A randomized, single-blind comparison of topical clindamycin + benzoyl peroxide and adapalene in the treatment of mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are often combined with other agents to provide topical acne treatments that are effective against both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions and minimize the development of antibiotic resistance. Retinoids and associated treatments also have anti-inflammatory activity and decrease microcomedo formation. To date, few direct comparisons of these different acne treatments have been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of two treatments for facial acne: a ready-mixed once-daily gel containing clindamycin phosphate 10 mg mL(-1) + benzoyl peroxide 50 mg mL(-1) (CDP + BPO; Duac; Stiefel, High Wycombe, U.K.) and a once-daily gel containing adapalene 0.1% (ADA; Differin; Galderma, Watford, U.K.). METHODS: In this assessor-blind, randomized study; 65 patients were treated with CDP + BPO once daily and 65 patients with ADA once daily. The treatment period was 12 weeks and lesion counts, acne grade and global improvement were assessed at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12. RESULTS: CDP + BPO showed an earlier onset of action with a faster significant reduction in inflammatory and total lesion counts than ADA. A between-group comparison of the percentage change from baseline showed that CDP + BPO was statistically significantly superior to ADA from week 1 onwards both for inflammatory lesions (P < or = 0.001) and for total lesions (P < or = 0.004). While 76% of inflammatory lesions remained at week 2 for patients using ADA, in contrast, only 55% of inflammatory lesions remained at week 2 in the CDP + BPO group, resulting in a treatment effect of 1.38. Thus CDP + BPO removed 38% more inflammatory lesions than ADA at this timepoint. The trend in favour of CDP + BPO, although less marked, continued to the end of the study. CDP + BPO was better tolerated than ADA, with a greater proportion of ADA-treated patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events. Adjunctive topical or oral agents and their impact on acne were not studied in this trial. Due to product differences, this study could not be double blinded but was only single (assessor) blinded. CONCLUSIONS: CDP + BPO and ADA are both effective treatments for acne, but CDP + BPO has a significantly earlier onset of action, is significantly more effective against inflamed and total lesions and is better tolerated, which should improve patient compliance.     

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.     

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     

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.     

Pivotal clinical trials of adapalene in the treatment of acne

Adapalene, a naphthoic-acid derivative, possesses some of the biological activities of tretinoin but has distinct physicochemical properties and binding properties for selective affinity for retinoic acid receptors. As such, adapalene is less likely to be associated with certain local tolerability problems (e.g. burning, erythema, pruritus).
Over the past 5 years, numerous clinical trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene and tretinoin in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Three pivotal, large, well-controlled studies involving almost 900 patients showed that adapalene gel 0.1% and adapalene solution 0.1% are at least as effective as tretinoin gel 0.025%, with superior local tolerability. Adapalene cream 0.1% has proven to be significantly more effective than vehicle, with response rates comparable to those observed with the gel and solution. A meta-analysis of trials with the gel formulation confirmed these findings, showing equivalent efficacy and improved tolerability vs. tretinoin gel 0.025%. Moreover, the onset of clinical effect was shown to be significantly more rapid than that of tretinoin gel. Taken together, these studies demonstrated that adapalene has overall efficacy similar to that of topical tretinoin, but with a superior therapeutic ratio that may result in superior outcomes in clinical practice through improved compliance. This may be expected because of its lesser potential for skin irritation, especially early in treatment, and because of greater convenience in that no waiting period is required between face washing and application of the product. Therefore, 5 years of clinical experience have established that adapalene in its various formulations is a valuable addition to current treatments for acne vulgaris.     

Efficacy of the addition of salicylic acid to clindamycin and benzoyl peroxide combination for acne vulgaris

Clindamycin phosphate (CDP), benzoyl peroxide (BPO) and salicylic acid (SA) are known to be effective acne therapy agents depending on their anti-inflammatory and comedolytic properties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the addition of SA treatment to CDP and BPO (SA and CDP + BPO) and compare it with CDP + BPO in patients with mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris. Forty-nine patients were enrolled in a 12 week prospective, single-blind, randomized, comparative clinical study. Efficacy was assessed by lesion counts, global improvement, quality of life index and measurements of skin barrier functions. Local side effects were also evaluated. Both combinations were effective in reducing total lesion (TL), inflammatory lesion (IL) and non-inflammatory lesion (NIL) counts. There were statistically significant differences between treatment groups for reductions in NIL counts beyond 2 weeks, IL counts and TL counts throughout the all study weeks, and global improvement scores evaluated by patients and investigator at the end of the study in favor of SA and CDP + BPO treatment when compared to CDP + BPO treatment. Both combinations significantly decreased stratum corneum hydration, although skin sebum values decreased with SA and CDP + BPO treatment. These combinations were also well tolerated except significantly higher frequency of mild to moderate transient dryness in patients applied SA and CDP + BPO. The addition of SA to CDP + BPO treatment demonstrated significantly better and faster results in terms of reductions in acne lesion counts and well tolerated except for higher frequency of mild to moderate transient dryness.     

Control of microcomedone formation throughout a maintenance treatment with adapalene gel, 0.1%

BACKGROUND: Microcomedones representing the clinically non-visible central precursor lesions of acne are induced by sebaceous hyperplasia as well as altered follicular growth and differentiation, and evolve into both comedones and inflammatory lesions. Thus, targeting microcomedone formation is essential in the prevention and therapeutic control of acne. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the capacity of adapalene gel, 0.1%, to control the number of microcomedones after a combination treatment followed by a maintenance treatment. METHODS: This was a single-site exploratory study in subjects with a diagnosis of mild to moderate acne vulgaris and the presence of at least 250 microcomedones per cm(2) at screening visit, counted via cyanoacrylate strips (CyASt). During the first 8 weeks, a combination of adapalene gel (0.1%) and benzoyl peroxide gel (2.5%) was applied. During the randomized, investigator-blinded, and vehicle-controlled 12-week maintenance phase, adapalene once daily (QD), or adapalene alternately with its vehicle once daily every other day (QoD), or vehicle QD were applied to the face. CyASt sampling on the forehead was done at baseline, week 8, and week 20. Lesion counting allowing calculating a defined success rate was done at all visits. RESULTS: A total of 54 subjects entered the combination phase, and 49 subjects were randomized into the maintenance phase: 16 in both the adapalene QD and the QoD group and 17 subjects receiving the vehicle. The microcomedone median count decreased for all groups until week 8 (end of combination phase) from 319 to 157. Microcomedone counts at the end of the maintenance phase (week 20) showed a significant percent difference (P = 0.04) between adapalene QoD (-53.5) and the vehicle (-42.1) and between adapalene QD (-50.6) and the vehicle (P = 0.037) compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: The application of adapalene gel, 0.1% monotherapy daily, or alternately every other day, significantly helps to control the microcomedone count during a 12-week maintenance treatment after a previous combination therapy with benzoyl peroxide in patients with mild to moderate acne.     

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.     

0.1%阿达帕林凝胶和1%克林霉素溶液联合外用治疗寻常痤疮临床观察

目的:比较0.1%阿达帕林凝胶(达芙文)与1%克林霉素磷酸酯溶液(特丽仙)联合外用与特丽仙单用治疗寻常痤疮的疗效和安全性。方法:将300例中至重度寻常痤疮患者分为两组,试验组联合外用达芙文和特丽仙,对照组单用特丽仙,两组共治疗12周。结果:274例患者完成治疗,治疗4周后试验组皮损总数改善显著优于对照组(P<0.05),并维持至12周;治疗8周后试验组炎性皮损和非炎性皮损改善优于对照组(P<0.01),并维持至12周。治疗结束后试验组和对照组的有效率分别为84.40%和72.93%(P<0.05)。试验组局部刺激反应发生率为4.0%,对照组为8.7%。结论:达芙文联合特丽仙治疗中至重度寻常痤疮的疗效比单用特丽仙的效果好。     

Multicenter randomized controlled trial on combination therapy with 0.1% adapalene gel and oral antibiotics for acne vulgaris: comparison of the efficacy of adapalene gel alone and in combination with oral faropenem

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients with acne vulgaris with moderate to severe inflammatory lesions. The patients were assigned to the following three treatment groups: group A received monotherapy with 0.1% topical adapalene gel for 4 weeks; group B received combination therapy with 0.1% topical adapalene gel and 600 mg oral faropenem for 2 weeks followed by 0.1% topical adapalene gel alone for 2 weeks; and group C received combination therapy with 0.1% topical adapalene gel and 600 mg oral faropenem for 4 weeks. The result of the analysis indicated that the percentage reduction in inflammatory lesion counts after 2 weeks of treatment was significantly higher in groups B and C than in group A (P < 0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, group C showed significantly higher percentage reduction in inflammatory lesion counts than in groups A and B (P < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was noted between the latter two groups. Adverse reactions included dryness and irritation at the adapalene application sites that were observed in 10.1% of cases (16/158 patients) and diarrhea and loose stool because of oral faropenem that were observed in 7.5% of cases (8/106 patients). Taken together, our results suggest that combination therapy with oral antibiotics and adapalene results in earlier improvement in patients with moderate to severe inflammatory acne compared to the application of adapalene alone, and that 4 weeks of the combination therapy is preferable to 2 weeks of treatment.     

Skin tolerability and efficacy of combination therapy with hydrogen peroxide stabilized cream and adapalene gel in comparison with benzoyl peroxide cream and adapalene gel in common acne. A randomized, investigator-masked, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with antiseptics such as benzoyl peroxide (BP) and topical retinoids is widely used as first-line treatment for acne vulgaris (AV). However, these combinations could have a suboptimal skin tolerability. Recently, a new formulation of hydrogen peroxide (HP) 1% in stabilized cream (Crystacide; Mipharm, Milan, Italy) became available. A previous clinical study has shown that HP cream monotherapy presents a better skin tolerability in comparison with BP in patients with mild AV. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the tolerability and the efficacy of combination therapy with HP cream and adapalene 0.1% gel in comparison with the combination of BP 4% cream and adapalene 0.1% gel in the treatment of mild to moderate AV. METHODS: In a randomized, investigator-blinded trial, 52 patients (mean +/- SD age 25 +/- 6 years; 19 men and 33 women) with AV were randomly assigned to HP cream and adapalene gel (group HP + A) or to BP cream and adapalene gel (group BP + A), for eight consecutive weeks. Efficacy was assessed by total (TL), inflammatory (IL) and noninflammatory (NL) lesion counts performed at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. Tolerability was assessed by evaluating skin erythema, burning and dryness at weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS: All patients completed the study. At baseline, the mean +/- SD numbers of TL, IL and NL were 44 +/- 9, 25 +/- 7 and 19 +/- 6 in group HP + A and 40 +/- 9, 21 +/- 7 and 19 +/- 9 in group BP + A, respectively. At the end of the treatment period, TL, IL and NL were reduced by 93%, 92% and 95%, respectively, in group HP + A and by 88%, 86% and 90%, respectively, in group BP + A. A significantly (P = 0.0025) greater reduction in NL was observed in group HP + A in comparison with group BP + A. Tolerability was significantly better in group HP + A in comparison with group BP + A (P = 0.02). Skin dryness and burning sensation were more frequent in group BP + A. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of adapalene and HP cream is an effective topical treatment regimen in mild to moderate AV. This combination has shown a better tolerability profile in comparison with the combination of BP and adapalene.     

Benzoyl peroxide reactions in an acne study group

Benzoyl peroxide patch testing was performed on 60 young adults who had participated in a double-blind acne study. 25% of those who had used a benzoyl peroxide product showed reactivity of +1 or greater (on a 0--3 scale). None of these individuals demonstrated symptoms suggestive of irritancy or allergy greater than those who did not have positive patch tests and who were on the same treatment program. The positive patch tests did not correlate with acne treatment responses. 2 of 44 individuals in the acne study group developed clinical allergy and had dramatically positive patch tests, while the majority of individuals with positive patch tests could use products containing benzoyl peroxide daily without significant adverse effects.     

An update of recent clinical trials examining adapalene and acne

Topical retinoids are a mainstay in the treatment of acne vulgaris. In the past these agents have been associated with irritant effects, however, newer generations of topical retinoids have emerged that have been designed to be less irritating. This paper focuses on the newer topical retinoid products, and specifically looks at adapalene and recent clinical studies that evaluate its efficacy and tolerability. Most of these studies evaluate adapalene in comparison with the new tretinoin formulations, which, like adapalene, have been designed to be less irritating than their predecessors. The various studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene with the new formulations of tretinoin are described. A summary of the findings and their implications follows.     

阿达帕林凝胶治疗寻常痤疮10年回顾

目的 总结阿达帕林凝胶治疗寻常痤疮的临床文献,为临床合理用药提供参考。方法 对阿达帕林凝胶上市10年来国内有关治疗寻常痤疮的疗效及安全性观察的中文文献进行整理和分析。结果 联合用药组疗效高于单用药物组,阿达帕林凝胶组疗效与其他维A酸类药物疗效相当,但高于其他痤疮药物组,不良反应低于其他药物。结论 阿达帕林凝胶治疗轻中度痤疮安全、有效,可单独或联合用药,还可作为维持治疗。     

Clinical efficacy and safety of benzoyl peroxide for acne vulgaris: Comparison between Japanese and Western patients

Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) has been well established as a common medication for acne vulgaris in many countries (e.g. in Europe and the USA), where clinical data have been accumulated over a long time. In Japan, the use of BPO for acne treatment was approved in 2014, and the results of clinical trials in Japanese patients have recently been reported. This review compares clinical study results between Japanese and Western patients. Clinical studies that had been performed in Western countries were searched on the basis of the criteria, double‐blind studies of BPO monotherapy and comparison with a vehicle group. Two reports of Japanese studies were also selected by using the same criteria. Efficacy was assessed by comparing the mean difference between the BPO and the vehicle groups for reduction rate in the number of lesions from baseline, and there were no differences between Japanese and Western patients. Safety assessment also showed that the incidence of adverse events was higher in Japanese patients than in Western patients, but the characteristics of the adverse events were not different. Therefore, we conclude that there are no significant differences in the efficacy and safety of BPO between these patient populations. The efficacy and safety of long‐term use in Japanese patients are also expected to be applicable to those in Western patients.