ArticleDermatology and therapy2025
Efficacy and Safety of Clindamycin Phosphate 1.2%/Adapalene 0.15%/Benzoyl Peroxide 3.1% Gel: Post Hoc Analysis by Baseline Disease Severity.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle Controlled, Parallel-Group, Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDP-126 Gel in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle Controlled, Parallel-Group, Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDP-126 Gel in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle Controlled, Parallel-Group, Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDP-126 Gel in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle Controlled, Clinical Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of IDP-126 Gel to Epiduo® Forte Gel (0.3% Adapalene/2.5% BPO), in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClindamycin phosphate (CLIN) 1.2%/adapalene (ADAP) 0.15%/benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 3.1% gel (CAB) is the only triple-combination topical approved for acne. These post hoc analyses assessed efficacy and safety of CAB gel compared with component dyads and branded ADAP 0.3%/BPO 2.5% gel in participants stratified by baseline acne severity.
methodsData were pooled from two phase 2 and two phase 3 12-week studies. Participants were randomized to once-daily CAB or vehicle; one phase 2 study included dyad combinations of CAB active ingredients (ADAP/BPO, CLIN/BPO, and CLIN/ADAP) and the other included a head-to-head comparison with branded ADAP 0.3%/BPO 2.5%. Assessments included percent changes from baseline in inflammatory/noninflammatory lesions (IL/NIL) and treatment success (≥ 2-grade reduction from baseline in Evaluator's Global Severity Score [EGSS] and clear/almost clear skin). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and cutaneous safety/tolerability were assessed.
resultsAt week 12, IL reductions in moderate participants (EGSS = 3; n = 1557) were significantly greater with CAB vs vehicle, dyads, and branded ADAP/BPO (77.1% vs 54.1%, 64.4-69.4%, and 72.8%, respectively; P < 0.05, all). IL reductions in severe participants (EGSS = 4; n = 230) were significantly greater with CAB vs vehicle, ADAP/BPO, and CLIN/BPO (74.5% vs 44.4%, 63.9%, and 61.3%; P < 0.05, all), and similar to CLIN/ADAP and branded ADAP/BPO (73.7%/75.4%). IL reductions were greater than NIL. Moderate participants achieved greater treatment success rates with CAB vs vehicle, dyads, or branded ADAP/BPO (53.9% vs 19.5%, 31.5-35.3%, and 38.1%; P ≤ 0.001, all); only CAB- and CLIN/ADAP-treated severe participants had significantly greater rates vs vehicle (30.9% and 34.0% vs 9.0%; P < 0.05). Most TEAEs were of mild to moderate severity. All mean cutaneous safety/tolerability scores were ≤ 1 (1 = mild).
conclusionsCAB demonstrated superior efficacy to three dyads and branded ADAP 0.3%/BPO 2.5% in moderate acne participants, and generally numerically greater efficacy in severe acne participants. To our knowledge, these analyses include data from the only double-blind, vehicle-controlled, head-to-head study.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03170388, NCT04892706, NCT04214639, and NCT04214652.
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.