Topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne.

BACKGROUND: Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.

Differin® and depilation, a word of warning.

BACKGROUND: Retinoid products are becoming increasingly popular due to their efficacy and mild side effect profile. A few cases of epidermal stripping with wax depilation have been reported, but all have been associated with oral retinoid use. AIMS: We aim to increase awareness of this adverse effect. METHODS: N/A Results: N/A Conclusion: While retinoid products are effective and have a low side effect profile, they may still cause adverse effects including the possibility of epidermal stripping with wax depilation.

Comparable efficacy of adapalene 0.3% gel and tretinoin 0.05% cream as treatment for cutaneous photoaging.

BACKGROUND: Adapalene has been previously evaluated as a treatment for actinic keratosis (AK) and solar lentigines and shown to improve signs of photoaging. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether adapalene 0.3% gel is non-inferior to tretinoin 0.05% cream as treatment for photoaged skin. MATERIALS & METHODS: An investigator-blinded, parallel-group comparison study was conducted in Brazil. Subjects were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive, once daily, adapalene 0.3% gel or tretinoin 0.05% cream. Subjects were evaluated at Weeks 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24, based on clinical signs of cutaneous photoaging, histopathological and digital morphometric findings, as well as safety and tolerability. RESULTS: A comparison of clinical efficacy showed that both treatments did not differ significantly regarding clinical evaluation of the following criteria: global cutaneous photoaging, periorbital wrinkles, ephelides/melanosis, forehead wrinkles, and AK. CONCLUSION: Adapalene 0.3% gel showed non-inferior efficacy to tretinoin 0.05% cream as treatment for photoaged skin, with a similar safety profile. Adapalene 0.3% gel may therefore be considered a safe and effective option for the treatment of mild or moderate photoaging.

Use of adapalene in alopecia areata: Efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate 0.1% cream versus combination of mometasone furoate 0.1% cream and adapalene 0.1% gel in alopecia areata.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by non-cicatricial hair loss. No definitive therapy currently exists for AA. To compared the efficacy and safety of the mometasone furoate 0.1% cream alone with the mometasone furoate 0.1% cream plus adapalene 0.1% gel in treatment of AA. Twenty patients with AA and with mean age of 27.4 ± 9.2 years were enrolled. Patches with a diameter of < 5 cm were treated with mometasone furate 0.1% cream (M), and patches with a diameter of ≥5 cm were treated with mometasone furate 0.1% cream plus adapalene 0.1% gel (M + D) for a period of 12 weeks. Hair regrowth was evaluated using a Re-growth score (RGS). Mean RGSs of M + D group were higher than M group for 4th week (2.60 vs. 1.45); 8th week (3.85 vs. 2.40) and 12th week (4.40 vs. 3.30). Mean percentages of hair re-growth in M + D group were statistically higher than M group for 4th (50.2% vs. 23.5%), 8th (78.5% vs. 50.7%), and 12th week (90.5% vs. 71%). Study revealed the efficacy and safety of adapalene and mometasone furoate combination in AA. Adapalene can be used as a new therapeutic modality in AA.

Efficacy and Safety of Tazarotene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel Versus Adapalene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel in Facial Acne Vulgaris: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a multifactorial disorder which is ideally treated with combination therapy with topical retinoids and antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of tazarotene plus clindamycin against adapalene plus clindamycin in facial acne vulgaris. METHODS: This study is a randomized, open-label, parallel design clinical trial conducted on 60 patients with facial acne at the outpatient dermatology department in a tertiary healthcare center. The main outcome measures were change in the acne lesion count, Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) score, Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score, and Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Acne-QoL) at the end of 4 weeks of therapy. After randomization one group (n = 30) received tazarotene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel and another group (n = 30) received adapalene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel for 1 month. At follow-up, all the parameter were reassessed. RESULT: In both treatment regimens the total number of facial acne lesions decreased significantly. The difference in the change in the total count between the two combination regimens was also significant [6.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91-11.09, p = 0.007]. A ≥50% reduction in the total lesion count from the baseline levels was achieved by 71% of patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group and 22% of patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.0012). The difference in the change of inflammatory (p = 0.017) and non-inflammatory (p = 0.039) lesion counts in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group were significantly higher than the adapalene plus clindamycin group. The difference in change of the GAGS score was also significantly higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.003). The ISGA score improved in 17 patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group versusnine patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.04). The change of total quality-of-life score was found to be significantly (p = 0.027) higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment regimens were efficacious, but tazarotene plus clindamycin was found to be superior to adapalene plus clindamycin. The tolerability profile of both regimens was comparable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721173.

A skincare combined with combination of adapalene and benzoyl peroxide provides a significant adjunctive efficacy and local tolerance benefit in adult women with mild acne.

INTRODUCTION: Acne in adult women is an increasing reason for dermatological consultations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess in adult women with mild acne the efficacy and tolerance of a daily adjunctive application of a skincare (Normaderm® , Laboratoires Vichy, France) to a fixed combination of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide daily or every other evening and a standard emollient. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to receive the fixed combination applied either every evening or every other evening and a daily application of the standard emollient and the test care or a once daily application of the fixed combination and the standard emollient alone. Clinical evaluations at Day 0, Day 45 and Day 90 included the count of acne lesions, assessment of clinical improvement and local tolerance. The quantitative lipid profile of the stratum corneum of the forehead was also determined. RESULTS: After 90 days of application, acne had improved in all 299 subjects with a statistically significant difference in favour of the test care regimens (P < 0.05). Moreover, skin quality, subject satisfaction, skin discomfort and sebum composition were in favour of these regimens. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the tested skincare combined with a fixed adapalene and benzoyl peroxide combination provides a significant adjunctive efficacy and local tolerance benefit in adult women with mild acne.

Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Studies to Compare the Irritation Potential of Two Topical Acne Fixed Combinations Over a 21-Day Treatment Period.

Topical therapy of acne vulgaris (acne) is very common, however cutaneous tolerability can influence patient adherence, and concerns about skin irritation have lead to a number of comparative split-face studies. Advances in formulation technology have provided new fixed combinations with lower concentrations of potentially irritating ingredients without compromising efficacy. These developments now afford the opportunity to formulate fixed combinations with higher concentrations of active ingredients that may provide the greater efficacy needed in more severe disease with good tolerability.
Here, we compare the tolerability of two such developments, clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel and adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel, in healthy volunteers with no apparent facial redness or dryness over 21-days, using a split-face methodology.
Clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel was more tolerable than adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel over the duration of the two studies, with statistically significant differences in cumulative change from baseline starting as early as day 4 (stinging), day 5 (erythema, dryness, and scaling), day 6 (burning), and day 8 (itching); and in composite irritation index (stinging, erythema, dryness, scaling, burning, and itching) from day 4. Transepidermal water loss was less with clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel (statistically significant from day 8). Adverse events were twice as common with adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel.
These data suggest that clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel is likely to be better tolerated than adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel in moderate-to-severe acne.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(6):721-726.

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.

Customized Single-agent Therapy Management of Severe Inflammatory Acne: A Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Controlled Study of a New Treatment--Adapalene 0.3%-Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5% Gel.

BACKGROUND: More effective therapies are needed in the specific treatment of severe inflammatory acne vulgaris. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate superior efficacy of adapalene 0.3%-benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (0.3% A/BPO) vs. vehicle, and to assess efficacy of 0.3% A/BPO vs. 0.1% A/BPO in subjects with severe inflammatory acne (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] of 4) in the context of a larger trial in a moderate and severe population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week study. Subjects were randomized to receive 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 (percentage of subjects rated "clear" or "almost clear," ≥ 3-grade IGA improvement), 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: In the severe inflammatory acne population, a total of 252 subjects were randomized with 106, 112 and 34 subjects in the 0.3% A/BPO, 0.1% A/BPO and vehicle groups, respectively, reaching a high rate of study completion (88.5%). At week 12, both 0.3% A/BPO and 0.1% A/BPO were superior to vehicle in terms of lesion count reduction. However for success rate, only 0.3% A/BPO achieved significantly greater efficacy over vehicle with a treatment difference of 20.1% (31.9% vs. 11.8%; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): [6.0%, 34.2%], P=.029), whereas 0.1% A/BPO did not (treatment difference vs. vehicle of 8.8%; P=.443). This translates to an 11% difference between active treatments in favor of 0.3% A/BPO. Also, 0.3% A/BPO was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of this new treatment option should allow clinicians to better customize severe inflammatory acne management, and the high-strength product provides a step-up treatment when needed.

Safety and efficacy of adapalene 0.1% / benzoyl peroxide 2.5% in the long-term treatment of predominantly moderate acne with or without concomitant medication - results from the non-interventional cohort study ELANG.

BACKGROUND: Acne is a chronic inflammatory disease requiring long-term treatment. The fixed-dose combination adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% (adapalene-BPO) is indicated for the once-daily topical treatment of Acne vulgaris when comedones, papules and pustules are present. OBJECTIVE: The main objectives of this non-interventional study were to assess long-term efficacy and safety of adapalene-BPO in moderate to severe acne with and without concomitant medication. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe acne received adapalene-BPO alone or in combination with concomitant medication over a course of 9 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was changes in acne severity according to the Leeds Revised Acne Grading System; secondary endpoints included treatment success assessed by the patient and safety. RESULTS: In total, 5131 patients were eligible for efficacy and 5141 for safety evaluation. The majority of patients (78.8%) received adapalene-BPO alone. About 21.2% received adapalene-BPO in combination with another agent, mostly topical antibiotics (8.8%) or systemic antibiotics (8.7%). Mean (±SD) acne severity improved from 5.6 ± 1.5 at baseline to 3.3 ± 1.9 at month 3, and further to 1.9 ± 1.9 at month 9 (both P < 0.0001). The degree of improvement correlated significantly with the severity at baseline. After 3 and 9 months of treatment, the facial skin was cleared completely (no more visible acne lesions) in 420 (8.2%) and 1326 patients (25.8%), respectively. A therapeutic effect was noted by the patients after a median time of 3 weeks (range: from 1 day to 12 weeks). No serious adverse events were reported. Facial skin irritations, mostly mild to moderate, occurred in 49.5% of patients and led to discontinuation in only 1.7% of cases. CONCLUSION: In consistence with previous clinical findings, the use of adapalene-BPO in daily practice routine is safe and effective in the long-term management of patients with moderate to severe acne.

A randomized investigator-blind parallel-group study to assess efficacy and safety of azelaic acid 15% gel vs. adapalene 0.1% gel in the treatment and maintenance treatment of female adult acne.

BACKGROUND: Growing numbers of post-adolescent females are suffering from treatment-resistant or relapsing adult acne forms, therefore requiring the definition of safe and effective treatment options for this burdening disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of azelaic acid 15% gel (AzA) vs. no treatment during maintenance therapy of female adult acne and to compare its efficacy and safety vs. adapalene 0.1% gel (AD) during a 9-month period (3-month treatment and 6-month maintenance treatment). METHODS: A total of 55 women between 18 and 45 years with adult acne were included in this investigator-blind trial and randomized into three groups receiving AzA gel b.i.d. for 9 months (AzA9M, n = 17) or AzA gel b.i.d. for 3 months followed by a 6-month observational phase (AzA3M, n = 19) or AD gel once daily for 9 months (AD9M, n = 19). Parameters of efficacy, safety and patient-related factors were analysed. RESULTS: The reduction in lesion counts, severity and Dermatology Life Quality Index score was significant (P < 0.05) and comparable between groups during the treatment phase, while dryness and scaling were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in group AzA9M vs. AD9M. During maintenance, AzA9M was superior to AzA3M in the control of inflammatory lesions (P = 0.008) and total lesions (P = 0.014) at week 24. From week 12 to week 36, a mild relative increase in inflammatory lesions could be observed in all groups. In AzA3M, this increase exceeded that of AzA9M by 23.1% (P = 0.109), while the difference of total lesions diverged to 30.8% (P = 0.038). No significant differences could be detected between AzA9M and AD9M. Group AzA9M was non-inferior to AD9M (non-inferiority margin of 50% for the confidence limit for the relative effect) in the control of inflammatory acne lesions. CONCLUSIONS: AzA15% gel is a safe and effective treatment and maintenance treatment of female adult acne with non-inferior efficacy to AD 0.1% gel in the control of inflammatory acne.