Multicenter study for efficacy and safety evaluation of a fixeddose combination gel with adapalen 0.1% and benzoyl peroxide 2.5% (Epiduo® for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Brazilian population

Identifying and appraising patient-reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together form an Acne Core Outcome Set (ACORN). One of these was satisfaction with acne treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies that described the development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), evaluated one or more measurement properties of a PROM, or evaluated the interpretability of a PROM in patients with acne regarding treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) search strategy for identifying PROMS on acne treatment satisfaction was used. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search premier (June 2020). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality according to COSMIN guidance were carried out independently by two authors.

RESULTS

Only one study could be included, describing the development of a treatment satisfaction measure in patients with acne. The development was assessed as inadequate and data on measurement properties were lacking. Additionally, we found 188 studies reporting treatment satisfaction solely as an outcome, using a wide variety of methods, none of them standardized or validated.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not find a PROM on treatment satisfaction to recommend for a core outcome set in acne. There is an unmet need for a PROM on treatment satisfaction in acne that is robustly developed, designed and validated.

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 effectiveness of adapalene 0.1% with intense pulsed light versus benzoyl peroxide 5% with intense pulsed light in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A comparative study

Background:

Acne vulgaris (AV) is one of the most common skin diseases with major psychological impacts. Hence, selecting the best treatment modality is so important; there are different ways to treat AV such as topical and systemic agents, laser, and also photodynamic therapy. In this study, we tried to assess the difference between the efficacy of combination therapy with intense pulsed light (IPL) and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) in comparison with IPL and adapalene (AD) in the treatment of the mild to moderate AV.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty Iranian females in reproductive age with mild to moderate acne were enrolled in this study. The left and right side of the patients were randomized to receive either AD 0.1% or BPO 5% every other day plus three sessions of monthly apart IPL in the treatment of AV. Different parameters of AV such as acne severity index (ASI), total acne lesions counting (TLC), and Acne Global Severity Scale (AGSS) were measured before, during, and after the treatments.

Results:

There was a significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI before and after treatment with AD plus IPL (P < 0.001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI before and after treatment with BP plus IPL (P < 0.001). However, no significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI were observed between the 2 groups after treatment (P > 0.05). No significant side effects were observed in both groups.

Conclusion:

Our study shows that there was not any significant difference between combining IPL with either AD or BPO so we can use either one of these combinations to achieve similar efficacy.

Clinical efficacy of 0.5% topical mangosteen extract in nanoparticle loaded gel in treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: A 12-week, split-face, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory sebaceous gland disorder in young adults. The resistant strains of Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) are of increasing concern in the treatment of acne.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of 0.5% topical mangosteen extract in nanoparticle loaded gel (containing alpha-mangostin) compared with 1% clindamycin gel for treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-40 years were enrolled in this double-blinded, split-face, randomized, control study. The 2.5% benzoyl peroxide cream was applied to both sides of the faces once daily for 5 minutes and washed off. Each patient was randomly treated with the mangosteen fruit rind extract on one side and 1% clindamycin on another side of the face twice daily for 12 weeks. Treatment efficacies and side effects were evaluated on every follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients, 24 female (85.7%), mean ± SD age of 25.14 ± 5.8, with Global Acne Grading system (GAGs) score of 15.43 ± 5.96 were included. Mangosteen fruit rind extract significantly showed significant 66.86% and 67.05% reduction of comedone and inflammatory lesions (P < 0.001) after 12-week treatment. The improvement on both treated sides significantly showed since 2 weeks after treatment, without statistical difference between two groups. Nonetheless, the mangosteen fruit rind extract revealed significantly better improvement of clinical severity, with no severe side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The mangosteen fruit rind extract formation could be a phytopharmaceutical medication for effective treatment of mild and moderate acne vulgaris treatment comparable to 1% clindamycin gel, with no severe side effects.

Topical benzoyl peroxide application on the shoulder reduces Propionibacterium acnes: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Propionibacterium acnes is a common cause of infection following shoulder surgery. Studies have shown that standard surgical preparation does not eradicate P acnes. The purpose of this study was to examine whether topical application of benzoyl peroxide (BPO) gel could decrease the presence of P acnes compared with today's standard treatment with chlorhexidine soap (CHS). We also investigated and compared the recolonization of the skin after surgical preparation and draping between the BPO- and CHS-treated groups.

METHODS

In this single-blinded nonsurgical study, 40 volunteers-24 men and 16 women-were randomized to preoperative topical treatment at home with either 5% BPO or 4% CHS on the left shoulder at the area of a deltopectoral approach. Four skin swabs from the area were taken in a standardized manner at different times: before and after topical treatment, after surgical skin preparation and sterile draping, and 120 minutes after draping.

RESULTS

Topical treatment with BPO significantly reduced the presence of P acnes measured as the number of colony-forming units on the skin after surgical preparation. P acnes was found in 1 of 20 subjects in the BPO group and 7 of 20 in the CHS group (P = .044). The results remained after 2 hours (P = .048).

CONCLUSION

Topical preparation with BPO before shoulder surgery may be effective in reducing P acnes on the skin and preventing recolonization.

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.

Synchronizing Pharmacotherapy in Acne with Review of Clinical Care

Acne is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that involves the pathogenesis of four major factors, such as androgen-induced increased sebum secretion, altered keratinization, colonization of Propionibacterium acnes, and inflammation. Several acne mono-treatment and combination treatment regimens are available and prescribed in the Indian market, ranging from retinoids, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), anti-infectives, and other miscellaneous agents. Although standard guidelines and recommendations overview the management of mild, moderate, and severe acne, relevance and positioning of each category of pharmacotherapy available in Indian market are still unexplained. The present article discusses the available topical and oral acne therapies and the challenges associated with the overall management of acne in India and suggestions and recommendations by the Indian dermatologists. The experts opined that among topical therapies, the combination therapies are preferred over monotherapy due to associated lower efficacy, poor tolerability, safety issues, adverse effects, and emerging bacterial resistance. Retinoids are preferred in comedonal acne and as maintenance therapy. In case of poor response, combination therapies BPO-retinoid or retinoid-antibacterials in papulopustular acne and retinoid-BPO or BPO-antibacterials in pustular-nodular acne are recommended. Oral agents are generally recommended for severe acne. Low-dose retinoids are economical and have better patient acceptance. Antibiotics should be prescribed till the inflammation is clinically visible. Antiandrogen therapy should be given to women with high androgen levels and are added to regimen to regularize the menstrual cycle. In late-onset hyperandrogenism, oral corticosteroids should be used. The experts recommended that an early initiation of therapy is directly proportional to effective therapeutic outcomes and prevent complications.

Fixed-Combination Gels of Adapalene and Benzoyl Peroxide Provide Optimal Percutaneous Absorption Compared to Monad Formulations of These Compounds: Results from Two In Vitro Studies

Introduction

Adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% (0.1% A/BPO) and adapalene 0.3%/BPO 2.5% (0.3% A/BPO) gels are fixed-combination options for the topical treatment of acne. However, the active compounds of these combinations are also available as monads, to be used in association or as monotherapy. These two in vitro studies determined the effect of different treatment regimens on the percutaneous absorption of adapalene (0.1% and 0.3%) gels and BPO 2.5% gel in ex vivo human skin.

Methods

In vitro percutaneous absorption studies were conducted using full-thickness human skin from six donors. Treatment regimens included the application of 0.1% A/BPO, 0.3% A/BPO, or four free-combination regimens of the monads. Skin samples were incubated for 24 h. Concentrations of adapalene and BPO equivalent (BPO-eq) (i.e. benzoic acid after chemical transformation of BPO) were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. Comparison of regimens was performed using a bioequivalence criterion (estimated ratio bewteen 0.8 and 1.25).

Results

The fixed combination 0.3% A/BPO regimen demonstrated more than three times higher absorption of adapalene versus the fixed-combination 0.1% A/BPO. Based on the bioequivalence acceptance criterion, all four free-combination regimens were different from 0.1% A/BPO and 0.3% A/BPO, with higher adapalene release delivered by the fixed combinations versus the free combinations. For BPO-eq, the results showed that the free-combination regimens where adapalene 0.1% was applied first were different from 0.1% A/BPO, with lower BPO-eq release delivered by these regimens compared to the fixed combination. The regimen adapalene 0.3% for 10 h followed by BPO 2.5% delivered lower BPO-eq release compared to the fixed combination.

Conclusion

The fixed-combination A/BPO gels provide optimal percutaneous absorption of the active compounds compared to free combinations of adapalene 0.1%, adapalene 0.3%, and BPO 2.5%. The higher concentration of adapalene in the 0.3% A/BPO gel and the resulting higher absorption may explain higher clinical efficacy.

New developments in acne treatment: role of combination adapalene-benzoylperoxide

The fixed-dose combination adapalene 0.1%/benzoylperoxide 2.5% (A/BPO) was introduced as an acne vulgaris therapeutic in 2007. It combines anti-inflammatory, keratolytic, comedolytic, and antibacterial properties. Thus, it addresses several pathophysiological factors involved in the pathophysiology of acne. This review highlights the rationale for the use of this fixed-dose combination product, its therapeutic efficacy including effects on adherence and quality of life, its use for different forms of acne, and the side-effect profile. In summary, the fixed-dose combination of A/BPO gel can be regarded as a highly effective and safe formulation. It is not associated with antibiotic resistance. It reduces factors that cause nonadherence and has positive effects on the quality of life of affected patients. The tolerance is good. The initial mild irritation potential can be addressed by adequate counseling. A/BPO can be used for all forms of inflammatory acne, including severe forms, as part of a combination with systemic antibiotics. Finally, it can also be used for the long-term treatment of chronic acne. Thus, it is a very valuable therapeutic option in daily practice, which is reflected by its strong recommendation in the “European S3-guidelines”.