Trial reportClinical drug investigation2017
Efficacy and Safety of Tazarotene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel Versus Adapalene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel in Facial Acne Vulgaris: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical drug investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02721173 (Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Tazarotene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel vs. Adapalene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel in the Treatment of Facial Acne Vulgaris), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Tazarotene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel vs. Adapalene 0.1% Plus Clindamycin 1% Gel in the Treatment of Facial Acne Vulgaris: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topical, light-based, and complementary interventions for acne: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Topical Retinoids in Acne Vulgaris and Acne Scars-From Monotherapy to Combining Regimens.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Bioavailability, Pharmacokinetics, and Transepidermal Water Loss of Short Contact Tazarotene Lotion 0.1% Versus Tazarotene (TazoracThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcne vulgaris is a multifactorial disorder which is ideally treated with combination therapy with topical retinoids and antibiotics.
objectivesThe present study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of tazarotene plus clindamycin against adapalene plus clindamycin in facial acne vulgaris.
methodsThis study is a randomized, open-label, parallel design clinical trial conducted on 60 patients with facial acne at the outpatient dermatology department in a tertiary healthcare center. The main outcome measures were change in the acne lesion count, Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) score, Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score, and Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Acne-QoL) at the end of 4 weeks of therapy. After randomization one group (n = 30) received tazarotene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel and another group (n = 30) received adapalene 0.1% plus clindamycin 1% gel for 1 month. At follow-up, all the parameter were reassessed.
resultIn both treatment regimens the total number of facial acne lesions decreased significantly. The difference in the change in the total count between the two combination regimens was also significant [6.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91-11.09, p = 0.007]. A ≥50% reduction in the total lesion count from the baseline levels was achieved by 71% of patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group and 22% of patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.0012). The difference in the change of inflammatory (p = 0.017) and non-inflammatory (p = 0.039) lesion counts in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group were significantly higher than the adapalene plus clindamycin group. The difference in change of the GAGS score was also significantly higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.003). The ISGA score improved in 17 patients in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group versusnine patients in the adapalene plus clindamycin group (p = 0.04). The change of total quality-of-life score was found to be significantly (p = 0.027) higher in the tazarotene plus clindamycin group.
conclusionsBoth treatment regimens were efficacious, but tazarotene plus clindamycin was found to be superior to adapalene plus clindamycin. The tolerability profile of both regimens was comparable.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721173.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.