Efficacy and safety of topical nadifloxacin and benzoyl peroxide versus clindamycin and benzoyl peroxide in acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial

The ameliorative effects of topical gemifloxacin alone or in combination with clobetasol propionate on imiquimod-induced model of psoriasis in mice

Psoriasis is a lifelong immune-driven skin condition characterized by excessive epidermal overgrowth and inflammatory cell infiltration. Gemifloxacin is a fourth-generation fluoroquinolone with improved immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties that are believed to possess an attractive role in psoriasis via suppressing the production of cytokines, chemokines, and eosinophil and neutrophil chemotaxis. The aim of this research is to investigate the ameliorative effects of prolonged topical gemifloxacin (GMF) alone and combined with clobetasol propionate (CLO) on an imiquimod (IMQ)-induced mouse model of psoriasis. Forty-eight Swiss albino mice were divided into six groups of eight. All groups except the negative controls got 62.5 mg of IMQ 5% topically for 8 days. Mice in the control group (controls) got Vaseline instead. Following the induction in the IMQ 5% group, mice in treatment groups CLO 0.05, GMF 1%, GMF 3%, and CLO + GMF obtained clobetasol propionate 0.05%, GMF 1% and 3%, and a combination of both, respectively, for an additional 8 days, rendering the experiment 16 days long. Our results revealed that gemifloxacin alleviated erythematous, thickened, and scaly psoriatic lesions and inhibited the tissue level of inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-8, IL-17A, IL-23, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1). The anti-inflammatory effect also occurred by hindering nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) signaling and reversing histopathological problems. Gemifloxacin acts effectively in mitigating psoriasis-associated lesions and restricting NF-κB-mediated inflammation, recommending gemifloxacin as a promising adjuvant candidate for additional studies on the long-term treatment of autoimmune and autoinflammatory dermatoses like psoriasis.

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.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of topical 1% nadifloxacin and tretinoin 0.025% combination therapy with 1% clindamycin and tretinoin 0.025% combination therapy in patients of mild-to-moderate acne

BACKGROUND

Topical retinoids in combination with antimicrobials have been proven to reduce acne lesions faster and to a greater degree than antimicrobial therapy alone .

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of topical combination of 1% Nadifloxacin [NAD] and 0.025% Tretinoin [Tr] with 1% Clindamycin [CLN] and 0.025% Tr in patients of mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were two groups (40 patients in each group): Group A received (NAD+Tr) combination therapy and group B received (CLN+Tr) combination therapy. Efficacy was assessed by any reduction in the mean number of inflammatory lesions(IL), non-inflammatory lesions(NIL) and/or total lesions(TL) as well as by using Evaluator's Global Severity Scale (EGSS) of acne and safety was assessed by adverse effects of study medications at 0, 6 and at 12 weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

Both the study groups showed statistically significant intragroup reduction in NIL, IL and TL after 12 weeks of therapy. There was no statistically significant reduction at the end of 6 weeks of therapy in both the groups. At the end of 12 weeks of therapy there was a statistically significant reduction in IL, NIL and TL in group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of adverse effects in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Overall the study proved better efficacy of NAD+Tr compared to CLN+Tr. Medications of both the groups were safe and well tolerated.

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.

Prospects of Phage Application in the Treatment of Acne Caused by Propionibacterium acnes

Propionibacterium acnes is associated with purulent skin infections, and it poses a global problem for both patients and doctors. Acne vulgaris (acne) remains a problem due to its chronic character and difficulty of treatment, as well as its large impact on patients' quality of life. Due to the chronic course of the disease, treatment is long lasting, and often ineffective. Currently there are data regarding isolation of P. acnes phages, and there have been numerous studies on phage killing of P. acnes, but no data are available on phage application specifically in acne treatment. In this review, we have summarized the current knowledge on the phages active against P. acnes described so far and their potential application in the treatment of acne associated with P. acnes. The treatment of acne with phages may be important in order to reduce the overuse of antibiotics, which are currently the main acne treatment. However, more detailed studies are first needed to understand phage functioning in the skin microbiome and the possibility to use phages to combat P. acnes.

A comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination topical preparations in acne vulgaris

Background:

The combinations of topical keratolytics with anti-microbials and topical retinoids with antimicrobials are commonly prescribed in the treatment of acne.

Aim:

The present study was undertaken with the aim of comparing the efficacy and safety of topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin versus topical benzoyl peroxide and nadifloxacin versus topical tretinoin and clindamycin in patients of acne vulgaris.

Materials and Methods:

100 patients between 15 and 35 years having ≥2 and ≤30 inflammatory and/or noninflammatory lesions with Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score 2/3 were randomly divided into 3 groups. Group A was prescribed benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel and clindamycin 1% gel, Group B was prescribed benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel and nadifloxacin 1% cream and Group C was prescribed tretinoin 0.025% and clindamycin 1% gel. Total number of lesions and adverse effects during the treatment were assessed at 0, 4, 8, 12 weeks with IGA score.

Results:

There was statistically significant reduction in total number of lesions with better improvement in Group A. Adverse drug reactions during the study showed a better safety profile of Group B which is found to be statistically significant also.

Conclusion:

These findings confirm that Group A is more efficacious and Group B is safest among the other two groups.

Efficacy and safety of nadifloxacin for bacterial skin infections: results from clinical and post-marketing studies

Introduction

Skin and soft tissue infections involve microbial invasion of the skin and underlying soft tissues and are estimated to affect 7–10% of hospitalized patients worldwide. Nadifloxacin, a topical fluoroquinolone, has been shown to be effective against aerobic Gram-negative, Gram-positive (including MRSA and coagulase-negative staphylococci), and anaerobic bacteria. However, there is paucity of data comparing efficacy and safety of 1% nadifloxacin with other anti-bacterials for skin infections in Indian patients.

Methods

This article presents the results of one post-marketing surveillance (PMS) and three randomized, open, non-blinded, multi-centric clinical studies that compared nadifloxacin with mupirocin and framycetin, and nadifloxacin with fusidic acid. Patients in India, aged from 1 to 65 years old, suffering from mild to moderate bacterial skin infections including impetigo, secondarily infected wounds, folliculitis, infected atopic dermatitis, and furunculosis were randomly allocated to three treatment groups within the studies. Efficacy was assessed by the evaluation of symptoms of erythema, exudation, swelling, pruritus, crusting, pain and tenderness in all the studies.

Results

A total of 272 subjects were enrolled in the study and subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups; 92 in the nadifloxacin group, 90 in the mupirocin group, and 90 in the framycetin group. A significant reduction in the mean scores for bacterial infection symptoms in the nadifloxacin groups was observed when compared to mupirocin, framycetin and fusidic acid groups. Both physician and patients rated nadifloxacin as excellent (complete remission of symptoms) on a 4-point scale in the studies. No adverse events (AEs) were reported in the clinical studies. In the PMS, only two patients (of 329, 0.6%) reported AEs including burning and itching, one in each patient that had resolved at the time of reporting.

Conclusion

Nadifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone, is a new alternative topical agent in the treatment of bacterial skin infection with minimal AEs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-014-0062-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.