Scholarlink

<p>Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that significantly impacts both physical appearance and mental well-being. Acne, being a chronic skin condition, often requires continuous treatment. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/benzoyl peroxide 3% compared to clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.1% combinations for treating acne vulgaris. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were carried out following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and three databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing CLIN/BPO with CLIN/ADAP. Primary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events, inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and application site side effects. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3. The study included a total of 800 participants across three RCTs. The meta-analysis of three RCTs demonstrated a significantly lower risk of TEAEs with CLIN/BPO (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35–0.86, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). CLIN/BPO also resulted in fewer application site side effects (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23–0.47, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups for reducing inflammatory (MD = 1.34, 𝑝 = 0.121) or non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD = 0.04, 𝑝 = 0.98). The study concluded that although CLIN/BPO was associated with fewer side effects, both treatments were equally effective in reducing acne lesions. The favorable safety profile of CLIN/BPO, particularly regarding treatment-emergent and application-site adverse events, suggests it may be the more tolerable option for patients. Future studies with larger, more diverse populations are recommended to confirm these findings and explore long-term efficacy.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative efficacy of clindamycin phosphate with benzoyl peroxide versus clindamycin phosphate with adapalene in acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月1日

查看全文
  • Ali Aleid,
  • Abdulsalam Mohammed Aleid,
  • Houriah Yasir Nukaly,
  • Hajar Ahmed AL Mustanyir,
  • Ghadeer Yahya Almasabi,
  • Anwar Mustafa Alsaeed,
  • Raghad Waheed Nadra,
  • Bushra Alshammari,
  • Salman Hamdan Alsaqri,
  • Kawthar Alsaleh,
  • Muhammad Daniyal,
  • Abbas Al Mutair

摘要

Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that significantly impacts both physical appearance and mental well-being. Acne, being a chronic skin condition, often requires continuous treatment. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/benzoyl peroxide 3% compared to clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.1% combinations for treating acne vulgaris. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were carried out following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and three databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing CLIN/BPO with CLIN/ADAP. Primary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events, inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and application site side effects. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3. The study included a total of 800 participants across three RCTs. The meta-analysis of three RCTs demonstrated a significantly lower risk of TEAEs with CLIN/BPO (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35–0.86, p < 0.001). CLIN/BPO also resulted in fewer application site side effects (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23–0.47, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups for reducing inflammatory (MD = 1.34, 𝑝 = 0.121) or non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD = 0.04, 𝑝 = 0.98). The study concluded that although CLIN/BPO was associated with fewer side effects, both treatments were equally effective in reducing acne lesions. The favorable safety profile of CLIN/BPO, particularly regarding treatment-emergent and application-site adverse events, suggests it may be the more tolerable option for patients. Future studies with larger, more diverse populations are recommended to confirm these findings and explore long-term efficacy.