Comparison of the Efficacy of 5% Dapsone Gel and 1% Clindamycin Phosphate Gel in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris
Keywords:
Clindamycin, Dapsone, Acne VulgarisAbstract
Introduction: Acne vulgaris, a chronic dermatological condition, is characterized by hair follicle blockage by dead skin cells and sebum, leading to various manifestations including blackheads, whiteheads, and possible scarring. This study aimed to evaluate dapsone gel's effectiveness and safety in treating acne vulgaris compared to clindamycin gel, offering insights for managing this prevalent skin condition. Objective: To compare the efficacy of 5% dapsone gel and 1% clindamycin phosphate gel in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Methods: A randomized clinical trial at Bahawal Victoria Hospital focused on treating mild to moderate acne vulgaris from February to August 2023. 110 patients were recruited, with 55 in Group-I receiving dapsone gel and 55 in Group-II receiving Clindamycin gel. The 3-month treatment aimed at assessing efficacy and safety for moderate acne vulgaris management, offering insights for healthcare professionals. Results: In group-A (5% Dapsone gel), 43(78.2%) had efficacy, while in group-B (1% Clindamycin gel), 29(52.7%) had efficacy with a p-value 0.005, which is statistically significant. Conclusion: Dapsone 5% gel monotherapy demonstrated superior efficacy outcomes in comparison to the clindamycin phosphate 1% gel monotherapy following a 12-week treatment period, offering the added benefit of a simplified treatment regimen through its once-daily topical administration.References
Shetti SA, Nagesh HN, Hanumantharaya N. A randomized, open-label, comparative study of efficacy of low-dose continuous versus low-dose intermittent oral isotretinoin therapy in moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;7(9):941–6.
Rodrigues M, Ezzedine K, Hamzavi I, Pandya AG, Harris JE. Current and emerging treatments for vitiligo. J Am Acad Dermatol [Internet]. 2017;77(1): 17–29.
Zaib FN, Rashid S, Inayat S, Ilyas A, Faraz AAK. To assess the efficacy of isotretinoin in acne vulgaris with daily versus pulse therapy. J Pakistan Assoc Dermatologists. 2020;30(2):271–6.
Ramli R, Malik AS, Hani AFM, Jamil A. Acne analysis, grading and computational assessment methods: an overview. Ski Res Technol. 2012;18(1): 1–14.
Rathi S. Acne vulgaris treatment?: The Current Scenario. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56(1):7.
Tan AU, Schlosser BJ, Paller AS. A review of diagnosis and treatment of acne in adult female patients. Int J Women’s Dermatology [Internet]. 2018;4(2):56–71.
Otlewska A, Baran W, Batycka-Baran A. Adverse events related to topical drug treatments for acne vulgaris. Expert Opin Drug Saf [Internet]. 2020;19(4):513–21.
Temiz SA, Daye M. Dapsone for the treatment of acne vulgaris: do the risks outweigh the benefits? 2022;41(1):60–6.
Tan J. Dapsone 5% gel: a new option in topical therapy for acne. Skin Therapy Lett [Internet]. 2022;17(8):1–3.
Pickert A, Raimer S. An evaluation of dapsone gel 5% in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(9):1515-21.
Kamoji SG, Huggi G, Pise GA. A double-blind randomized study to compare the efficacy of 5% Dapsone gel vs a combination of Adapalene-clin-damycin gel in the treatment of mild to moderate Acne vulgaris. J Dermat Cosmetol. 2018;2(4):202-205.
Del Rosso JQ. Clindamycin Phosphate 1.2%/ Tretinoin 0.025% Gel for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Which Patients are Most Likely to Benefit the Most? J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2015;8(6):19-23.
Draelos ZD, Carter E, Maloney JM, Elewski B, Poulin Y, Lynde C, et al. Two randomized studies demonstrate the efficacy and safety of dapsone gel, 5% for the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(3):439.
Verma R, Yadav P, Chudhari M, Patel J, Umrigar D. Comparison of efficacy of two topical drug therapy of acne vulgaris: 1% clindamycin versus 5% dapsone: A split face comparative study. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2022;12(0):1.
Brar BK, Kumar S, Sethi N. Comparative evaluation of Dapsone 5% gel vs Clindamycin 1% gel in mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Gulf J Dermatology Venereol. 2016;23(1):34–9.
Rafiqul I, Islam DMN, Hossain M. An assessment of the efficacy and safety of Dapsone gel: study in a local setting. Sch J Appl Med Sci. 2021;9(4):549–53.
Verma R, Yadav P, Chudhari M, Patel J, Umrigar D. Comparison of efficacy of two topical drug therapy of acne vulgaris–1% clindamycin versus 5% dap-sone: A split face comparative study. National J Physiol Pharmacy Pharmacol. 2022;12(6):817-22.
Taghetti E, Harper JC, Oefelein MG. The efficacy and tolerability of dapsone 5% gel in female Vs males’ patients with facial and vulgaris, gender as a clinically relevant outcome variable. J Drug Der-matol. 2012;11(12):1417?21.
Brar BK, Kumar S, Sethi N. Comparative evaluation of dapsone 5% gel vs. clindamycin 1% gel in mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Gulf J Dermatol Vene-reol. 2016;23(1):34-9.
Verma R, Yadav P, Chudhari M, Patel J, Umrigar D. Comparison of efficacy of two topical drug therapy of acne vulgaris – 1% clindamycin versus 5% dap-sone: A split face comparative study. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2022;12(06):817-822.
Nickles MA, Lake E. Topical dapsone in the treatment of acne: a systematic review. Int J Der-matol. 2022;61(11):1412-1421.
Doi: 10.1111/ijd.16074. Epub 2022 Feb 7. PMID: 35132625.
Parisa sanawar, Rabia Ghafoor, Nazia Jabeen. Comparison of the Efficacy of Clindamycin Phos-phate Gel 1% Versus Once-Daily Dapsone Gel 5% in the Treatment of Moderate Acne Vulgaris at the Tertiary Care Hospital, Karachi. 2024;Vol.31, No.1: JPTCP(157-162).
Iqra S, Ghafoor RG, Ali A, Qadir MZ, Khurram M. Comparison of Efficacy of Dapsone 5% Gel Vs Clindamycin 1% Gel in Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris. Indus Journal of Bioscience Research. 2025;9;3(1):120-4.
Raimer S, Maloney JM, Bourcier M, Wilson D, Papp K, Siegfried E, et al. Efficacy and safety of dapsone gel 5% for the treatment of acne vulgaris in ado-lescents. Cutis. 2008;81(2):171–8.
