Adapalene gel 0.1% is better tolerated than tretinoin gel 0.025% among healthy volunteers of various ethnic origins.

BACKGROUND: The efficacious acne treatment adapalene gel 0.1% is significantly less irritating than tretinoin of various concentrations and formulations, according to several clinical studies conducted predominantly in Caucasian patients. OBJECTIVES: To confirm the lower irritation potential of adapalene gel 0.1% compared to tretinoin gel 0.025% among volunteers of various ethnic origins and to explore the difference in the irritant susceptibility among ethnic groups. METHODS: The study was a single-centre, randomized, investigator-masked and intra-individual comparison. Healthy volunteers applied adapalene and tretinoin daily to the face for 21 days and to the forearms for 4 days, and were then evaluated for the level of irritation. RESULTS: The irritation potential of adapalene gel 0.1% was significantly lower than that of tretinoin gel 0.025% in all tolerability assessments, irrespective of the volunteers' ethnic origins. The between-treatment differences were similar among various ethnic groups. Statistically significant but small inter-ethnicity differences were observed in the evaluation of facial signs, with Caucasians being less susceptible than Chinese, Asian Indians and Malays. CONCLUSION: Adapalene gel 0.1% was significantly better tolerated than tretinoin gel 0.025% among various ethnic groups. The patients' ethnic origins had no impact on the difference between adapalene and tretinoin treatments in terms of tolerability.

A new ecamsule-containing SPF 40 sunscreen cream for the prevention of polymorphous light eruption: a double-blind, randomized, controlled study in maximized outdoor conditions.

Polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) is an idiopathic photodermatosis elicited by UV radiation (UVR). The objective of this double-blind, randomized, controlled, intraindividual, bilateral comparison was to determine the efficacy of the UVA filters (ecamsule, avobenzone) present in the new sun protection factor (SPF) 40 sunscreen cream in preventing PMLE in maximized outdoor conditions (ie, exaggerated sun exposure). Safety also was assessed. Each participant was treated with SPF 40 sunscreen cream containing ecamsule 3%, octocrylene 10%, avobenzone 2%, and titanium dioxide 5% (tetrad) on one side of the body and either an ecamsule-deprived (triad-E) or avobenzone-deprived (triad-A) cream on the other side. Participants were subsequently exposed to incremental doses of sunlight for up to 6 days. The primary efficacy assessment was a composite relative success rate with 3 components. Success was defined as either a delayed time to onset of PMLE or a lower global severity of PMLE comparing one side of the body to the other side in the same participant. Safety evaluations included systemic adverse events (AEs). Of the 144 participants enrolled and randomized, 22 did not experience PMLE during the study duration under these maximized sun exposure conditions. A significantly greater number of successes were detected on the tetrad-treated side compared with either triad: 41 of 73 participants (56%) versus 8 of 73 participants (11%; P<.001) in the triad-E treatment group and 26 of 71 participants (36%) versus 11 of 71 participants (16%; P=.02) in the triad-A treatment group. Polymorphous light eruption appeared later with the tetrad than with either triad. The global severity of the PMLE flares was significantly lower with the tetrad than with both triads at end point (P<.001 and P=.02 for tetrad vs triad-E and tetrad vs triad-A, respectively). In this study, the SPF 40 sunscreen cream containing ecamsule 3%, octocrylene 10%, avobenzone 2%, and titanium dioxide 5% prevented PMLE flares significantly better than similar formulations with only one of the UVA filters (triad-E treatment group, P<.001; triad-A treatment group, P=.02). The inclusion of both ecamsule and avobenzone provides clinical benefit to patients with PMLE compared with formulations containing only one UVA filter.

Efficacy and tolerability of adapalene 0.3% gel compared to tazarotene 0.1% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Treatment of acne vulgaris can be challenging for both patients and physicians. Topical retinoids are often considered first-line therapy for the treatment of all but the most severe forms of acne. A variety of formulations of topical retinoids, including adapalene and tazarotene, are available but tazarotene 0.1% gel is widely perceived to be the most efficacious. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a new, higher concentration of adapalene, adapalene 0.3% gel, compared to tazarotene 0.1% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris. The primary efficacy outcome was the percent reduction in total lesion count at week 12. Subjects 12 to 35 years of age with acne vulgaris (N=172) participated in a 12-week, randomized, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study of once-daily therapy with adapalene 0.3% gel or tazarotene 0.1% gel. Subjects in each group achieved clinically significant reductions in total lesion counts at week 12 (61% and 57% median reductions for adapalene and tazarotene, respectively); adapalene 0.3% gel was noninferior to tazarotene 0.1% gel (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.2-9.6). The adapalene arm was also therapeutically similar to the tazarotene arm in terms of the percent reduction in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts at week 12, as well as in the assessments of acne severity and improvement. Mean tolerability scores for erythema, dryness, scaling, and stinging/burning were consistently lower in the adapalene arm compared to patients treated with tazarotene (P<.014 at week 12, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel [CMH] test). The worst score for any tolerability parameter in the treatment phase in the adapalene arm was less than 1 (mild). Adapalene was also associated with a lower incidence of treatment-related adverse events when compared to tazarotene (3.5% versus 14%, respectively). Once daily therapy with adapalene 0.3% gel provided similar efficacy (noninferior) to tazarotene 0.1% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris, but demonstrated a superior tolerability profile.

Clobetasol propionate shampoo 0.05% in the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis of the scalp: results of a pilot study.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD), a common dermatosis associating hyperseborrhea, erythema, itching, and dandruff, has frequent scalp involvement. Malassezia furfur infection seems to play an important role in the condition's etiopathology. Treatment of SD usually consists of corticosteroids or antifungals, such as ketoconazole. The aim of this multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, parallel-group pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clobetasol propionate shampoo 0.05% after different short-contact application times compared with its vehicle and ketoconazole foaming gel 2% in the treatment of SD of the scalp. For 4 weeks, 55 subjects received one of the following treatments twice weekly: clobetasol propionate shampoo for 2.5, 5, or 10 minutes; clobetasol propionate vehicle for 10 minutes; or ketoconazole foaming gel for 5 minutes before rinsing off. Efficacy criteria included total severity score (TSS) and individual scores of signs such as itching and global improvement. Safety included reporting of burning, overall tolerance, and adverse events. Results showed that an application of clobetasol propionate for 5 and 10 minutes provided a similar mean percentage decrease of TSS, and the mean percentage decrease of TSS for all active groups was significantly superior to that of the vehicle (P < .01). Overall and local safety were good for all treatment groups. The present pilot study demonstrated that a short-contact application of clobetasol propionate shampoo is effective and safe in the treatment of SD of the scalp.

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.

Short-term safety assessment of clobetasol propionate 0.05% shampoo: hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression, atrophogenicity, and ocular safety in subjects with scalp psoriasis.

Clobetasol propionate is known to be a very effective treatment for psoriasis; however, its use is limited by potent corticosteroid class related side effects such as hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression and atrophogenicity. The aim of this single-center, parallel group, randomized study was to assess the HPA axis suppression potential, atrophogenicity, and ocular tolerability of clobetasol propionate shampoo in 26 patients with scalp psoriasis. Suitable subjects were treated once daily for 4 weeks with clobetasol propionate shampoo, to be rinsed off after 15 minutes or with a leave-on clobetasol propionate gel. The study demonstrated that clobetasol propionate shampoo did not lead to HPA axis suppression or to skin atrophy. Conversely, the gel led to HPA axis suppression and a decrease in skin thickness. Neither formulation had an impact on ocular safety. Despite the short contact application time, the clobetasol propionate shampoo provides similar efficacy results to the gel.

Clobetasol propionate lotion, an efficient and safe alternative to clobetasol propionate emollient cream in subjects with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Various formulations of clobetasol propionate are currently used to treat psoriasis due to its anti-inflammatory, anti-pruritic, vasoconstrictive and immunomodulating properties. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety and remission profile of clobetasol propionate lotion compared to that of clobetasol propionate emollient cream and lotion vehicle in subjects with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis. METHODS: Multicentre, investigator-blind, randomized, active- and vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study. RESULTS: A total of 192 subjects were treated: 82 with clobetasol propionate lotion, 81 with clobetasol propionate cream and 29 with the vehicle. Clobetasol propionate lotion was significantly more effective than vehicle lotion and was comparable in efficacy to the emollient cream after 4 weeks of treatment. Treatment success was higher for subjects in the clobetasol propionate lotion group than in the emollient cream group after 4 weeks of a treatment-free follow-up period. Clobetasol propionate lotion was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that clobetasol propionate lotion is an efficacious, safe and well-tolerated alternative to the currently available emollient cream formulation, while showing a better remission profile after 4 weeks of treatment-free follow-up period.

Is combined oral and topical therapy better than oral therapy alone in patients with moderate to moderately severe acne vulgaris? A comparison of the efficacy and safety of lymecycline plus adapalene gel 0.1%, versus lymecycline plus gel vehicle.

This multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a combination of lymecycline 300 mg/day orally and adapalene topical gel 0.1% (n = 118) to lymecycline 300 mg/day orally plus vehicle gel (n = 124) in patients with moderate to moderately severe acne vulgaris with both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions. The primary efficacy end point, total lesion count at end point (last observation carried forward), showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the lymecycline plus adapalene group (P =.0011). The mean decrease in total, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts was significantly greater at end point in the lymecycline plus adapalene group than in the lymecycline plus vehicle group (P <.01). In addition, a significant difference for inflammatory and total acne lesions was seen sooner in the adapalene plus lymecycline group. In total, 75.5% of patients in the lymecycline plus adapalene group were markedly improved, almost clear or clear of their lesions at week 12, compared with 51.8% of those in the lymecycline plus vehicle group (P <.001). Local cutaneous tolerance was generally good in both groups, although more patients receiving the lymecycline plus adapalene combination experienced cutaneous reactions than those receiving lymecycline plus vehicle. There are relatively few studies comparing the efficacy of combined oral and topical therapy with either individual therapy alone. This study clearly demonstrates that lymecycline plus adapalene combination treatment resulted in a significantly greater mean decrease in the number of inflammatory, noninflammatory and total lesions than lymecycline plus vehicle and was well tolerated.

Cumulative irritation comparison of adapalene gel and solution with 2 tazarotene gels and 3 tretinoin formulations.

Forty-two subjects with normal skin were enrolled in a single-center study to assess the cumulative irritancy potential of adapalene (Differin gel 0.1% and Differin solution 0.1%) compared with tazarotene (Tazorac gels 0.05% and 0.1%), tretinoin (Retin-A Micro gel 0.1%, Avita cream 0.025%, and Avita gel 0.025%), and white petrolatum (negative control). All test materials were applied randomly, under occlusion, to sites located on either side of the midline--the mid thoracic area of the subjects' backs. All patches were applied daily, Monday through Friday, to the same sites, unless the degree of reaction to a test product or adhesive necessitated removal (grade 3). Thirty-eight of the 42 subjects (90.5%) completed the study. Thirty-four of those 38 subjects (89.5%) had to discontinue using both tazarotene concentrations due to intolerance. Patch discontinuations for the remaining test materials were as follows: 7 subjects discontinued use of tretinoin microsphere gel 0.1%, 3 discontinued tretinoin cream 0.025%, 1 discontinued tretinoin gel 0.025%, and 1 discontinued adapalene gel 0.1%. None of the subjects discontinued use of the white petrolatum or the adapalene solution 0.1%. Adapalene gel and solution 0.1% were statistically (P<.01) less irritating than both tazarotene gels 0.1% and 0.05%, tretinoin microsphere gel 0.1%, and tretinoin gel 0.025%, and they were not statistically different from tretinoin gel 0.025%.

Cumulative irritancy potential of adapalene cream 0.1% compared with adapalene gel 0.1% and several tretinoin formulations.

Thirty-one subjects (8 males and 23 females; mean age, 49.8 years) were enrolled in a single-center study to assess the irritancy potential of adapalene (Differin cream 0.1% and Differin gel 0.1%) and tretinoin (Avita cream 0.025%, Retin-A cream 0.025%, Retin-A cream 0.05%, Retin-A Micro gel 0.1%, and generic cream 0.025%) as compared with white petrolatum when applied under occlusive conditions. All test materials were applied randomly under occlusion to sites located on the upper area of the subject's back under protective patches. All patches were applied to the same sites unless the degree of reaction to a test product or the adhesive necessitated removal (grade 3). Each test material was applied daily, Monday through Friday, for approximately 24 hours, with the Friday patches left in place over the weekend. Twenty-six of the 31 subjects (84%) completed the study. No subject discontinued because of an adverse event. Five subjects voluntarily discontinued the study early for reasons unrelated to study treatment (4 subject request and 1 lost to follow-up). In the statistical comparison of the 7 test products, the mean cumulative irritancy index of both adapalene cream 0.1% and gel 0.1% was statistically significantly (P<.05) lower than for all of the tretinoin products used and was not significantly higher than the negative control product (white petrolatum).