Intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis: the VITA randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition for women. Short-term antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective, but recurrence is common. We assessed the effectiveness of intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in nineteen UK sexual health clinics and a university health centre. Women aged ≥ 16 years, with current bacterial vaginosis symptoms and a preceding history of bacterial vaginosis, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based minimisation algorithm, to 400 mg twice daily oral metronidazole tablets or 5 ml once daily intravaginal lactic acid gel, for 7 days. Masking of participants was not possible. The primary outcome was participant-reported resolution of symptoms within 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to first recurrence of symptoms, number of recurrences and repeat treatments over 6 months and side effects. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighteen participants were randomised before the trial was advised to stop recruiting by the Data Monitoring Committee. Primary outcome data were available for 79% (204/259) allocated to metronidazole and 79% (205/259) allocated to lactic acid gel. Resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms within 2 weeks was reported in 70% (143/204) receiving metronidazole versus 47% (97/205) receiving lactic acid gel (adjusted risk difference -23·2%; 95% confidence interval -32.3 to -14·0%). In those participants who had initial resolution and for whom 6 month data were available, 51 of 72 (71%) women in the metronidazole group and 32 of 46 women (70%) in the lactic acid gel group had recurrence of symptoms, with median times to first recurrence of 92 and 126 days, respectively. Reported side effects were more common following metronidazole than lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Metronidazole was more effective than lactic acid gel for short-term resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms, but recurrence is common following both treatments. Lactic acid gel was associated with fewer reported side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14161293 , prospectively registered on 18th September 2017.

The DEVA trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of dequalinium chloride versus usual care antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is the most common cause of vaginal discharge in women of reproductive age, and it is estimated that up to a third of women will experience it at some point in their lives. BV produces an offensive vaginal odour and it is associated with serious sequelae. The most frequently prescribed treatment for BV in the UK is 7-day oral metronidazole but recurrences are common following it. Dequalinium chloride (Fluomizin©) is an anti-infective, antiseptic agent administered as a vaginal tablet. Small studies have shown this to be an effective alternative to antibiotics as a BV treatment. This trial aims to investigate whether dequalinium is as effective as current antibiotic treatments for the treatment of BV 1 month after treatment start. METHODS: DEVA is a multi-centre, randomised, open-label, parallel group, non-inferiority trial of dequalinium chloride versus usual care antibiotics for the treatment of BV. Recruitment will take place in 15 GUM clinics in the UK with Leeds Sexual Health also managing remote recruitment via the trial website. Women will be randomised 1:1 to receive dequalinium or usual care antibiotics. The primary outcome is to determine if the proportion of women reporting resolution of BV symptoms 4 weeks after treatment (without the need for additional treatment) is not worse in women treated with dequalinium chloride compared to usual care antibiotics. Questionnaire follow-up will take place 4 and 12 weeks after starting treatment, and remotely recruited patients will also provide a week 4 BV vaginal smear. The sample size is 904. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide high-quality evidence on the use of dequalinium chloride as a BV treatment, which could result in patients reducing the number of antibiotics they take. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN91800263. Prospectively registered on 20 January 2020.

Lactic acid gel versus metronidazole for recurrent bacterial vaginosis in women aged 16 years and over: the VITA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition associated with serious comorbidities. Antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective in the short term, but recurrence is common and side effects can occur. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to assess whether or not intravaginal lactic acid gel is clinically effective and cost-effective for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis compared with oral metronidazole (Flagyl, Sanofi). DESIGN: This was an open-label, multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised (1 : 1) controlled trial. SETTING: This took place in one general practice and 19 sexual health centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 16 years with bacterial vaginosis symptoms and one or more episode(s) within the past 2 years took part. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were 5 ml of intravaginal lactic acid gel taken once daily for 7 days (intervention) or 400-mg oral metronidazole tablets taken twice daily for 7 days (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms 14 days after randomisation. The secondary outcomes were time to first recurrence of symptoms; number of recurrences and treatment courses over 6 months; microbiological resolution on microscopy of vaginal smears at week 2; time to resolution of symptoms; tolerability, adherence and acceptability of the treatment; prevalence of concurrent sexually transmitted infections; quality of life; and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Recruitment stopped prior to reaching the target of 1900 participants on recommendation from the Data Monitoring Committee and Trial Steering Committee after a planned review of the results indicated that the research question had been answered. Overall, 518 participants were randomised and primary outcome data were available for 409 participants (79%; 204 in the metronidazole arm, 205 in the lactic acid gel arm). Participant-reported symptom resolution at week 2 was higher with metronidazole (143/204; 70%) than with lactic acid gel (97/205; 47%) (adjusted risk difference -23.2%, 95% confidence interval -32.3% to -14.0%). Recurrence in 6 months in a subset of participants who had initial resolution and were available for follow-up was similar across arms (metronidazole arm: 51/72, 71%; lactic acid gel arm: 32/46, 70%). A higher incidence of some side effects was reported with metronidazole than with lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). At week 2, the average cost per participant with resolved symptoms was £86.94 (metronidazole), compared with £147.00 (lactic acid gel). Some participants preferred using lactic acid gel even if they perceived it to be less effective than metronidazole. LIMITATIONS: Loss to follow-up for collection of the primary outcome data was 21% and was similar in both arms. There is a risk of bias owing to missing outcome data at 3 and 6 months post treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A higher initial response was seen with metronidazole than with lactic acid gel, but subsequent treatment failure was common with both. Lactic acid gel was less cost-effective than metronidazole. In general, women disliked taking repeated courses of metronidazole and preferred lactic acid gel, even when they were aware that it was less likely to provide symptom resolution. In the absence of effective curative therapy, further evaluation of non-antibiotic treatments to control the symptoms of recurrent bacterial vaginosis is required to improve quality of life for these patients. Further microbiological analysis of vaginal samples would be useful to identify additional factors affecting response to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14161293. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bacterial vaginosis is a common cause of unpleasant vaginal discharge that is caused by an imbalance of vaginal bacteria. The usual treatment is an antibiotic called metronidazole (Flagyl, Sanofi). Although this generally works in the short term, symptoms often return, leading to the repeated use of antibiotics; this can cause side effects as well as increase the risk of antibiotic resistance. Lactic acid gel might be an alternative treatment, but previous studies have not confirmed how clinically effective it is. We wanted to find out if lactic acid gel was better than metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Women with typical symptoms and a history of bacterial vaginosis who were taking part in our trial were selected randomly to receive either 7 days of treatment with lactic acid gel inserted into the vagina once per day or 7 days of treatment with metronidazole tablets taken by mouth twice per day. Overall, 518 women took part in the trial. We originally intended to recruit 1900 women but the trial was stopped early because a planned review of the data showed which treatment was better. Most of the women took all of their treatment and 70% reported that symptoms had cleared 2 weeks after taking metronidazole, compared with 47% after using lactic acid gel. Less than half of the women stayed in the trial for the full 6 months; however, the data suggested that the majority of those whose symptoms cleared within 2 weeks with either treatment had symptoms return over the next 6 months. More side effects were reported for metronidazole than for lactic acid gel: nausea 32% compared with 8%, taste changes 18% compared with 1%, and diarrhoea 20% compared with 6%, respectively. Despite thinking that it was less effective, women preferred lactic acid gel because it avoided the need to take an antibiotic and had a soothing effect. The cost-effectiveness analysis found that lactic acid gel was less effective than metronidazole in clearing symptoms by 2 weeks and that the average costs for women whose symptoms resolved were higher (£86.94 with metronidazole vs. £147.00 with lactic acid gel).

TANDEM TRIAL: a factorial randomised controlled trial of dose and review schedule of bevacizumab (Avastin) for neovascular macular degeneration in the East Midlands.

OBJECTIVE: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) causes damage to the macula and severe vision loss. Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective nAMD treatment. The TANDEM trial was designed to determine whether, in patients with nAMD, low-dose bevacizumab is non-inferior to the standard dose in terms of visual deterioration and whether a bimonthly regimen is non-inferior to monthly, treatment as required, regimens. METHODS: This was a multicentre, 2×2 factorial, double-masked, non-inferiority randomised trial with patients considered eligible if they met the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for nAMD treatment with ranibizumab. Participants were randomly assigned to standard (1.25 mg) or low (0.625 mg) dose bevacizumab and either monthly or bimonthly review regimen. The primary outcome was time to vision deterioration, defined as reduction of ≥15 letters (three lines) during the loading phase (visual acuity scores at visits B and C compared with the initial visit A), or ≥6 letters (one line) during the maintenance phase (visual acuity scores at subsequent visits compared with mean vision at visits A-C). RESULTS: In total 812 participants (918 eyes) were randomised into the trial. The low dose showed some evidence of being non-inferior to standard dose (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.42), however, there was no strong evidence of bimonthly review being non-inferior to monthly review (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.94). There was no difference in visual acuity when assessed at 9 months and no major differences in the frequency of serious adverse events or reactions between the groups. CONCLUSION: The standard dose of bevacizumab can be halved without compromising efficacy. Bimonthly review cannot be considered to be no worse than monthly review.

A directly comparative two-gate case-control diagnostic accuracy study of the pure tone screen and HearCheck screener tests for identifying hearing impairment in school children.

OBJECTIVES: This study directly compared the accuracy of two audiometry-based tests for screening school children for hearing impairment: the currently used test, pure tone screen and a device newly applied to children, HearCheck Screener. DESIGN: Two-gate case-control diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Hearing impaired children ('intended cases') aged 4-6 years were recruited between February 2013 and August 2014 from collaborating audiology services. Children with no previously identified impairment ('intended controls') were recruited from Foundation and Year 1 of schools between February 2013 and June 2014 in central England. The reference standard was pure tone audiometry. Tests were administered at Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit or, for some intended cases only, in the participant's home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of the pure tone screen and HearCheck tests based on pure tone audiometry result as reference standard. RESULTS: 315 children (630 ears) were recruited; 75 from audiology services and 240 from schools. Full test and reference standard data were obtained for 600 ears; 155 ears were classified as truly impaired and 445 as truly hearing based on the pure tone audiometry assessment. Sensitivity was estimated to be 94.2% (95% CI 89.0% to 97.0%) for pure tone screen and 89.0% (95% CI 82.9% to 93.1%) for HearCheck (difference=5.2% favouring pure tone screen; 95% CI 0.2% to 10.1%; p=0.02). Estimates for specificity were 82.2% (95% CI 77.7% to 86.0%) for pure tone screen and 86.5% (95% CI 82.5% to 89.8%) for HearCheck (difference=4.3% favouring HearCheck; 95% CI0.4% to 8.2%; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Pure tone screen was better than HearCheck with respect to sensitivity but inferior with respect to specificity. As avoiding missed cases is arguably of greater importance for school entry screening, pure tone screen is probably preferable in this context. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN61668996.

Surgery Versus 5% Imiquimod for Nodular and Superficial Basal Cell Carcinoma: 5-Year Results of the SINS Randomized Controlled Trial.

We previously reported modest clinical 3-year benefit for topical imiquimod compared with surgery for superficial or nodular basal cell carcinoma at low-risk sites in our noninferiority randomized controlled SINS trial. Here we report 5-year data. Participants were randomized to imiquimod 5% cream once daily (superficial basal cell carcinoma, 6 weeks; nodular basal cell carcinoma, 12 weeks) or excisional surgery (4-mm margin). The primary outcome was clinical absence of initial failure or signs of recurrence at the 3-year dermatology review. Five-year success was defined as 3-year success plus absence of recurrences identified through hospital, histopathology, and general practitioner records. Of 501 participants randomized, 401 contributed to the modified intention-to-treat analyses at year 3 (primary outcome), 383 (96%) of whom had data at year 5. Five-year success rates for imiquimod were 82.5% (170/206) compared with 97.7% (173/177) for surgery (relative risk of imiquimod success = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.77-0.91, P < 0.001). These were comparable to year 3 success rates of 83.6% (178/213) and 98.4% (185/188) for imiquimod and surgery, respectively. Most imiquimod treatment failures occurred in year 1. Although surgery is clearly superior to imiquimod, this study shows sustained benefit for lesions that respond early to topical imiquimod.

A programme of studies including assessment of diagnostic accuracy of school hearing screening tests and a cost-effectiveness model of school entry hearing screening programmes.

BACKGROUND: Identification of permanent hearing impairment at the earliest possible age is crucial to maximise the development of speech and language. Universal newborn hearing screening identifies the majority of the 1 in 1000 children born with a hearing impairment, but later onset can occur at any time and there is no optimum time for further screening. A universal but non-standardised school entry screening (SES) programme is in place in many parts of the UK but its value is questioned. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hearing screening tests and the cost-effectiveness of the SES programme in the UK. DESIGN: Systematic review, case-control diagnostic accuracy study, comparison of routinely collected data for services with and without a SES programme, parental questionnaires, observation of practical implementation and cost-effectiveness modelling. SETTING: Second- and third-tier audiology services; community. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 4-6 years and their parents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy of two hearing screening devices, referral rate and source, yield, age at referral and cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: The review of diagnostic accuracy studies concluded that research to date demonstrates marked variability in the design, methodological quality and results. The pure-tone screen (PTS) (Amplivox, Eynsham, UK) and HearCheck (HC) screener (Siemens, Frimley, UK) devices had high sensitivity (PTS ≥ 89%, HC ≥ 83%) and specificity (PTS ≥ 78%, HC ≥ 83%) for identifying hearing impairment. The rate of referral for hearing problems was 36% lower with SES (Nottingham) relative to no SES (Cambridge) [rate ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.69; p < 0.001]. The yield of confirmed cases did not differ between areas with and without SES (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; p = 0.12). The mean age of referral did not differ between areas with and without SES for all referrals but children with confirmed hearing impairment were older at referral in the site with SES (mean age difference 0.47 years, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70 years; p < 0.001). Parental responses revealed that the consequences to the family of the referral process are minor. A SES programme is unlikely to be cost-effective and, using base-case assumptions, is dominated by a no screening strategy. A SES programme could be cost-effective if there are fewer referrals associated with SES programmes or if referrals occur more quickly with SES programmes. CONCLUSIONS: A SES programme using the PTS or HC screener is unlikely to be effective in increasing the identified number of cases with hearing impairment and lowering the average age at identification and is therefore unlikely to represent good value for money. This finding is, however, critically dependent on the results of the observational study comparing Nottingham and Cambridge, which has limitations. The following are suggested: systematic reviews of the accuracy of devices used to measure hearing at school entry; characterisation and measurement of the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to the ad-hoc referral system; examination of programme specificity as opposed to test specificity; further observational comparative studies of different programmes; and opportunistic trials of withdrawal of SES programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61668996. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surgical excision versus imiquimod 5% cream for nodular and superficial basal-cell carcinoma (SINS): a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Basal-cell carcinoma is the most common form of skin cancer and its incidence is increasing worldwide. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of imiquimod cream versus surgical excision in patients with low-risk basal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial at 12 centres in the UK, in which patients were recruited between June 19, 2003, and Feb 22, 2007, with 3 year follow-up from June 26, 2006, to May 26, 2010. Participants of any age were eligible if they had histologically confirmed primary nodular or superficial basal-cell carcinoma at low-risk sites. We excluded patients with morphoeic or recurrent basal-cell carcinoma and those with Gorlin syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated blocked randomisation, stratified by centre and tumour type, to receive either imiquimod 5% cream once daily for 6 weeks (superficial) or 12 weeks (nodular), or surgical excision with a 4 mm margin. The randomisation sequence was concealed from study investigators. Because of the nature of the interventions, masking of participants was not possible and masking of outcome assessors was only partly possible. The trial statistician was masked to allocation until all analyses had been done. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with clinical success, defined as absence of initial treatment failure or signs of recurrence at 3 years from start of treatment. We used a prespecified non-inferiority margin of a relative risk (RR) of 0.87. Analysis was by a modified intention-to-treat population and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCTN48755084), and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00066872. FINDINGS: 501 participants were randomly assigned to the imiquimod group (n=254) or the surgical excision group (n=247). At year 3, 401 (80%) patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat group. At 3 years, 178 (84%) of 213 participants in the imiquimod group were treated successfully compared with 185 (98%) of 188 participants in the surgery group (RR 0.84, 98% CI 0.78-0.91; p<0.0001). No clear difference was noted between groups in patient-assessed cosmetic outcomes. The most common adverse events were itching (211 patients in the imiquimod group vs 129 in the surgery group) and weeping (160 vs 81). We recorded serious adverse events in 99 (40%) of 249 participants in the imiquimod group and 97 (42%) of 229 in the surgery group had serious adverse events, but none were regarded as related to treatment. 12 (5%) participants in the imiquimod group withdrew because of adverse events compared with four (2%) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION: Imiquimod was inferior to surgery according to our predefined non-inferiority criterion. Although excisional surgery remains the best treatment for low-risk basal-cell carcinoma, imiquimod cream might still be a useful treatment option for small low-risk superficial or nodular basal-cell carcinoma dependent on factors such as patient preference, size and site of the lesion, and whether the patient has more than one lesion. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial.

BACKGROUND: The SINS trial (Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN48755084; Eudract No. 2004-004506-24) is a randomised controlled trial evaluating long term success of excisional surgery vs. imiquimod 5% cream for low risk nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The trial included a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to explore patient preferences of a cream versus surgery for the treatment of their skin cancer. METHODS: The self-completed questionnaire was administered at baseline to 183 participants, measuring patients' strength of preferences when choosing either alternative 'surgery' or 'imiquimod cream' instead of a fixed 'current situation' option (of surgical excision as standard practice in UK). The treatments were described according to: cost, chance of complete clearance, side effects and appearance. Participants had to choose between various scenarios. Analysis was performed using a mixed logit model, which took into account the impact of previous BCC treatment and sample preference variability. RESULTS: The analysis showed that respondents preferred 'imiquimod cream' to their 'current situation' or 'surgery', regardless of previous experience of BCC symptoms and treatment. Respondents were more likely to be worried about their cosmetic outcomes and side effects they might experience over and above their chance of clearance and cost. Those with no experience of surgery (compared with experience) valued more the choice of 'imiquimod cream' (£1013 vs £781). All treatment characteristics were significant determinants of treatment choice, and there was significant variability in the population preferences for all of them. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BCC valued more 'imiquimod cream' than alternative 'surgery' options, and all treatment characteristics were important for their choice of care. Understanding how people with a BCC value alternative interventions may better inform the development of health care interventions.

The SINS trial: a randomised controlled trial of excisional surgery versus imiquimod 5% cream for nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma is the commonest human cancer. Despite increasing incidence it remains poorly researched. While not life threatening it can cause significant cosmetic disfigurement. Imiquimod, a cream which enhances the body's immune response, may help deal with the number of cases that occur in low-risk sites, especially when good cosmetic results and home use without surgery are needed.This study aims 1. To compare excisional surgery with imiquimod cream for nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma in low risk sites, with respect to 3 year clinical clearance, cost-effectiveness and cosmetic results. 2. To ascertain if certain phenotypic features and gene polymorphisms predict tumour responsiveness to treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: Five hundred participants with low risk nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma will be recruited from hospitals to this multi-centre, randomised, parallel group, controlled phase III trial. Treatment in the imiquimod group is for 6 weeks for superficial basal cell carcinoma and 12 weeks for nodular basal cell carcinoma. Both treatment groups are followed up in clinic for 3 years. Primary outcome variable: the proportion of participants with clinical evidence of success (no recurrence) at 3 years. The primary outcome will be compared between the two treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include: i) clinical success at 1, 2 and 5 years, ii) time to first recurrence, iii) cosmetic appearance of lesion site after treatment, iv) level of pain, and v) cost-effectiveness. Safety and tolerability data will also be reported. DISCUSSION: This study protocol describes a pragmatic randomised controlled trial which it is hoped will address the above uncertainties. Three-year results will be available towards the end of 2010. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Meta-register: NCT00066872, Eudract No. 2004-004506-24, ISRCTN48755084.

Comparison of five antimicrobial regimens for treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory facial acne vulgaris in the community: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of five antimicrobial regimens for mild to moderate facial acne and whether propionibacterial antibiotic resistance affects treatment response. METHODS: In this randomised, observer-masked trial, 649 community participants were allocated one of five antibacterial regimens. Primary outcomes were patients' self-assessed improvement and reduction in inflamed lesions at 18 weeks. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Moderate or greater improvement at 18 weeks was reported in 72 (55%) of 131 participants assigned oral oxytetracycline plus topical placebo, 70 (54%) of 130 assigned oral minocycline plus topical placebo, 78 (60%) of 130 assigned topical benzoyl peroxide plus oral placebo, 84 (66%) of 127 assigned topical erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide in a combined formulation plus oral placebo, and 82 (63%) of 131 assigned topical erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide separately plus oral placebo. Most improvement occurred in the first 6 weeks. Treatment differences for the proportion of people with at least moderate improvement were: minocycline versus oxytetracycline -1.2% (unadjusted 95% CI -13.3 to 10.9); combined erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide versus oxytetracycline 11.1% (-0.7 to 22.9) and versus minocycline 12.3% (0.4 to 24.2); erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide separately versus combined formulation -3.5% (-15.2 to 8.2); benzoyl peroxide versus oxytetracycline 5.0% (-7.0 to 17.0), versus minocycline 6.2% (-5.8 to 18.2), and versus combined formulation -6.1% (-17.9 to 5.7). Benzoyl peroxide was the most cost-effective treatment. Efficacy of both tetracyclines was reduced by pre-existing tetracycline resistance. INTERPRETATION: Topical benzoyl peroxide and benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin combinations are similar in efficacy to oral oxytetracycline and minocycline and are not affected by propionibacterial antibiotic resistance.