Evaluation of efficacy of niosomal clindamycin phosphate 1% solution in comparison to conventional clindamycin phosphate 1% solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial

Saman Mohammadi, Hoda Badakhsh, Hoda Badakhsh, Abbas Pardakhti, Abbas Pardakhti, Maryam Khalili, Maryam Khalili, Saeedeh Farajzadeh, Saeedeh Farajzadeh, Rezvan Amiri, Rezvan Amiri, Azadeh Mohebbi, Azadeh Mohebbi, Mahin Aflatoonian, Mahin Aflatoonian

Abstract


Background Adverse effects including pruritus and erythema as well as increased bacterial resistance have been reported with topical clindamycin. Niosomal structures can lead to improved drug efficacy and decreased side effects because of selective effect on target organ. In this study, we decided to evaluate efficacy of niosomal clindamycin in comparison with conventional form.

 

Methods This study is a double-blinded clinical trial on 100 acne patients divided into 2 groups (50 patients in each group) that has been done from 2014 to 2017 in Kerman, Iran. The efficacy of niosomal clindamycin 1% in comparison with conventional form was evaluated by counting acne lesions and grading acne with Global Acne Grading System. The Chi-square test and student t test were used to determine drug efficacy and side effects. The data were analyzed using SPSS 16 (SPSS Statistics, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). P value <0.05 was considered significant.

 

Results There was a significant difference between 2 treatment groups in reduction of acne lesions at the end of the study (P<0.05). The mean score of acne according to Global Acne Grading System at the end of the study was 6.64± 3.26 and 8.21±3.42 in niosomal and control group, respectively and this difference was statistically significant(P=0.023).

 

Conclusion Niosomal clindamycin has higher efficacy without increased adverse effects than conventional type. So, we can use niosomal form in treatment of inflammatory acne lesions, particularly in patients with low adherence to treatment and high expectations from treatment.

 


Keywords


Niosomes, clindamycin, acne

Full Text:

PDF

References


Vyas A, Kumar Sonker A, Gidwani B. Carrier-based drug delivery system for treatment of acne. The scientific world journal. 2014; 2014.

Gollnick HP, Dreno B. Pathophysiology and management of acne. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29: 1-2.

Gollnick HP. From new findings in acne pathogenesis to new approaches in treatment. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereal 2015; 29: 1-7.

Deplewski D, Rosenfield RL. Role of hormones in pilosebaceous unit development. Endocrine reviews 2000; 21(4): 363-92.

Beylot C, Auffret N, Poli F, Claudel JP, Leccia MT, Del Giudice P, et al. Propionibacterium acnes: an update on its role in the pathogenesis of acne. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2014; 28: 271-8.

Nast A, Dreno B, Bettoli V, Deqitz k, Erdmann R, Finlay AY et al. European evidence-based (S3) guidelines for the treatment of acne. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venerol 2012; 26 (Suppl.1): 1-29.

Whitney KM, Ditre CM. Anti-inflammatory properties of clindamycin: a review of its use in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Clinical Medicine Insights. Dermatology. 2011; 4:27.

Gratton D, Raymond GP, Guertin-Larochelle S, Maddin SW, Leneck CM, Warner J et al. Topical clindamycin versus systemic tetracycline in the treatment of acne: results of a multiclinictrial. J Am Acad Dermatol 1982; 7: 50-3.

Katsambas A, Towarky AA, Stratigos J. Topical clindamycin phosphate compared with oral tetracycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris.Br J Dermatol 1987; 116:387-91.

Leccia MT, Auffret N, Poli F, Claudel JP, Corvec S, Dreno B. Topical acne treatments in Europe and the issue of antimicrobial resistance. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29(8):1485-92.

Mohammadi S, Khazaeli P, Shamsi Meymandi S, Aflatoonian M, Khalili Meybodi M, Mehrolhasani N, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of isotretinoin 0.05% niosomal gel versus adapalen 0.1% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Journal of Dermatology and Cosmetic. 2016; 7(2): 66-73.

Aflatoonian M, Fekri A, Rahnam Z, Khalili M, Pardakhti A, KhazaeliP, et al. The efficacy of combined topical niosomaldapsone gel and intralesional injection of meglumine antimoniate in comparison with intralesional meglumine antimoniate and cryotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. J Pak Assoc Derma. 2017; 26(4):353-60.

Witkowski JA, Parish LC. The assessment of acne: an evaluation of grading and lesion counting in the measurement of acne. Clinics in dermatology. 2004;22(5):394

Aghaei SH, MazhariniaN, JafariP, Abbasfard Z. The Persian version of the Cardiff Acne Disability Index. Saudi Med J 2006; 27(1):80-2.

Škalko N, Čajkovac M, Jalšenjak I. Liposomes with clindamycin hydrochloride in the therapy of acne vulgaris. Int J Pharm. 1992; 85(1-3):97-101.

Mohammadi S, Farajzadeh S, Pardakhty A, Khalili M, Mohebbi A, Yousefian MR. A survey to compare the efficacy of niosomal erythromycin alone versus combination of erythromycin and zinc acetate in the treatment of Acne vulgaris. JKMU 2017; 24(5): 420-30.

Desrosiers M, Bendouah Z, Barbeau J. Effectiveness of topical antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in vitro. Am J Rhinol 2007; 21(2): 149–53.

Simonart T, Dramaix M. Treatment of acne with topical antibiotics: lessons from clinical studies. British journal of dermatology. 2005; 153(2): 395-403.

Ochsendorf F. Clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/tretinoin 0.025%: a novel fixed‐dose combination treatment for acne vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015; 29(S5): 8-13.

Cook-Bolden FE. Fixed-Combination Therapy for Moderate to Severe Acne: A Review of Clindamycin Phosphate 1.2%-Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5% Gel. Cosmetic Dermatology. 2012; 25(2): 87.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN: 1560-9014