Premium
Topical 4% nicotinamide vs. 1% clindamycin in moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris
Author(s) -
Khodaeiani Effat,
Fouladi Rohollah Fadaei,
Amirnia Mehdi,
Saeidi Majid,
Karimi Elham Razagh
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
international journal of dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.677
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-4632
pISSN - 0011-9059
DOI - 10.1111/ijd.12002
Subject(s) - acne , clindamycin , medicine , nicotinamide , dermatology , randomized controlled trial , gastroenterology , antibiotics , microbiology and biotechnology , biochemistry , chemistry , biology , enzyme
Nicotinamide and clindamycin gels are two popular topical medications for acne vulgaris. This study aimed to compare efficacy of the topical 4% nicotinamide and 1% clindamycin gels in these patients. In this randomized, double‐blind clinical trial, patients with moderate inflammatory facial acne vulgaris were randomly allocated to receive either topical 4% nicotinamide ( n = 40) or 1% clindamycin gels ( n = 40) twice daily. In each group, they were further categorized in two subgroups with oily and non‐oily types of facial skin. The Cook's acne grade was determined at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8 post treatment. Acne grade decreased from an average of 5.93 ± 0.83 at baseline to 4.03 ± 1.33 at week 4 and 2.08 ± 1.59 at week 8 in nicotinamide receivers, and from an average of 5.70 ± 0.94 at baseline to 3.85 ± 1.66 at week 4 and 2.03 ± 1.53 at week 8 in the clindamycin group (within‐group P < 0.001, between‐group P > 0.05). Comparing with each other, nicotinamide and clindamycin gels were significantly more efficacious in oily and non‐oily skin types, respectively. No major side effect was encountered by any patient. Skin type is a significant factor in choosing between topical nicotinamide and clindamycin in patients with acne vulgaris.