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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cutis (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2002-02, Vol.69 (2 Suppl), p.4 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 (> or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P<.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P<.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<.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 & 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</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 (> or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P<.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P<.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<.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 & 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 & dosage</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - economics</subject><subject>Naphthalenes - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Nicotinic Acids - administration & 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 & 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 & dosage</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - economics</topic><topic>Naphthalenes - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Nicotinic Acids - administration & 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 & 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 (> or = 50% global improvement) (78% vs 52%; P=.002) and significantly greater reductions in overall disease severity (P<.0001), noninflammatory lesion count (P<.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<.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 |