Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38733511›Full record

ReviewDermatology and therapy2024

Comparison of the Efficacy of Clascoterone, Trifarotene, and Tazarotene for the Treatment of Acne: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mahek Shergill, Muhammad Usman Ali, Mohannad Abu-Hilal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Efficient synthesis of clascoteroneBiodesign research · 2025
    Article
  4. Efficacy and Safety of Hormonal Therapies for Acne: A Narrative Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mahek ShergillMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, 100 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H6, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3075-6074
Muhammad Usman AliDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mohannad Abu-HilalMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, 100 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H6, Canada. Abuhilm@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9702-2086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAcne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory condition, is associated with significant physical and psychosocial burden. Since 2019, three new topical agents for acne vulgaris have been approved in the USA and Canada. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between twice-daily clascoterone cream 1%, once-daily trifarotene 0.005% cream, and once-daily tazarotene 0.045% lotion for acne treatment.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clascoterone, trifarotene, or tazarotene with vehicle in patients with moderate-to-severe acne were identified from a systematic literature review and included in a meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were percentage reduction in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion count (ILC and NILC, respectively) and treatment success rate (≥ 2-grade improvement in Investigator's Global Assessment or Evaluator's Global Severity Score and a rating of clear or almost clear) at week 12. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with the inverse variance method were used to calculate the mean difference (MD) for percentage reduction in ILC and NILC, and odds ratios (ORs) for the rate of treatment success.

resultsSix Phase 3 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The analyses showed robust differences favoring the interventions for ILC (MD: - 11.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 14.39, - 8.62), NILC (MD: - 12.25; 95% CI: - 15.21, - 9.29), and treatment success rate (OR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.81, 2.53). No differences were observed between clascoterone, trifarotene, and tazarotene for ILC (MD: - 12.8, - 11.2, and - 10.1, respectively), NILC (MD: - 11.6, - 13.9, and - 12.8, respectively), or treatment success rate (OR: 2.9, 1.9, and 2.1, respectively (all P > 0.05).

conclusionNo significant differences in efficacy were observed between clascoterone, trifarotene, and tazarotene after 12 weeks of treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe acne. Differences in application frequency and safety profile should also be taken into consideration when making treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Acne vulgarisClascoteroneEfficacyMeta-analysisRetinoidsTherapyTopical

Identifiers

PMID38733511
PMCPMC11116292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.