A 6-month, Multi-center, Double-blind, Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effect of a Biofilm Disrupting Acne Cream on Mild-to-Moderate Facial Acne in Female Volunteer Subjects.

Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to assess the change in acne lesions and severity within all treatment groups over the course of a six-month study. Methods: This was a six-month, multisite, randomized, double-blind, controlled study in female subjects with mild-to-moderate acne to assess the clinical and psychological outcomes of treatment with biofilm disrupting acne cream 2x, biofilm disrupting acne cream 1x, biofilm disrupting acne cream without salicylic acid, 2.5% benzoyl peroxide (BPO) gel, and placebo. Subjects applied the assigned product to their face twice daily and were evaluated for clinical acne and quality of life outcomes at baseline and after six, 12, 18, and 24 weeks of treatment. Results: After 24 weeks of use, subjects treated with biofilm disrupting acne cream 2x had a significantly greater improvement in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), compared to those treated with 2.5% BPO gel. Based on dermatologic assessments, biofilm disrupting acne cream 2x, biofilm disrupting acne cream 1x, biofilm disrupting acne cream without salicylic acid, and placebo control were associated with less erythema and dryness, compared to 2.5% BPO gel. Limitations: Assessments within this study had the potential for subjective differences due to variability between evaluators. Conclucion: Biofilm disrupting acne cream 2x and biofilm disrupting acne cream 1x provided equivalent efficacy to 2.5% BPO gel with less of the adverse effects commonly associated with BPO, such as erythema and dryness. Both the biofilm disrupting acne cream without salicylic acid and the placebo control were associated with mild improvements to acne symptoms over the course of the 24-week study. Trial Registry Information: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03106766.

Assessment of Taste and Grittiness of Riomet® ER Strawberry, Riomet® ER Grape, Riomet® Cherry, and Metformin Immediate-Release Tablets in Healthy Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the taste and grittiness of two formulations of Riomet® ER (metformin hydrochloride for extended release [ER] oral suspension 100 mg/mL) differing only in their flavoring agents (strawberry and grape) in comparison with two commercially available immediate-release (IR) formulations of metformin, Riomet® Cherry (metformin hydrochloride oral solution 500 mg/5 mL) and metformin IR tablets (metformin hydrochloride IR tablets 500 mg), in healthy human subjects aged 10-70 years. METHODS: Five comparison sets (i.e., Riomet® Cherry vs. Riomet® ER Strawberry; Riomet® Cherry vs. Riomet® ER Grape; metformin IR vs. Riomet® ER Strawberry; metformin IR vs. Riomet® ER Grape; and Riomet® Cherry vs. metformin IR) were evaluated. Riomet® ER was reconstituted as instructed on the label. Metformin IR tablets were crushed one at a time into a fine powder using a pharmaceutical pill crusher and mixed with 5 mL of water. A 2.5-mL dose of each product was administered to each subject. Subjects were instructed not to swallow any of the products. Each product in the comparison set was rated by the subjects for taste and grittiness according to a 7-point hedonic facial scale and a 5-point level of agreement scale. A comparison questionnaire was also completed by the subjects after evaluating each set. In all, 56 subjects were enrolled and 55 subjects completed the study. The taste preference was statistically evaluated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All Riomet® formulations were significantly preferred overall to metformin IR crushed tablets. Both the strawberry and the grape flavors of Riomet® ER tended to be preferred to Riomet® Cherry.

Evaluation of the skin sensitization, photoirritation, and photoallergic potential of ingenol mebutate gel in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: Phase 1 studies were conducted to determine the sensitization (PEP005-005; NCT00357916; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00357916), photoirritation (PEP005-023; NCT00850811; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00850811?term=PEP005-023&rank=1), and photoallergic (photosensitizing) potential (PEP005-024; NCT00850681; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00850681?term=PEP005-024&rank=1) of ingenol mebutate gel 0.01% versus vehicle on normal skin. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Healthy volunteers were enrolled in single-center, randomized, controlled, within-subject comparison trials. PEP005-005 was designed as a repeat-insult patch test study. In PEP005-023, treatment areas were examined after irradiation for photoirritation potential; dermal reactions were evaluated. In PEP005-024, irradiation was performed to determine the photoallergic (photosensitizing) potential of the medication. All treatment areas were graded immediately prior to irradiation and 24, 48, and 72 hours following irradiation. In all studies, local tolerability was assessed visually using an ordinal scoring system at set intervals before and after medication application/irradiation. RESULTS: In PEP005-005 (n=238), a significant difference (p<0.001) was seen between ingenol mebutate and vehicle for mean and total cumulative irritation scores. In PEP005-023 (n=34), mild erythema in all irradiated treatment areas was as expected for the ultraviolet dose. There was no clinically significant irritation in response to ingenol mebutate or vehicle, irrespective of irradiation. In PEP005-024 (n=60), there was no significant irritation in response to either ingenol mebutate or vehicle at their irradiated treatment areas. CONCLUSION: RESULTS from three pharmacology studies in healthy volunteers indicate a favorable topical safety profile for ingenol mebutate gel, with no evidence seen of skin sensitization, photoirritation, or photoallergic potential.