We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy and Safety of Tazarotene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel Versus Adapalene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel in Facial Acne Vulgaris: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.
Clinical Drug Investigation 2017 November
BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a multifactorial disorder which is ideally treated with combination therapy with topical retinoids and antibiotics.
OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of tazarotene plus clindamycin against adapalene plus clindamycin in facial acne vulgaris.
METHODS: This study is a randomized, open-label, parallel design clinical trial conducted on 60 patients with facial acne at the outpatient dermatology department in a tertiary healthcare center. The main outcome measures were change in the acne lesion count, Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) score, Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score, and Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Acne-QoL) at the end of 4 weeks of therapy. After randomization one group (n = 30) received tazarotene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel and another group (n = 30) received adapalene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel for 1 month. At follow-up, all the parameter were reassessed.
RESULT: In both treatment regimens the total number of facial acne lesions decreased significantly. The difference in the change in the total count between the two combination regimens was also significant [6.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91-11.09, p = 0.007]. A ≥50% reduction in the total lesion count from the baseline levels was achieved by 71% of patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group and 22% of patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.0012). The difference in the change of inflammatory (p = 0.017) and non-inflammatory (p = 0.039) lesion counts in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group were significantly higher than the adapalene plus clindamycin group. The difference in change of the GAGS score was also significantly higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.003). The ISGA score improved in 17 patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group versusnine patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.04). The change of total quality-of-life score was found to be significantly (p = 0.027) higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment regimens were efficacious, but tazarotene plus clindamycin was found to be superior to adapalene plus clindamycin. The tolerability profile of both regimens was comparable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721173.
OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of tazarotene plus clindamycin against adapalene plus clindamycin in facial acne vulgaris.
METHODS: This study is a randomized, open-label, parallel design clinical trial conducted on 60 patients with facial acne at the outpatient dermatology department in a tertiary healthcare center. The main outcome measures were change in the acne lesion count, Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) score, Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score, and Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Acne-QoL) at the end of 4 weeks of therapy. After randomization one group (n = 30) received tazarotene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel and another group (n = 30) received adapalene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel for 1 month. At follow-up, all the parameter were reassessed.
RESULT: In both treatment regimens the total number of facial acne lesions decreased significantly. The difference in the change in the total count between the two combination regimens was also significant [6.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91-11.09, p = 0.007]. A ≥50% reduction in the total lesion count from the baseline levels was achieved by 71% of patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group and 22% of patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.0012). The difference in the change of inflammatory (p = 0.017) and non-inflammatory (p = 0.039) lesion counts in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group were significantly higher than the adapalene plus clindamycin group. The difference in change of the GAGS score was also significantly higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.003). The ISGA score improved in 17 patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group versusnine patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.04). The change of total quality-of-life score was found to be significantly (p = 0.027) higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment regimens were efficacious, but tazarotene plus clindamycin was found to be superior to adapalene plus clindamycin. The tolerability profile of both regimens was comparable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721173.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app