A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris

The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in 145 patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. Both treatments were applied once daily in the evenings for up to 12 weeks. Compared...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cutis (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2002-02, Vol.69 (2 Suppl), p.4
Hauptverfasser: Webster, Guy F, Guenther, Lyn, Poulin, Yves P, Solomon, Barry A, Loven, Keith, Lee, Jeff
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2 Suppl
container_start_page 4
container_title Cutis (New York, N.Y.)
container_volume 69
creator Webster, Guy F
Guenther, Lyn
Poulin, Yves P
Solomon, Barry A
Loven, Keith
Lee, Jeff
description The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in 145 patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. Both treatments were applied once daily in the evenings for up to 12 weeks. Compared with adapalene, treatment with tazarotene was associated with a significantly greater incidence of treatment success (> or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_202891260</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>132898631</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p148t-7bca8fda8eab5d0d173b09a9d17b8c5977e22060344d2695f95ae08fd4eabe523</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwC8gs2DXIcZ5eVhUvqRIbWEcTe1KMnDg4DlL6bXwcbikLVvPQOVejOSFznvA8ygUXp2TOWBxHaZzzGbkYho8wCl4U52QWcyYyludz8r2i7Wi8lth5dEuq7FgbjGqjO7WkDjplW71DRaVte3B6sB0d_Kgmahvq35Fi02gJcqIBpd4adFBro_0BsJ3ESIE2E_WwA2c9dkjZXXxLt2gOCijowfxbN9Ydor1D8G04bB_VgNQQFBnIr9Fs97dckrMGzIBXx7ogbw_3r-unaPPy-LxebaI-TksfFbWEslFQItSZYioukpoJEKGpS5mJokDOWc6SNFU8F1kjMkAWjDQImPFkQW5-c3tnP0ccfOWwt84PFWe8FDEP7oJcH5mxblFVvdMtuKn6e3XyA5Tgfbw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>202891260</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Webster, Guy F ; Guenther, Lyn ; Poulin, Yves P ; Solomon, Barry A ; Loven, Keith ; Lee, Jeff</creator><creatorcontrib>Webster, Guy F ; Guenther, Lyn ; Poulin, Yves P ; Solomon, Barry A ; Loven, Keith ; Lee, Jeff</creatorcontrib><description>The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in 145 patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. Both treatments were applied once daily in the evenings for up to 12 weeks. Compared with adapalene, treatment with tazarotene was associated with a significantly greater incidence of treatment success (&gt; or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P&lt;.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P&lt;.0001), and inflammatory lesion count (P=.0002). In the early weeks of treatment, tazarotene was associated with transiently greater levels of burning, pruritus, erythema, and peeling compared with adapalene (P&lt;.01). However, mean levels of these parameters were consistently less than mild in both treatment groups and, at the end of treatment, patients considered both treatments to be comparably well tolerated (the proportion of patients in each group who rated the comfort of their treated skin as comfortable or very comfortable was 76% with tazarotene and 69% with adapalene). Mean usage of study medication was 0.32 g per application of tazarotene and 0.42 g per application of adapalene, which resulted in cost-effectiveness ratios of $79.95 per treatment success for tazarotene and $107.88 per treatment success for adapalene. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these cost-effectiveness results are robust across a range of cost and efficacy assumptions. In conclusion, tazarotene 0.1% gel was more effective than adapalene 0.1% gel and was also a more cost-effective treatment option.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0011-4162</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2326-6929</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12095066</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CUTIBC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Quadrant HealthCom Inc</publisher><subject>Acne Vulgaris - drug therapy ; Acne Vulgaris - pathology ; Adapalene ; Administration, Cutaneous ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Child ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Dermatologic Agents - administration &amp; dosage ; Dermatologic Agents - adverse effects ; Dermatologic Agents - economics ; Dermatologic Agents - therapeutic use ; Double-Blind Method ; Facial Dermatoses - drug therapy ; Facial Dermatoses - pathology ; Female ; Gels ; Humans ; Male ; Naphthalenes - administration &amp; dosage ; Naphthalenes - adverse effects ; Naphthalenes - economics ; Naphthalenes - therapeutic use ; Nicotinic Acids - administration &amp; dosage ; Nicotinic Acids - adverse effects ; Nicotinic Acids - economics ; Nicotinic Acids - therapeutic use ; Ontario ; Pennsylvania ; Severity of Illness Index ; Tennessee ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Cutis (New York, N.Y.), 2002-02, Vol.69 (2 Suppl), p.4</ispartof><rights>Copyright National Library of Medicine - MEDLINE Abstracts Feb 2002</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12095066$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Webster, Guy F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guenther, Lyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulin, Yves P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Barry A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loven, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jeff</creatorcontrib><title>A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris</title><title>Cutis (New York, N.Y.)</title><addtitle>Cutis</addtitle><description>The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in 145 patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. Both treatments were applied once daily in the evenings for up to 12 weeks. Compared with adapalene, treatment with tazarotene was associated with a significantly greater incidence of treatment success (&gt; or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P&lt;.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P&lt;.0001), and inflammatory lesion count (P=.0002). In the early weeks of treatment, tazarotene was associated with transiently greater levels of burning, pruritus, erythema, and peeling compared with adapalene (P&lt;.01). However, mean levels of these parameters were consistently less than mild in both treatment groups and, at the end of treatment, patients considered both treatments to be comparably well tolerated (the proportion of patients in each group who rated the comfort of their treated skin as comfortable or very comfortable was 76% with tazarotene and 69% with adapalene). Mean usage of study medication was 0.32 g per application of tazarotene and 0.42 g per application of adapalene, which resulted in cost-effectiveness ratios of $79.95 per treatment success for tazarotene and $107.88 per treatment success for adapalene. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these cost-effectiveness results are robust across a range of cost and efficacy assumptions. In conclusion, tazarotene 0.1% gel was more effective than adapalene 0.1% gel and was also a more cost-effective treatment option.</description><subject>Acne Vulgaris - drug therapy</subject><subject>Acne Vulgaris - pathology</subject><subject>Adapalene</subject><subject>Administration, Cutaneous</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Dermatologic Agents - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Dermatologic Agents - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dermatologic Agents - economics</subject><subject>Dermatologic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Facial Dermatoses - drug therapy</subject><subject>Facial Dermatoses - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gels</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - economics</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Nicotinic Acids - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Nicotinic Acids - adverse effects</subject><subject>Nicotinic Acids - economics</subject><subject>Nicotinic Acids - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Ontario</subject><subject>Pennsylvania</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Tennessee</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0011-4162</issn><issn>2326-6929</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwC8gs2DXIcZ5eVhUvqRIbWEcTe1KMnDg4DlL6bXwcbikLVvPQOVejOSFznvA8ygUXp2TOWBxHaZzzGbkYho8wCl4U52QWcyYyludz8r2i7Wi8lth5dEuq7FgbjGqjO7WkDjplW71DRaVte3B6sB0d_Kgmahvq35Fi02gJcqIBpd4adFBro_0BsJ3ESIE2E_WwA2c9dkjZXXxLt2gOCijowfxbN9Ydor1D8G04bB_VgNQQFBnIr9Fs97dckrMGzIBXx7ogbw_3r-unaPPy-LxebaI-TksfFbWEslFQItSZYioukpoJEKGpS5mJokDOWc6SNFU8F1kjMkAWjDQImPFkQW5-c3tnP0ccfOWwt84PFWe8FDEP7oJcH5mxblFVvdMtuKn6e3XyA5Tgfbw</recordid><startdate>200202</startdate><enddate>200202</enddate><creator>Webster, Guy F</creator><creator>Guenther, Lyn</creator><creator>Poulin, Yves P</creator><creator>Solomon, Barry A</creator><creator>Loven, Keith</creator><creator>Lee, Jeff</creator><general>Quadrant HealthCom Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200202</creationdate><title>A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris</title><author>Webster, Guy F ; Guenther, Lyn ; Poulin, Yves P ; Solomon, Barry A ; Loven, Keith ; Lee, Jeff</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p148t-7bca8fda8eab5d0d173b09a9d17b8c5977e22060344d2695f95ae08fd4eabe523</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Acne Vulgaris - drug therapy</topic><topic>Acne Vulgaris - pathology</topic><topic>Adapalene</topic><topic>Administration, Cutaneous</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Dermatologic Agents - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Dermatologic Agents - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dermatologic Agents - economics</topic><topic>Dermatologic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Facial Dermatoses - drug therapy</topic><topic>Facial Dermatoses - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gels</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - economics</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Nicotinic Acids - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Nicotinic Acids - adverse effects</topic><topic>Nicotinic Acids - economics</topic><topic>Nicotinic Acids - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Ontario</topic><topic>Pennsylvania</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Tennessee</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Webster, Guy F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guenther, Lyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulin, Yves P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Barry A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loven, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jeff</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Cutis (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Webster, Guy F</au><au>Guenther, Lyn</au><au>Poulin, Yves P</au><au>Solomon, Barry A</au><au>Loven, Keith</au><au>Lee, Jeff</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris</atitle><jtitle>Cutis (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><addtitle>Cutis</addtitle><date>2002-02</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>2 Suppl</issue><spage>4</spage><pages>4-</pages><issn>0011-4162</issn><eissn>2326-6929</eissn><coden>CUTIBC</coden><abstract>The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in 145 patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne vulgaris. Both treatments were applied once daily in the evenings for up to 12 weeks. Compared with adapalene, treatment with tazarotene was associated with a significantly greater incidence of treatment success (&gt; or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P&lt;.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P&lt;.0001), and inflammatory lesion count (P=.0002). In the early weeks of treatment, tazarotene was associated with transiently greater levels of burning, pruritus, erythema, and peeling compared with adapalene (P&lt;.01). However, mean levels of these parameters were consistently less than mild in both treatment groups and, at the end of treatment, patients considered both treatments to be comparably well tolerated (the proportion of patients in each group who rated the comfort of their treated skin as comfortable or very comfortable was 76% with tazarotene and 69% with adapalene). Mean usage of study medication was 0.32 g per application of tazarotene and 0.42 g per application of adapalene, which resulted in cost-effectiveness ratios of $79.95 per treatment success for tazarotene and $107.88 per treatment success for adapalene. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these cost-effectiveness results are robust across a range of cost and efficacy assumptions. In conclusion, tazarotene 0.1% gel was more effective than adapalene 0.1% gel and was also a more cost-effective treatment option.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Quadrant HealthCom Inc</pub><pmid>12095066</pmid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0011-4162
ispartof Cutis (New York, N.Y.), 2002-02, Vol.69 (2 Suppl), p.4
issn 0011-4162
2326-6929
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_reports_202891260
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Acne Vulgaris - drug therapy
Acne Vulgaris - pathology
Adapalene
Administration, Cutaneous
Adolescent
Adult
Child
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Dermatologic Agents - administration & dosage
Dermatologic Agents - adverse effects
Dermatologic Agents - economics
Dermatologic Agents - therapeutic use
Double-Blind Method
Facial Dermatoses - drug therapy
Facial Dermatoses - pathology
Female
Gels
Humans
Male
Naphthalenes - administration & dosage
Naphthalenes - adverse effects
Naphthalenes - economics
Naphthalenes - therapeutic use
Nicotinic Acids - administration & dosage
Nicotinic Acids - adverse effects
Nicotinic Acids - economics
Nicotinic Acids - therapeutic use
Ontario
Pennsylvania
Severity of Illness Index
Tennessee
Treatment Outcome
title A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily tazarotene 0.1% gel and adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of facial acne vulgaris
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T16%3A43%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20multicenter,%20double-blind,%20randomized%20comparison%20study%20of%20the%20efficacy%20and%20tolerability%20of%20once-daily%20tazarotene%200.1%25%20gel%20and%20adapalene%200.1%25%20gel%20for%20the%20treatment%20of%20facial%20acne%20vulgaris&rft.jtitle=Cutis%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=Webster,%20Guy%20F&rft.date=2002-02&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=2%20Suppl&rft.spage=4&rft.pages=4-&rft.issn=0011-4162&rft.eissn=2326-6929&rft.coden=CUTIBC&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E132898631%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=202891260&rft_id=info:pmid/12095066&rfr_iscdi=true