A comparison of the effectiveness of topical tetracycline, benzoyl-peroxide gel and oral oxytetracycline in the treatment of acne

Oral Antibacterial Therapy for Acne Vulgaris: An Evidence-Based Review

BACKGROUND

To some degree, acne vulgaris affects nearly every individual worldwide. Oral antibiotic therapy is routinely prescribed for the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory acne; however, long-term use of oral antibiotics for acne may have unintended consequences.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the efficacy and appropriate use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of oral antibiotics for acne. Overall, 41 articles that examined oral antibiotics compared with placebo, another oral therapy, topical therapy, alternate dose, or duration were included in this study.

RESULTS

Tetracyclines, macrolides, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole are effective and safe in the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory acne. Superior efficacy of one type or class of antibiotic could not be determined, therefore the choice of antibiotic is generally based on the side-effect profile. Although different dosing regimens have been studied, there is a lack of standardized comparator trials to determine optimal dosing and duration of each oral antibiotic used in acne. The combination of oral antibiotics with a topical therapy is superior to oral antibiotics alone.

CONCLUSION

This article provides a systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence of the efficacy of oral antibiotics for acne. Due to heterogeneity in the design of the trials, there is insufficient evidence to support one type, dose, or duration of oral antibiotic over another in terms of efficacy; however, due to increasing resistance to antibiotics, dermatologists should heed consensus guidelines for their appropriate use.

Benzoyl Peroxide, Adapalene, and Their Combination in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris

Benzoyl peroxide and adapalene are among the most effective topical agents used in the treatment of acne. We planned an open-labeled, prospective study to compare the effects and side effects of these two drugs alone and in combination in the treatment of acne vulgaris. One hundred and five consecutive patients (30 men and 75 women) with acne vulgaris were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups with 35 patients in each. The groups were randomly assigned to 0.1% adapalene gel, 5% benzoyl peroxide lotion, or combination of 0.1% adapalene gel +5% benzoyl peroxide treatment. Acne lesions were classified as noninflammatory (open and closed comedones) and inflammatory (papule, pustule, nodule, cyst), and the lesions on the face were counted before the therapy, during the control visits, and after the treatment. Erythema, dryness, burning, and other side effects were recorded during the treatment. The mean age of the patients was 18.44 +/- 3.75 years. Eight patients were excluded because of noncompliance with the treatment regimen or the follow-up schedule, and four patients were excluded due to allergic contact dermatitis. The study revealed that all three therapy protocols were effective in treating noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions in acne vulgaris (p<0.05) and that there was no significant difference between the groups in efficacy or side effects (p>0.05). Adapalene and benzoyl peroxide are effective and well tolerated agents for acne vulgaris; combination therapy has no superiority over adapalene or benzoyl peroxide alone.

Efficacy of tetracyclines in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a review

BACKGROUND

Oral tetracyclines are routinely used for the management of inflammatory acne. However, there is a lack of evidence-based data on their relative effectiveness and appropriate dosages.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effectiveness and the optimal dosage of tetracyclines for the treatment of inflammatory acne.

METHODS

We designed a systematic review of the clinical trials (1962-2006) investigating oral tetracyclines for the treatment of inflammatory acne. We obtained data from MEDLINE, PubMed, Current Contents, reference lists and specialist textbooks.

RESULTS

There was substantial heterogeneity in the design of the trials. We identified only seven randomized trials which were set up to compare the efficacy of tetracyclines in reducing acne lesion counts. These showed no evidence of superiority of one tetracycline over another. Overall, there was also no significant difference between the available tetracyclines in terms of improvement in inflammatory (32 trials, P=0.898) and noninflammatory (23 trials, P=0.429) lesions. In the range of investigated dosages, the antibiotic dosage had no impact on efficacy in inflammatory (P=0.609) and noninflammatory (P=0.654) lesions. There was no decrease in efficacy during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support one tetracycline rather than another in terms of efficacy. In the range of investigated dosages, the antibiotic dosage seems to have no impact on efficacy. Despite increased resistance to antibiotics, oral tetracycline formulations displayed no change in efficacy during the study period. Further studies are, however, required to determine if the anti-inflammatory properties of tetracyclines are sufficient in managing acne.

Guidelines of care for acne vulgaris management

DISCLAIMER

Adherence to these guidelines will not ensure successful treatment in every situation. Furthermore, these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific therapy must be made by the physician and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Current dermatologic therapy

This article reviews therapeutic advances reported in the English-language literature during 1991. Readers should review the original article in full before attempting any experimental or controversial therapy.