Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The use of topical medications for acne vulgaris is often limited by their irritant properties. Newer combination preparations are available and offer convenience, but irritant potential may still be a hindrance, perhaps more so with the combination of 2 agents. Few studies have compared these formulations directly for tolerability.
Objective: We sought to compare the tolerability of 2 combination topical acne products, clindamycin 1.2%-tretinoin 0.025% (CLIN/RA) gel and benzoyl peroxide 2.5%-adapalene 0.1% (BPO/ADA) gel.
Methods: CLIN/RA and BPO/ADA were applied daily to opposite sides of a subject's face for 21 days in a double-blinded fashion. Investigators' Global Assessments and study subject self-assessments of burning/stinging, itching, erythema, and dryness/scaling were collected. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was also measured as an objective measure of skin irritation. A mixed model analysis and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used to compare outcomes for both acne formulations.
Results: CLIN/RA produced significantly less burning/stinging than BPO/ADA (P<.001) as well as significantly less pruritus than BPO/ ADA (P<.001). BPO/ADA caused significantly more TEWL than CLIN/RA (P=.005). There was no significant difference in the amount of erythema or the amount of dryness/scaling caused by either formulation.
Conclusion: CLIN/RA produced significantly less skin irritancy and TEWL than BPO/ADA.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!