Clindamycin phosphate 1·2%-benzoyl peroxide 3·0% fixed-dose combination gel has an effective and acceptable safety and tolerability profile for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Japanese patients: a phase III, multicentre, randomised, single-blinded, acti

Development and Clinical Application of Phosphorus-Containing Drugs

Phosphorus-containing drugs belong to an important class of therapeutic agents and are widely applied in daily clinical practices. Structurally, the phosphorus-containing drugs can be classified into phosphotriesters, phosphonates, phosphinates, phosphine oxides, phosphoric amides, bisphosphonates, phosphoric anhydrides, and others; functionally, they are often designed as prodrugs with improved selectivity and bioavailability, reduced side effects and toxicity, or biomolecule analogues with endogenous materials and antagonistic endoenzyme supplements. This review summarized the phosphorus-containing drugs currently on the market as well as a few promising molecules at clinical studies, with particular emphasis on their structural features, biological mechanism, and indications.

Topical benzoyl peroxide for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of BPO for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.

Niosomal Benzoyl Peroxide and Clindamycin Lotion Versus Niosomal Clindamycin Lotion in Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose: Combination of benzoyl peroxide (BPO) with topical antibiotics can lead to higher efficacy and less bacterial resistance, but it in turn increases adverse effects such as skin irritability and dryness. In this study, the efficacy of combination therapy of niosomal BPO 1% and clindamycin (CL) 1% is compared with niosomal CL in acne vulgaris.

Methods: This is a double-blind clinical trial study on 100 patients with acne vulgaris in Afzalipour hospital in Kerman. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (case and control). The case group received niosomal combination of BPO 1% and CL 1%.The control group received niosomal CL1%. The efficacy of treatment protocols was evaluated in 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th weeks of treatment by counting lesions (severity and grading acne lesions) and quality of life (QoL). Furthermore, side effect were evaluated at each treatment visits.

Results: The reduction in mean percentage of acne lesions in case group (treated with BPO 1% and CL1%) (64.21%) was higher than control group (treated with niosomal CL 1%) (59.04%), but the statistical difference was not significant. Sum of excellent and good results were found in 80% and 76.1% of case and control groups, respectively (P=0.377). Also adding BPO to the treatment formulation in case group did not increase adverse effects, as statistical difference between 2 groups was not significant.

Conclusion: Combination of niosomal BPO 1% and CL 1% in treatment of acne vulgaris showed higher efficacy with no increase in adverse effects in comparison with niosomal CL 1%, but the statistical difference was not significant.

Enhancement of Dermal Delivery of Finasteride Using Microemulsion Systems

Purpose: Finasteride is a pharmaceutical agent that treats hair loss and acne with hormonal patterns. Due to its poor water solubility, and the smaller surface area in comparison to total skin surface area, penetration of the drug into hair follicles and skin is low. The aim of this research was to formulate, characterize and evaluate in vitro skin permeability of finasteride microemulsions (MEs). Methods: Finasteride MEs were prepared using a pseudo-ternary phase diagram method with an appropriate ratio of oil mixture, surfactant-co-surfactant mixture and water. MEs containing 1% finasteride were prepared with a suitable amount of oily phase and surfactant and cosurfactant. The physicochemical properties of these MEs and in vitro skin permeability of MEs were evaluated. Results: The results showed that the mean droplet size range of ME samples was 5-17 nm and pH was 5.1-5.7. The viscosity of MEs ranged from 86.4-209.6 cps. The drug release profile showed that 49.510% of the drug was released (ME-F-6) over the 24 hours of the experiment. The kinetics of drug release from all selected MEs were approximately described by Higuchi and first-order modeling. All ME formulations with different compositions and properties significantly increased flux and permeability coefficient from rat skin. The selected MEs exhibit 99.9% finasteride after six months of storage. Conclusion: This study showed that any change in the content and composition of MEs could change the physical and chemical properties in addition to ME permeability parameters. The MEs increased permeability of the skin to finasteride.

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.

Current treatments of acne: Medications, lights, lasers, and a novel 650-μs 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser

The treatment of acne, especially severe acne, remains a challenge to dermatologists. Therapies include retinoids, antibiotics, hormones, lights, lasers, and various combinations of these modalities. Acne is currently considered a chronic rather than an adolescent condition. The appropriate treatment depends on the patient and the severity of disease. The purpose of this study was to review current therapies for acne of all severities and to introduce the 650-μs 1064-nm laser for the treatment of acne.