Lack of irritative potential of nadifloxacin 1% when combined with other topical anti-acne agents

Impact of Parallel Topical Treatment with Nadifloxacin and Adapalene on Acne Vulgaris Severity and Quality of Life: A Prospective, Uncontrolled, Multicentric, Noninterventional Study

INTRODUCTION

Daily parallel application of adapalene and nadifloxacin has been determined to be effective and well tolerated in patients with acne vulgaris in randomized, controlled clinical studies. Here, the authors report the results from a large, prospective, uncontrolled, multicentric, noninterventional study under real-life conditions in Germany. The effect of treatment on acne severity, safety, and, for the first time, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was investigated.

METHODS

Of the 292 patients (safety collective: 231 adults, 61 adolescents) who had at least grade 4 acne vulgaris on the face as per the Leeds Revised Acne Grading (LRAG), 273 (efficacy collective: 213 adults, 60 adolescents) were treated with adapalene 0.1% cream or gel and nadifloxacin 1% cream for the defined minimum of 28 days. Patients were evaluated for acne severity, acne-related facial symptoms, HRQoL, overall assessment of therapy, and safety.

RESULTS

After the median treatment duration of 37 and 38 days (adults and adolescents, respectively), 93.4% and 85.0% of adults and adolescents, respectively, exhibited a sustained decrease in acne severity. The LRAG decreased by at least 3 scores in 29.1% and 24.6% of female and male adults, respectively. HRQoL improved in 67.9% and 63.5% of adults and adolescents, respectively (median improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index scores per patient of 3.0 [female adults], 1.0 [male adults], and 2.0 for all adolescents in the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index). Female adults were more impaired in terms of HRQoL compared to male adults. The 2 best overall efficacy ratings were provided by physicians in 79.3% and 69.5% and by patients in 68.5% and 58.3% of adult and adolescent cases, respectively. The treatment was well tolerated, as reflected in the low number of 9 mild adverse events (AEs), all of which resolved without treatment. However, 4 patients terminated the study prematurely due to AEs.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the parallel use of adapalene and nadifloxacin for at least 5 weeks resulted in a rapid improvement in acne severity, an increase in HRQoL, and a good safety profile. Therefore, it represents a promising treatment option that offers the possibility of flexible therapy adjustment.

Recent Advances Regarding the Therapeutic Potential of Adapalene

Adapalene (ADP) is a representative of the third retinoids generation and successfully used in first-line acne treatment. ADP binds to retinoic acid nuclear receptors. The comedolytic, anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and immunomodulatory are the known ADP effects. Its safety profile is an advantage over other retinoids. ADP recently was found to be effective in the treatment of several dermatological diseases and photoaging besides the utility in the treatment of acne vulgaris. New biological effects of adapalene with therapeutic potential are highlighted in this review paper. Thus, adapalene could be a valuable therapeutic drug into the treatment of several types of cancer. Additionally, some neurodegenerative diseases could be treated with a suitable formulation for intravenous administration. The antibacterial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus of an analogue of ADP has been proven. In different therapeutic schemes, ADP is more effective in combination with other active substances. New topical combinations with adapalene include ketoconazole (antifungal), mometasone furoate (anti-inflammatory corticosteroid), nadifloxacin (fluoroquinolone), and alfa and beta hydroxy acids. Combination with oral drugs is a new trend that enhances the properties of topical formulations with adapalene. Several studies have investigated the effects of ADP in co-administration with azithromycin, doxycycline, faropenem, isotretinoin, and valganciclovir. Innovative formulations of ADP also aim to achieve a better bioavailability, increased efficacy, and reduced side effects. In this review, we have highlighted the current studies on adapalene regarding biological effects useful in various treatment types. Adapalene has not been exploited yet to its full biological potential.

Topical benzoyl peroxide for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of BPO for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.

Current and future evidence-based acne treatment: a review

INTRODUCTION

Current acne treatment guidelines, as well as, treatment efficacy, safety, tolerability and patient preferences must all be considered in determining appropriate treatment regimes. Literature can assist physicians' evidence-based recommendations according to these factors.

AREAS COVERED

To determine the current and future direction of pharmacotherapy for treatment of acne, a PubMed search was conducted to identify all clinical trials involving the treatment of acne from 2009 to 2012. A total of 65 publications met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Literature was heavily focused on the efficacy and tolerability of topical combination therapies and supported their use compared with monotherapy. A few studies on topical antiandrogens and antioxidants showed an alternative approach to targeting acne. Studies on oral monotherapy provided some evidence for the use of pulsed azithromycin for acne in adolescents. Literature also supports the use of low-dose isotretinoin for moderate acne, which was comparable in efficacy to high-dose regimes and better tolerated.

EXPERT OPINION

Combination acne therapy, whether it be combination topical therapy or combination oral and topical therapy, is well supported by recent studies. Given the multifactorial pathogenesis of acne and the hurdles of adherence to treatment, we anticipate greater development of and reliance on combination acne products in the future.