The comparative efficacy of benzoyl peroxide 5%/erythromycin 3% gel and erythromycin 4%/zinc 1.2% solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris

A retrospective assessment and comparison of the effectiveness of benzoyl peroxide; the combination of topical niacinamide, gallic acid, and lauric acid; and the combination of benzoyl peroxide and erythromycin in acne vulgaris

Acne vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that mostly develops during adolescence and continues throughout adulthood. It affects the face, the main location of cosmetic appearance. Despite many developments in acne treatment, various combination therapies are needed to create the best option. Ninety patients were included in this study. We used the global acne grading system (GAGS) and the lesion counting and photographic standards that were used by Hayashi et al., to assess acne severity. The patients were randomly divided into three groups as group 1 (using only 5% BPO, twice a day), group 2 (using only the combination of 5% BPO + 3% erythromycin, twice a day), and group 3 (using only the combination of 4% niacinamide + 1% gallic acid + 1% lauric acid, twice a day). Thirty patients were included in each group. The scores were evaluated at weeks 0, 2, 4 and 8, and compared with each other. As a result of the study, all three treatment types were found to be effective. The combination of 4% niacinamide + 1% gallic acid + 1% lauric acid can be used as an alternative topical treatment for acne vulgaris to prevent resistance against topical antibiotics and the side effects of some other treatments.

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.

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.

The role of zinc in the treatment of acne: A review of the literature

Acne vulgaris is a chronic disease of the pilosebaceous units presenting as inflammatory or noninflammatory lesions in individuals of all ages. The current standard of treatment includes topical formulations in the forms of washes, gels, lotions, and creams such as antibiotics, antibacterial agents, retinoids, and comedolytics. Additionally, systemic treatments are available for more severe or resistant forms of acne. Nevertheless, these treatments have shown to induce a wide array of adverse effects, including dryness, peeling, erythema, and even fetal defects and embolic events. Zinc is a promising alternative to other acne treatments owing to its low cost, efficacy, and lack of systemic side effects. In this literature review, we evaluate the effectiveness and side-effect profiles of various formulations of zinc used to treat acne.

Zinc, its biological role and use in dermatology

This literature review detines the biological role ot zinc in the human body, immune homeostasis and skin physiology as well as pathophysiology ot skin diseases. It describes the current range ot systemic and topical zinc preparations and their pharmacological characteristics. The review also describes skin diseases that may be treated with the use ot zinc preparations on a grounded basis, and discloses the clinical experience ot the use ot these drugs described in the world literature. It sets out certain recommendations tor using zinc preparations in clinical practice.

Harnessing the power of crowds: crowdsourcing as a novel research method for evaluation of acne treatments

BACKGROUND

Crowdsourcing is a novel process of data collection that can provide insight into the effectiveness of acne treatments in real-world settings. Little is known regarding the feasibility of crowdsourcing as a means of collecting dermatology research data, the quality of collected data, and how the data compare to the published literature.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis is to compare acne data collected from a medical crowdsourcing site with high-quality controlled studies from peer-reviewed medical literature.

METHODS

Crowdsourced data was collected from 662 online acne patients. Online patients reported data in a Likert-type format to characterize their symptom severity (740 total responses) and their treatment outcomes (958 total responses). The crowdsourced data were compared with meta-analyses and reviews on acne treatment from August 20, 2010 to August 20, 2011.

RESULTS

We compared topical, oral systemic, alternative, phototherapy, and physical acne treatments of crowdsourced data to published literature. We focused on topical tretinoin due to the large number of online patient responses. While approximately 80% of tretinoin users observed clinical improvement after a 12-week treatment period in clinical trials, 46% of online users reported improvement in an unspecified time period. For most topical treatments, medication with high efficacy in clinical trials did not produce high effectiveness ratings based on the crowdsourced online data.

CONCLUSION

While limitations exist with the current methods of crowdsourced data collection, with standardization of data collection and use of validated instruments, crowdsourcing will provide an important and valuable platform for collecting high-volume patient data in real-world settings.

Role of the 585-nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of acne in comparison with other topical therapeutic modalities

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a disease of the pilosebaceous unit characterized by the development of inflammatory and/or non-inflammatory lesions that may progress to scars. The increase of bacterial resistance and adverse effects, the teratogenicity of retinoids and lack of response to usual therapies has led to the investigation of new therapeutic alternatives.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of the pulsed dye laser in the treatment of acne in comparison with other topical therapeutic modalities.

METHODS

We studied 45 patients with mild to moderate acne. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: group A received treatment with pulsed dye laser therapy every 2 weeks, group B received topical preparations and group C was subjected to chemical peeling using trichloroacetic acid 25%.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks of treatment, there was a significant improvement of the lesions within each group with the best results seen in group A; however, no significant difference was detected between the three treatment protocols after the treatment period. Remission in the follow-up period was significantly higher in the first group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulse dye laser therapy mainly improves the inflammatory lesions of acne with few adverse effects.

How prominent are patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of dermatological treatments?

BACKGROUND

Assessment of symptoms or disease improvement by study participants is an important aspect of assessing new dermatological therapies in clinical trials, especially for chronic skin diseases that lack objective severity markers.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the frequency and prominence of reporting of participants' subjective efficacy outcomes in dermatological clinical trials. Our secondary objective was to determine whether participant and physician outcomes agree in terms of direction and magnitude.

METHODS

Systematic review of 125 randomized controlled trials identified from the Archives of Dermatology, British Journal of Dermatology, Clinical & Experimental Dermatology, Journal of Dermatological Treatment and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology published between 1994 and 2001 (25 from each). Studies were retrieved in hard copy from the Cochrane Skin Group specialized register of trials and data were abstracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Participant efficacy outcomes were mentioned in some form in only 32 of 125 trials (25.6%, 95% exact confidence interval 18.2-34.2%). Of these 32 studies, participant outcomes were mentioned only in the methods section in two studies, in the methods and results section without further data in nine studies and with further data in 21. Data were presented in figure format only in 12 of these studies and in tables and figures in nine. Participant efficacy outcomes were mentioned in the abstract section in just over half (53%) of the 32 trials that included participant efficacy outcomes. There was not enough information to assess agreement in direction and magnitude of participant vs. assessor outcomes. Overall, only 17 papers (13.6%) clearly declared their main outcome measures beforehand in the introduction or methods section.

CONCLUSIONS

Asking study participants for their views of treatment efficacy seems like a good idea in dermatological clinical trials, yet only about a quarter of the trials examined in this review did so. Even when such information was recorded, it was often poorly and incompletely reported and given low prominence within the trial report. Our study findings call for a more comprehensive uptake for including participant efficacy outcomes alongside other assessor outcomes in clinical trials and, when included, to report those outcomes in full.

A randomized, single-blind comparison of topical clindamycin + benzoyl peroxide (Duac) and erythromycin + zinc acetate (Zineryt) 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 non-inflammatory lesions and minimize the development of antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of two combination treatments for facial acne: a ready mixed, once daily gel containing clindamycin phosphate (1%) plus benzoyl peroxide (5%) (CDP + BPO) and a twice daily solution of erythromycin (4%) plus zinc acetate (1.2%) (ERY + Zn).

METHODS/PATIENTS

In this assessor-blind, randomized study, 73 patients were treated with CDP + BPO once daily and 75 patients with ERY + Zn twice daily. The treatment period was 12 weeks and lesion counts 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 total lesion counts than ERY + Zn. The proportion of patients with at least a 30% improvement in non-inflammatory lesions at week 1 was 31.5% for CDP + BPO and 17.3% for ERY + Zn; the corresponding percentages for inflammatory lesions were 39.7% and 29.3%. A difference was also observed at week 2 (53.4% vs. 36.0% for non-inflammatory lesions and 72.6% vs. 53.3% for inflammatory lesions). The trend in favour of CDP + BPO, although less marked, continued to the end of the study, with reductions in the total lesion count at endpoint of 69.8% for CDP + BPO group and 64.5% for ERY + Zn group. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

CDP + BPO and ERY + Zn are effective treatments for acne but CDP + BPO has an earlier onset of action that should improve patient compliance.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a combination topical gel formulation of benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin with benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin and vehicle gel in the treatments of acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Topical clindamycin and benzoyl peroxide have each demonstrated clinical efficacy in the treatment of acne vulgaris. When used in combination, they promise greater efficacy than either individual agent used alone and the combined use of benzoyl peroxide with topical antibacterial has been shown to decrease the emergence of antibacterial resistant species.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of a combination benzoyl peroxide plus clindamycin in a gel formulation compared with each of its 2 active constituents in gel vehicle, and gel vehicle given alone in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

In this 10-week, multicenter, double-blind trial, 480 patients with moderate to moderately severe acne were randomized to receive twice-daily treatment with 5% benzoyl peroxide plus 1% clindamycin, 5% benzoyl peroxide, 1% clindamycin, or vehicle.

RESULTS

Significantly greater reductions in the number of inflammatory and total lesions were demonstrated in patients using combination therapy compared with those using any of its 3 individual components. Likewise, both physicians' and patients' global evaluations showed significantly greater improvements with the combination therapy than with its individual components. The most frequent adverse effect, dry skin, occurred to a similar extent in the combination and benzoyl peroxide treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The improved efficacy obtained with the combination therapy was accompanied by a tolerability profile similar to that of benzoyl peroxide alone, making this new combination product an alternative antimicrobial therapy for acne vulgaris.

The efficacy and safety of a combination benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin topical gel compared with benzoyl peroxide alone and a benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin combination product

BACKGROUND

Topical clindamycin and benzoyl peroxide have each demonstrated clinical efficacy in the treatment of acne vulgaris. When used in tandem, they promise greater efficacy than either individual agent through their antibacterial and anti-inflammatory effects.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of combination benzoyl peroxide/ clindamycin compared with benzoyl peroxide or benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin in the treatment of acne.

METHODS

In this randomized, 10-week, multicenter, single-blind trial, 492 patients with moderate to moderately severe acne were treated twice daily with 5% benzoyl peroxide/1% clindamycin, 5% benzoyl peroxide, or 5% benzoyl peroxide/3% erythromycin and assessed every 2 weeks.

RESULTS

Compared with benzoyl peroxide, benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin demonstrated significantly greater reductions in inflammatory lesions (p = 0.04) and significantly greater overall improvement as assessed by physicians (p < or = 0.04) and patients (p < 0.001). Benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin demonstrated a nonsignificant trend for greater efficacy compared to benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin. Dry skin was the most frequent (< or = 7.3%) adverse event with all three therapies.

CONCLUSION

Benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin demonstrated improved efficacy and similar tolerability; to benzoyl peroxide used alone and was similar to benzoyl peroxide/ erythromycin, making this combination product an effective alternative antimicrobial therapy for acne.

Managing acne in adolescents

Acne is the most common skin disorder affecting adolescents. Although no cure exists for acne, most patients benefit from currently available medications, and most can be managed effectively by their primary care providers. By offering this care, pediatricians can reduce the emotional burden of acne and help to prevent the permanent scarring so commonly seen in the past.

Effects of benzoyl peroxide on lipogenesis in sebaceous glands using an animal model

BACKGROUND

Benzoyl peroxide is the most widely used topical agent for acne since the 1960s. Concomitant treatment of benzoyl peroxide with oral, or topical antibiotics diminishes the multiplication of antibiotic-resistant strains of Propionibacteria acnes. Besides being antibacterial, the chemical also functions as a peeling agent, has comedolytic activity, reduces free fatty acid levels, and is touted to be sebosuppressive.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose was to determine the ability of topically applied benzoyl peroxide to suppress lipogenesis of the sebaceous glands.

METHODS

The data were obtained employing an animal model for human sebaceous glands, namely, the flank organs of female golden Syrian hamsters.

RESULTS

Our results reveal no inhibition of lipogenesis in sebaceous glands by topical application of benzoyl peroxide.

CONCLUSION

Despite many functions beneficial in acne therapy, benzoyl peroxide does not possess sebosuppressive capabilities. With the advent of water-soluble organic peroxides revealing similar antimicrobial activity to benzoyl peroxide, all therapeutic parameters (save for sebosuppression) will need to be assessed to weigh the benefits of these second-generation acne-fighting peroxides.

Treating acne. A practical guide

Acne is the most common skin disorder affecting adolescents. Although there is no cure for acne, most patients benefit from currently available medications, and most can be managed effectively by the primary care provider. By offering this care, the clinician can reduce the emotional burden of acne and help prevent the permanent scarring commonly seen in the past.