Safety and efficacy comparison of minocycline microgranules vs lymecycline in the treatment of mild to moderate acne: randomized, evaluator-blinded, parallel, and prospective clinical trial for 8 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Minocycline and lymecycline are used in the treatment of acne, but there is not enough evidence to support superior efficacy of one of them. METHODS: 170 participants from 14 to 34 years old with mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris were recruited. 84 had 100 mg of minocycline in a single daily dose for 8 weeks and 86 had 300 mg of lymecycline in a single daily dose for 8 weeks. Participants were evaluated at baseline, week 4 and week 8. RESULTS: 65 minocycline and 60 lymecycline patients were evaluable. The last observation carried forward for the count of non-inflammatory lesions changed from 37.5 ± 17.8 to 37.7 ± 17.8 in the minocycline group and from 36.9 ± 15.5 to 33.4 ± 19.3 in the lymecycline group (no significant changes); corresponding changes in inflammatory lesions were from 19.4 ± 12.4 to 12.2 ± 10.0 in the minocycline group and from 20.1 ± 11.3 to 12.6 ± 8.4 in lymecycline group (P< 0.05 comparing baseline vs. final in both groups). Porphyrin counts varied from 899.5 ± 613.9 to 233.5 ± 219.5 in the minocycline group and from 956.9 ± 661.8 to 411.8 ± 411.5 in the lymecycline group (P<0.05 between the groups at study end). 36 (42.9%) patients receiving minocycline suffered 55 adverse events (22 of them gastrointestinal), while 28 (33.3%) lymecycline patients had 37 adverse events (15 of them gastrointestinal). One patient in the lymecycline group withdrew the study due to gastritis, and one more patient in the same group experienced eosinophilia. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the groups in non-inflammatory and inflammatory lesion counts, and in the safety profile. Treatment with minocycline induced statistically significant decrease in facial porphyrin counts compared to the group treated with lymecycline (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988026).

Pre-emptive skin toxicity treatment for anti-EGFR drugs: evaluation of efficacy of skin moisturizers and lymecycline. A phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) target therapies like erlotinib for metastatic lung cancer and cetuximab or panitumumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) cause skin reaction that seems to be related to treatment efficacy. Skin toxicity evaluation protocol with panitumumab study has shown that preemptive treatment reduces the incidence of ≥Grade 2 (G2) skin toxicity in mCRC treated with panitumumab. Aim of this study is to evaluate if preemptive skin toxicity treatment with different drugs has good efficacy in patients receiving anti-EGFR therapies, such as cetuximab, panitumumab, and erlotinib, for mCRC and metastatic lung cancer. METHODS: Treatment included skin moisturizers with sunscreen and lymecycline 300 mg/daily. Primary objective is to reduce the incidence of ≥G2 skin toxicity during the first 3 months of therapy. Toxicities are reported with confidence interval at 95%. Quality of life was assessed with Dermatology Life Quality Index every 2 weeks and evaluated with repeated measure ANOVA. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with mCRC (60.8%) and metastatic lung cancer (39.2%) were enrolled. Anticancer drugs were erlotinib/cetuximab/panitumumab 20:30:1. At 3-month evaluation, 27.4% patients had =G2 skin toxicity. Skin toxicity was not related with age (p = 0.67), sex (p = 0.65), previous chemotherapy regimens (p = 0.41), and current anti-EGFR treatment (p = 0.22). No gastrointestinal or hematological toxicities related to lymecycline were observed. Only six patients required further drugs. Quality of life analysis did not show a significant difference from the beginning and the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Data show efficacy of preemptive treatment with a well-tolerated profile. A reduction of severe skin toxicities is shown with an increase of grade 1 toxicities, not leading to anti-EGFR dose reduction and with better quality of life for patients.

The use of lymecycline and benzoyl peroxide for the treatment of progressive macular hypomelanosis: a prospective study.

Progressive macular hypomelanosis is a dermatosis of uncertain etiology. The participation of Propionibacterium acnes has been suggested in view of the response achieved following therapy with drugs that are active against this bacterium. This report describes a series of thirteen patients with progressive macular hypomelanosis who were treated with an association of lymecycline and benzoyl peroxide over a three-month period. Response to treatment was excellent and the positive results were maintained during the entire follow up period.

Uso da limeciclina associada com o peróxido de benzoíla no tratamento da hipomelanose macular progressiva: um estudo prospectivo / The use of lymecycline and benzoyl peroxide for the treatment of progressive macular hypomelanosis: a prospective study

A hipomelanose macular progressiva é uma dermatose de etiopatogenia pouco conhecida. A participação do Propionibacterium acnes e a resposta ao tratamento com medicamentos com atividade para essa bactéria têm sido sugeridas. Relata-se uma série de casos de 13 pacientes com hipomelanose macular progressiva tratados com limeciclina e peróxido de benzoíla durante três meses, que apresentaram excelente resposta ao tratamento e nele se mantêm durante o período de seguimento do estudo.

Progressive macular hypomelanosis is a dermatosis of uncertain etiology. The participation of Propionibacterium acnes has been suggested in view of the response achieved following therapy with drugs that are active against this bacterium. This report describes a series of thirteen patients with progressive macular hypomelanosis who were treated with an association of lymecycline and benzoyl peroxide over a three-month period. Response to treatment was excellent and the positive results were maintained during the entire follow up period.

Combination therapy with adapalene-benzoyl peroxide and oral lymecycline in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Oral antibiotics in association with a topical retinoid with or without benzoyl peroxide (BPO) are the recommended first-line option in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral lymecycline 300 mg with adapalene 0·1%-BPO 2·5% (A/BPO) fixed-dose gel in comparison with oral lymecycline 300 mg with a vehicle gel in subjects with moderate to severe acne vulgaris. METHODS: A total of 378 subjects were randomized in a double-blind, controlled trial to receive once-daily lymecycline with either A/BPO or vehicle for 12 weeks. Evaluations included percentage changes from baseline in lesion counts, success rate (subjects 'clear' or 'almost clear'), skin tolerability, adverse events and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: The median percentage reduction from baseline in total lesion counts at week 12 was significantly higher (P < 0·001) in the lymecycline with A/BPO group (-74·1%) than in the lymecycline with vehicle group (-56·8%). The success rate was significantly higher (47·6% vs. 33·7%, P = 0·002) in subjects treated with lymecycline and A/BPO. Both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions were significantly reduced at week 12 (both P < 0·001) with a rapid onset of action from week 2 for noninflammatory lesions (P < 0·001) and week 4 for inflammatory lesions (P = 0·005). The A/BPO and lymecycline combination was well tolerated. The proportion of satisfied and very satisfied subjects was similar in both groups, but the number in the A/BPO group who were 'very satisfied' was significantly greater (P = 0·031). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the clinical benefit of combining A/BPO with lymecycline in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris.

Daily treatment with adapalene gel 0.1% maintains initial improvement of acne vulgaris previously treated with oral lymecycline.

Topical retinoids are often recommended for preventing acne recurrence, but there are relatively few well-controlled maintenance studies published. The objective of the present study was to assess the maintenance effect of adapalene gel 0.1% relative to gel vehicle in subjects successfully treated in a previous 12-week adapalene-lymecycline 300 mg combination therapy study. This was a multicentre, investigator-blind, randomised, controlled study in 19 European centres. A total of 136 subjects with moderate to moderately-severe acne vulgaris who showed at least moderate improvement from baseline when treated with either adapalene plus lymecycline or lymecycline plus gel vehicle in a previous 12 week study were included. Subjects were randomised to receive adapalene gel 0.1% or vehicle once-daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety criteria included maintenance rate, percent reduction in lesion counts (total, inflammatory, non inflammatory), global severity assessment, cutaneous tolerability, and adverse events. Adapalene provided better results relative to gel vehicle for all efficacy assessments. The maintenance rate for total lesions was 84.7% vs. 63.5% (P = 0.0049) with adapalene and the vehicle, respectively. Adapalene was safe and well tolerated in this study. This study demonstrates a clinical benefit of continued treatment with adapalene gel 0.1% as a maintenance therapy for acne.

Successful treatment of Melkersson-Rosenthal Syndrome with lymecycline.

The cause of Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome, a granulomatous, inflammatory disease is still unknown. Many treatments have been tried with variable and often disappointing results. We report the case of a 31-year-old woman affected by Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome, who has been successfully treated with lymecycline, after variable results with steroids alone or combined with antihistamines, sulphasalazine and clofazimine.

The use of lymecycline in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris: a comparison of the efficacy and safety of two dosing regimens.

We compared the efficacy and safety of lymecycline 300 mg od vs lymecycline 150 mg bid or placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe acne. 271 patients received either oral lymecycline 300 mg od + placebo od, lymecycline 150 mg bid, or placebo bid, for 12 weeks. Reduction in inflammatory lesion counts at week 12 was the primary efficacy variable (global improvement was a primary efficacy parameter vs placebo) and safety was assessed by adverse events. Lymecycline 300 mg od was non-inferior to lymecycline 150 mg bid at all time points and superior to placebo throughout the study. Drug-related adverse events were similar for all treatment groups. Lymecycline 300 mg od is as effective and safe as lymecycline 150 mg bid in the treatment of moderate to severe acne. This new, once daily formulation could potentially contribute towards improved compliance rates with oral tetracyclines.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of lymecycline and minocycline in patients with moderately severe acne vulgaris.

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind and double-dummy study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of lymecycline (n = 71) with that of minocycline (n = 73) in 144 patients with moderately severe acne vulgaris. Patients with an acne score of 1-5 on the Leeds scale received oral lymecycline, 300 mg/day for 2 weeks, then 150 mg/day for 10 weeks or oral minocycline, 100 mg/day for 2 weeks then 100 mg every other day for 10 weeks. Inflammatory, non-inflammatory and total lesion counts were determined at baseline (week 0) and after 4, 8 and 12 weeks' treatment, and global efficacy and safety assessments were made by the patient and investigator at the end of the study. Both treatments were equally effective at reducing differential lesion counts and improving acne condition and severity, with no significant differences between treatments. Inflammatory lesions were reduced by 50.6% and 52.2% with lymecycline and minocycline, respectively, and non-inflammatory lesions by 40.6% and 32.2%. Acne severity was reduced by 42.4% with lymecycline and by 47.9% with minocycline. A total of 4.3% of lymecycline recipients and 4.1% of minocycline recipients experienced treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which were mild in nature. Lymecycline was as effective as minocycline for the treatment of moderately severe acne vulgaris. Both treatments were well tolerated, although there were slightly fewer adverse gastrointestinal and dermatological effects with lymecycline.

A case of pyoderma gangrenosum stabilized with lymecycline, topical benzoyl peroxide and treated by autograft.

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a chronic inflammatory ulcerative skin disease of unknown etiology, often associated with various systemic disorders such as inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic active hepatitis, diabetes mellitus and hematologic malignancies. The ulcers are characterized by their undermined violaceous borders. The disease remains a therapeutic challenge. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy; however, side effects from this treatment and recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum require therapeutic alternatives. We report the case of a large subacute pyoderma gangrenosum stabilized with lymecycline, topical benzoyl peroxide and successfully treated by an autograft. This observation supports the opinion that the risk of pathergy of a graft can be avoided by the stabilization of the disease.

[Lymecycline in the treatment of subacute sinusitis. Clinical study]. / Lymecycline in de behandeling van subakute sinusitis. Klinische studie.

After evaluation of the clinical efficacy and the tolerance of lymecycline 2 x 300 mg/day in patients with subacute sinusitis, we may conclude that lymecycline can be considered a first choice antibioticum in the treatment of acute and subacute sinusitis (Tetralysal).