Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology

JUN 2017

An evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal for practicing clinicians in the field of dermatology

Issue link: http://jcadonline.epubxp.com/i/839245

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 35 of 63

40 JCAD journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology June 2017 • Volume 10 • Number 6 patients treated with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/BP 3.75% gel (12.5%) compared to vehicle (9.7%), but the differences were not significant (Table 1). Efficacy. Lesion counts. Clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/BP 3.75% gel was statistically superior to vehicle in terms of both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion reduction. Mean percent change from baseline to Week 12 (LSMean) in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions was 63.6 and 54.3 percent compared with 43.5 and 38.1 percent with vehicle (P=0.001 and P=0.008, respectively, Figure 2). Median percent reduction in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts were 67.1 and 58.9 percent, respectively. Compared to the non-Hispanic population, reduction in lesion counts by Week 12 were greater with the Hispanic population; however, the differences were not significant. Acne severity (EGSS). Treatment success was defined as at least a 2-grade improvement in global severity by EGSS. At Week 12, 36.5 percent of patients treated with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/BP 3.75% gel were considered treatment successes by the investigator, compared to 28.3 percent of those treated with vehicle. The differences were not statistically significant (P=0.326, Figure 3). Compared to the non-Hispanic population, treatment success by Week 12 was reported by more of the Hispanic population; however, the differences were not significant. Patient assessment of severity (SSA). More patients treated with a clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/BP 3.75% gel assessed their acne as clear or almost clear at Week 12 compared to those treated with vehicle (35.0% vs. 30.8%), although the differences were not significant (P=0.591, Figure 4). Safety. Treatment-emergent AEs were infrequent and unrelated to treatment with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/BP 3.75% gel (N=4, nasopharyngitis and headache, Table 2). There were two AEs reported with vehicle (facial pain and swelling face) that were related to treatment. Cutaneous safety and tolerability issues were rare with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/BP 3.75% gel. When they did occur they were usually mild or P O S t P H O C A N A L Y S I S Fi g u re 2 . M e an p e rc e n t re d u ct i o n i n i n f l am m a t o ry an d n o n i n f l am m a t o ry l e s i o n s f ro m b as e l i n e t o We e k 1 2 ( I tt Hi s p an i c p o p u l a t i o n )

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology - JUN 2017