耐受性
医学
阿达帕林
痤疮
红斑
皮肤病科
瘙痒的
刺激
不利影响
克林霉素
内科学
抗生素
过氧化苯甲酰
免疫学
化学
有机化学
微生物学
生物
聚合
聚合物
作者
Nidhi Bhatia,Bhatt,Gina Martin,Radhakrishnan Pillai
出处
期刊:PubMed
日期:2016-06-01
卷期号:15 (6): 721-6
被引量:3
摘要
Topical therapy of acne vulgaris (acne) is very common, however cutaneous tolerability can influence patient adherence, and concerns about skin irritation have lead to a number of comparative split-face studies. Advances in formulation technology have provided new fixed combinations with lower concentrations of potentially irritating ingredients without compromising efficacy. These developments now afford the opportunity to formulate fixed combinations with higher concentrations of active ingredients that may provide the greater efficacy needed in more severe disease with good tolerability.
Here, we compare the tolerability of two such developments, clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel and adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel, in healthy volunteers with no apparent facial redness or dryness over 21-days, using a split-face methodology.
Clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel was more tolerable than adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel over the duration of the two studies, with statistically significant differences in cumulative change from baseline starting as early as day 4 (stinging), day 5 (erythema, dryness, and scaling), day 6 (burning), and day 8 (itching); and in composite irritation index (stinging, erythema, dryness, scaling, burning, and itching) from day 4. Transepidermal water loss was less with clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel (statistically significant from day 8). Adverse events were twice as common with adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel.
These data suggest that clindamycin-BP 3.75% gel is likely to be better tolerated than adapalene 0.3%-BP 2.5% gel in moderate-to-severe acne.
J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(6):721-726.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI