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

Acne - therapeutic challenges to the cooperation between a dermatologist and a cosmetologist

Acne vulgaris is one of the most common skin diseases in adolescence, causing a significant negative impact on the quality of life of young people who - in a large percentage of cases - do not accept their appearance. The complex pathogenesis of this disease requires appropriate preventive and curative treatment from both a dermatologist and a cosmetologist. The aim of the study was to discuss the methods currently used by dermatologists in local therapy for mild and intermediate forms of acne vulgaris, and to provide an overview of possible preventive and caring activities in the cosmetologist's office. Possible directions of cooperation between the dermatologist and the cosmetologist in the prevention of acne relapse and treatment of possible acne complications were also discussed.

Serum zinc levels and efficacy of zinc treatment in acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Oral and topical zinc have been used for the treatment of acne, but there is a lack of definitive evidence for their efficacy. (a) To determine if mean serum zinc levels differ between acne patients and controls and (b) to determine the efficacy of zinc preparations in the treatment of acne. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to recommended PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses] guidelines. Subjects with acne had significantly lower serum zinc levels compared to controls. Patients who were treated with zinc had a significant improvement in mean inflammatory papule count compared to those who were not treated with zinc. There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects in zinc supplementation vs comparators. Acne patients have decreased serum zinc levels. Zinc is effective for the treatment of acne, particularly at decreasing the number of inflammatory papules, when used as monotherapy or as an adjunctive treatment.

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.

Optimizing Non-Antibiotic Treatments for Patients with Acne: A Review

Acne is a very common non-infectious skin condition that is frequently treated in dermatological practices. Because acne is often chronic and may persist for years, safe and effective long-term maintenance therapy is often required. Given the increasing frequency of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the gravity of the consequences of this trend, it behooves dermatologists to maximize use of non-antimicrobial therapy when treating acne. In this review of the literature we present data regarding the efficacy and appropriate use of non-antimicrobial treatments for acne. A variety of topical and oral treatment options exist that can be used in a step-wise manner according to the patients’ severity and therapeutic response. Non-antimicrobial treatments can be highly efficacious at controlling acne, especially when used as maintenance therapy. While antibiotics have a role in acne treatment, they should not be used as monotherapy, and lengthy courses of antibiotic use are discouraged.

A multicentre, randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of benzoyl peroxide 3%/clindamycin 1% with azelaic acid 20% in the topical treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris is treated with a range of mono- and combination therapies; however, clinical evidence is still required to optimize treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a combination of benzoyl peroxide 3% and clindamycin 1% (BPO + CLN) with azelaic acid 20% (AzA) for the topical treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris.

METHOD

This was a randomized, assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multicentre study conducted in Germany. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of acne vulgaris, aged 12-45 years, were randomized 1 : 1 to once-daily BPO + CLN gel or twice-daily AzA cream for up to 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in inflammatory lesions from baseline at Week 4. Secondary endpoints included total and inflammatory lesion counts and tolerability assessments. For selected secondary endpoints, inductive statistical analysis was performed post hoc. Patient safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) monitoring.

RESULTS

Efficacy was assessed in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population [patients using ≥1 dose of study medication (ITT), plus baseline and ≥1 post-baseline lesion count (n = 215)]. There was a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, with a median decrease of -52.6% for BPO + CLN (n = 107) vs.-38.8% for AzA (n = 108; P = 0.0004). There was also a greater difference in secondary lesion endpoints at Week 12, with a median decrease in inflammatory lesions of -78.8% and -65.3% and total lesions of -69.0% and -53.9% with BPO + CLN and AzA, respectively (both P < 0.0001). Tolerability was acceptable for both treatments. Overall, 55.6% (BPO + CLN) and 69.7% (AzA) of patients reported treatment-emergent AEs, and 15.7% and 35.8% of patients experienced application site reactions with BPO + CLN (24 events; 17 patients) and AzA (60 events; 39 patients) treatment, respectively (ITT population).

CONCLUSION

BPO + CLN demonstrated greater efficacy than AzA in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and has a positive tolerability and safety profile.

Topical acne treatments in Europe and the issue of antimicrobial resistance

Acne vulgaris (acne) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the sebaceous gland, characterized by follicular hyperkeratinization, excessive colonization by Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) as well as immune reactions and inflammation. Despite an armamentarium of topical treatments available including benzoyl peroxide, retinoids and azelaic acid, topical antibiotics in monotherapies, especially erythromycin and clindamycin, are still used in Europe to treat acne. This intensive use led to antimicrobial-resistant P. acnes and staphylococci strains becoming one of the main health issues worldwide. This is an update on the current topical acne treatments available in Europe, their mechanism of action, their potential to induce antimicrobial resistance and their clinical efficacy and safety.

Zinc therapy in dermatology: a review

Zinc, both in elemental or in its salt forms, has been used as a therapeutic modality for centuries. Topical preparations like zinc oxide, calamine, or zinc pyrithione have been in use as photoprotecting, soothing agents or as active ingredient of antidandruff shampoos. Its use has expanded manifold over the years for a number of dermatological conditions including infections (leishmaniasis, warts), inflammatory dermatoses (acne vulgaris, rosacea), pigmentary disorders (melasma), and neoplasias (basal cell carcinoma). Although the role of oral zinc is well-established in human zinc deficiency syndromes including acrodermatitis enteropathica, it is only in recent years that importance of zinc as a micronutrient essential for infant growth and development has been recognized. The paper reviews various dermatological uses of zinc.

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.

Antibiotic overuse and resistance in dermatology

Antibiotics have a significant role in dermatology, treating a wide range of diseases, including acne, rosacea, inflammatory skin conditions and skin structure infections, such as cellulitis, folliculitis, carbuncles, and furuncles. Because of their consistent use, utility, and availability, antibiotics are susceptible to overuse within the medical practice, and, specific to this discussion, in the dermatologic setting. The issue of continuously increasing risk of antibiotic resistance remains an important concern to the dermatologist. The scope of this review will be to provide an overview of the common antibiotics used in the dermatologic setting with an emphasis on identifying areas of overuse, reported bacterial resistance, and discussion of clinical management aimed at decreasing antibiotic resistance.

Topical antimicrobial treatment of acne vulgaris: an evidence-based review

Topical antimicrobial treatment is indicated for mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Our literature review includes searches of Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the databases of the Cochrane Library. A detailed search strategy is included. All searches were limited to controlled trials and systematic reviews. No year limits were applied to the searches, but we focused on trials, guidelines, and reviews published since 2004, the year that the last review of topical antimicrobials was published in this journal. Several controlled trials demonstrate that benzoyl peroxide, topical antibiotics, and topical retinoids used in combination provide the greatest efficacy and safety profile for the treatment of mild to moderate acne, but there are few trials directly comparing different combinations of these topical therapies with one another. Additionally, robust studies comparing cost and efficacy of generic combinations of the above agents with proprietary fixed-dose combination therapies that may increase compliance are also lacking. Although they have not been extensively studied, alternative agents including dapsone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, and zinc are safe and efficacious when combined with traditional therapies.

Innovative uses for zinc in dermatology

Severe zinc deficiency states, such as acrodermatitis enteropathica, are associated with a variety of skin manifestations, such as perioral, acral, and perineal dermatitis. These syndromes can be reversed with systemic zinc repletion. In addition to skin pathologies that are clearly zinc-dependent, many dermatologic conditions (eg, dandruff, acne, and diaper rash) have been associated and treated with zinc. Success rates for treatment with zinc vary greatly depending on the disease, mode of administration, and precise zinc preparation used. With the exception of systemic zinc deficiency states, there is little evidence that convincingly demonstrates the efficacy of zinc as a reliable first-line treatment for most dermatologic conditions. However, zinc may be considered as an adjunctive treatment modality. Further research is needed to establish the indications for zinc treatment in dermatology, optimal mode of zinc delivery, and best type of zinc compound to be used.

Combination of azelaic acid 5% and erythromycin 2% in the treatment of acne vulgaris

INTRODUCTION

Acne vulgaris is a common problem, particularly among adolescents, which is usually resistant to monotherapy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination of azelaic acid (AA) 5% and erythromycin 2% gel (AzE) compared with AA 20% or erythromycin 2% gels in facial acne vulgaris.

METHODS

We conducted a 12-week, multicenter, randomized double-blind study on 147 patients with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. Four treatment group were determined (placebo, erythromycin, AA and AzE) and followed in 4-week intervals for 12 weeks, except the placebo group which was changed to routine treatment after 4 weeks.

RESULTS

The combination of AA 5% and erythromycin 2% gel significantly reduced the number of papules, pustules and comedones compared with placebo (p < 0.001), erythromycin 2% (p < 0.01) or AA 20% (p < 0.05). The incidence of adverse effects observed in patients treated with AzE (27%) was less than that with erythromycin 2% (54%) and AA 20% (45%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of AA 5% and erythromycin 2% produced more potent therapeutic effects in comparison with erythromycin 2% or AA 20% alone, and with fewer side effects.

A current review of topical benzoyl peroxide: new perspectives on formulation and utilization

Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is the most widely used topical acne treatment, with significant antibacterial, antikeratolytic, and comedolytic activity. It has been shown to be extremely effective as monotherapy and in combination with antibiotics or retinoids for managing comedonal and inflammatory acne lesions. As numerous clinical studies have shown, the combination of BPO plus a topical antibiotic is not only more effective but also is often better tolerated than either agent alone. Unlike antibiotics, no bacterial resistance has been noted. Adding BPO to any long-term antibiotic regimen in acne is generally recommended to help reduce populations of drug-resistant variants. Although effective combinations of BPO and antibiotics or retinoids are used, BPO monotherapy can also be extremely effective in treating mild to moderate acne with no resistance issues.