycycline hyclate or oral doxycycline hyclate alone, an additional 6 months’ therapy with adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel was more effective than vehicle gel at maintaining response, with further improvement seen in adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel recipients. A noncomparative study also demonstrated the efficacy of 12 months’ therapy with adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel in patients with acne vulgaris. Topical adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel was generally well tolerated in patients with acne. In 12-week trials, the most commonly occurring treatment-related adverse events included erythema, scaling, dryness, and stinging/burning; these dermatologic treatment-related adverse events were usually of mild to moderate severity, occurred early in the course of treatment, and resolved without residual effects. Topical adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel was generally well tolerated in the longer term, with dry skin being the most commonly occurring treatment-related adverse event over 12 months of treatment. In conclusion, adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel is a valuable agent for the first-line treatment of acne vulgaris.     

The pulsed‐dye laser as an adjuvant treatment modality in acne vulgaris: a randomized controlled single‐blinded trial

Background Acne vulgaris is the most common skin disease and can pose a substantial therapeutic challenge. Recently, several phototherapeutic modalities, most notably pulsed‐dye laser (PDL) treatment, have been introduced, but the published results – albeit promising – are controversial. Objectives To assess the efficacy of an adjuvant PDL treatment when combined with a proven topical treatment [fixed‐combination clindamycin 1%–benzoyl peroxide 5% hydrating gel (C/BPO)]. Methods Eighty patients (38 males and 42 females, mean ± SD age 19·7 ± 5·9 years) were randomized in a 1 : 2 ratio to receive C/BPO alone or in combination with PDL treatment (wavelength 585 nm, energy fluence 3 J cm⁻², pulse duration 0·35 ms, spot size 7 mm). Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 2 and 4 weeks after initial treatment. The primary end points were the Investigator’s Static Global Assessment (ISGA) score and lesion count; the secondary end point was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Results Both groups showed a significant improvement during observation [ISGA 27·1% (C/BPO) and 24·6% (C/BPO + laser), total lesion count 9·2% and 9·0%, inflammatory lesion count 36·3% and 36·9%, DLQI 54·5% and 42·5%], but there was no significant or otherwise appreciable difference between treatment modalities as far as the extent of improvement was concerned. Patients with more severe findings at baseline had a greater benefit from either therapy regimen. Conclusions Our findings do not support the concept of a substantial benefit of PDL treatment in acne vulgaris.