A Randomized Controlled Double-Blinded Split-Face Prospective Clinical Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of a Novel 3-Step Routine Compared to Benzyl Peroxide for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris

Alison Gern, Jessica Walter, Shuai Xu, Paras P. Vakharia
{"title":"A Randomized Controlled Double-Blinded Split-Face Prospective Clinical Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of a Novel 3-Step Routine Compared to Benzyl Peroxide for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris","authors":"Alison Gern, Jessica Walter, Shuai Xu, Paras P. Vakharia","doi":"10.1101/2023.11.12.23298113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Adult acne vulgaris affects up to 43-51% of individuals. While there are numerous treatment options for acne including topical, oral, and energy-based approaches, benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a popular over the counter (OTC) treatment. Although BPO monotherapy has a long history of efficacy and safety, it suffers from several disadvantages, most notably, skin irritation, particularly for treatment naïve patients. In this prospective, randomized, controlled, split-face study, we evaluated the comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a novel 3-step azelaic acid, salicylic acid and graduated retinol regimen (Geologie Clear System) versus a common OTC BPO-based regimen (Proactiv Solution) over 12 weeks. A total of 37 adult subjects with selfreported mild to moderate acne vulgaris were recruited. A total of 21 subjects underwent a 2-week washout period and completed the full study with 3 dropping out due to product irritation from the BPO routine, and 13 being lost to follow-up. Detailed tolerability surveys were conducted at Week 4. Additional surveys on tolerability and product preferences were collected monthly, at Week 4, Week 8, and Week 12. A blinded board-certified dermatologist objectively scored the presence and type of acne lesions (open or closed comedones, papules, pustules, nodules, and cysts) at baseline, Week 4, Week 8, and Week 12. Patients photographed themselves and uploaded the images using personal mobile phones. Detailed Week 4 survey results showed across 25 domains of user-assessed product performance, Geologie outperformed the BPO routine in 19 (76%) which included domains in preference (e.g. “I would use this in the future), performance (“my skin improved” and “helped my acne clear up faster”). Geologie users reported less facial redness, itching, and burning, though differences did not reach statistical significance. In terms of efficacy, both products performed similarly, reducing total acne lesions by 36% (Geologie) and 40% (BPO routine) by Week 12. Overall, accounting for user preferences and tolerability Geologie was more preferred than the BPO routine in 79% of domains (22/28). Differences in objective acne lesion reduction were not statistically significant (p=0.97). In a randomized split-face study, a 3-step azelaic acid, salicylic acid, and graduated retinol regimen delivered similar acne lesion reduction, fewer user dropouts, greater user tolerability, and higher use preference compared to a 3-step BPO routine based in a cohort of participants with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris.","PeriodicalId":501385,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Dermatology","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.12.23298113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adult acne vulgaris affects up to 43-51% of individuals. While there are numerous treatment options for acne including topical, oral, and energy-based approaches, benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a popular over the counter (OTC) treatment. Although BPO monotherapy has a long history of efficacy and safety, it suffers from several disadvantages, most notably, skin irritation, particularly for treatment naïve patients. In this prospective, randomized, controlled, split-face study, we evaluated the comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a novel 3-step azelaic acid, salicylic acid and graduated retinol regimen (Geologie Clear System) versus a common OTC BPO-based regimen (Proactiv Solution) over 12 weeks. A total of 37 adult subjects with selfreported mild to moderate acne vulgaris were recruited. A total of 21 subjects underwent a 2-week washout period and completed the full study with 3 dropping out due to product irritation from the BPO routine, and 13 being lost to follow-up. Detailed tolerability surveys were conducted at Week 4. Additional surveys on tolerability and product preferences were collected monthly, at Week 4, Week 8, and Week 12. A blinded board-certified dermatologist objectively scored the presence and type of acne lesions (open or closed comedones, papules, pustules, nodules, and cysts) at baseline, Week 4, Week 8, and Week 12. Patients photographed themselves and uploaded the images using personal mobile phones. Detailed Week 4 survey results showed across 25 domains of user-assessed product performance, Geologie outperformed the BPO routine in 19 (76%) which included domains in preference (e.g. “I would use this in the future), performance (“my skin improved” and “helped my acne clear up faster”). Geologie users reported less facial redness, itching, and burning, though differences did not reach statistical significance. In terms of efficacy, both products performed similarly, reducing total acne lesions by 36% (Geologie) and 40% (BPO routine) by Week 12. Overall, accounting for user preferences and tolerability Geologie was more preferred than the BPO routine in 79% of domains (22/28). Differences in objective acne lesion reduction were not statistically significant (p=0.97). In a randomized split-face study, a 3-step azelaic acid, salicylic acid, and graduated retinol regimen delivered similar acne lesion reduction, fewer user dropouts, greater user tolerability, and higher use preference compared to a 3-step BPO routine based in a cohort of participants with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项随机对照双盲裂面前瞻性临床研究,以评估一种新的三步常规与过氧化苄治疗轻中度寻常痤疮的疗效、安全性和耐受性
成人寻常性痤疮影响高达43-51%的个体。虽然有许多治疗痤疮的方法,包括局部、口服和能量基础的方法,过氧化苯甲酰(BPO)是一种流行的非处方(OTC)治疗方法。虽然BPO单一疗法具有悠久的疗效和安全性,但它有几个缺点,最明显的是皮肤刺激,特别是对于治疗naïve患者。在这项前瞻性、随机、对照、裂面研究中,我们在12周内评估了一种新型的三步法壬二酸、水杨酸和渐进式视黄醇方案(Geologie Clear System)与基于bpo的普通OTC方案(Proactiv Solution)的疗效、安全性和耐受性的比较。总共招募了37名自我报告为轻度至中度寻常性痤疮的成人受试者。共有21名受试者经历了2周的洗脱期,并完成了完整的研究,其中3名受试者因BPO常规产品刺激而退出,13名受试者失去了随访。在第4周进行了详细的耐受性调查。在第4周、第8周和第12周每月收集耐受性和产品偏好的额外调查。一位盲法认证的皮肤科医生在基线、第4周、第8周和第12周客观地对痤疮病变(开放性或闭合性粉刺、丘疹、脓疱、结节和囊肿)的存在和类型进行评分。患者给自己拍照,然后用个人手机上传照片。详细的第4周调查结果显示,在用户评估产品性能的25个领域中,Geologie在19个(76%)领域的表现优于BPO常规,其中包括偏好领域(例如“我将来会使用它”),性能(“我的皮肤改善了”和“帮助我更快地清除了痤疮”)。地质学使用者报告较少的面部发红、瘙痒和灼烧,尽管差异没有达到统计学意义。就功效而言,两种产品的表现相似,到第12周,将痤疮总病变减少36% (Geologie)和40% (BPO常规)。总体而言,考虑到用户偏好和耐受性,在79%的领域(22/28),地质学比BPO常规更受欢迎。客观痤疮病变减少的差异无统计学意义(p=0.97)。在一项随机分脸研究中,在一组患有轻度至中度寻常痤疮的参与者中,与3步BPO常规治疗相比,3步壬二酸、水杨酸和渐进式视黄醇治疗方案可以减少痤疮病变,减少使用者退出,提高使用者耐受性和更高的使用偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Two-step Bayesian Mendelian Randomization Study on Cholecystitis and Dermatitis Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events following Nicotinamide Exposure: Cohort Study Methodological issues in visible LED therapy dermatological research and reporting Leveraging Machine Learning & Mobile Application Technology for Vitiligo Management: A Proof-of-Concept Nationwide melanoma registry databases in real-world settings: a scoping review protocol
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1