Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative efficacy of clindamycin phosphate with benzoyl peroxide versus clindamycin phosphate with adapalene in acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative efficacy of clindamycin phosphate with benzoyl peroxide versus clindamycin phosphate with adapalene in acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative efficacy of clindamycin phosphate with benzoyl peroxide versus clindamycin phosphate with adapalene in acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative efficacy of clindamycin phosphate with benzoyl peroxide versus clindamycin phosphate with adapalene in acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2025
Overview
Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that significantly impacts both physical appearance and mental well-being. Acne, being a chronic skin condition, often requires continuous treatment. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/benzoyl peroxide 3% compared to clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.1% combinations for treating acne vulgaris. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were carried out following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and three databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing CLIN/BPO with CLIN/ADAP. Primary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events, inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and application site side effects. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3. The study included a total of 800 participants across three RCTs. The meta-analysis of three RCTs demonstrated a significantly lower risk of TEAEs with CLIN/BPO (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35–0.86,
p
< 0.001). CLIN/BPO also resulted in fewer application site side effects (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23–0.47,
p
< 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups for reducing inflammatory (MD = 1.34, 𝑝 = 0.121) or non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD = 0.04, 𝑝 = 0.98). The study concluded that although CLIN/BPO was associated with fewer side effects, both treatments were equally effective in reducing acne lesions. The favorable safety profile of CLIN/BPO, particularly regarding treatment-emergent and application-site adverse events, suggests it may be the more tolerable option for patients. Future studies with larger, more diverse populations are recommended to confirm these findings and explore long-term efficacy.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
/ Acne
/ Acne Vulgaris - drug therapy
/ Adapalene - administration & dosage
/ Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use
/ Benzoyl Peroxide - administration & dosage
/ Benzoyl Peroxide - adverse effects
/ Benzoyl Peroxide - therapeutic use
/ Bias
/ Clindamycin - administration & dosage
/ Clindamycin - adverse effects
/ Clindamycin - analogs & derivatives
/ Clindamycin - therapeutic use
/ Dermatologic Agents - adverse effects
/ Dermatologic Agents - therapeutic use
/ Efficacy
/ Humanities and Social Sciences
/ Humans
/ Lesions
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ Science
