Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Randomized comparison of the safety and efficacy of tazarotene 0.1% cream and adapalene 0.3% gel in the treatment of patients with at least moderate facial acne vulgaris.

Author: BarnettPamela, Del RossoJames, DhawanSunil, DraelosZoe, GlaserDee Anna, GreenLawrence, GrimesPearl, Le GallNicolas, LeydenJames, ShalitaAlan, TanghettiEmil, WebsterGuy

Comparative StudyResearch that compares multiple groups/interventions to determine differences/similarities in outcomes/characteristics.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Multicenter StudyResearch conducted in collaboration with multiple research institutions. It aims to collect a wide range of data and obtain more generalizable results.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.

Overview

This 16-week study compared the effectiveness of tazarotene 0.1% cream and adapalene 0.3% gel in patients with moderate to severe acne. Tazarotene 0.1% cream showed better results in reducing acne lesions and overall severity compared to adapalene 0.3% gel. Tazarotene also significantly reduced post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (dark spots) compared to adapalene. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with minimal irritation. Therefore, both medications were effective, but tazarotene 0.1% cream appeared to be slightly more effective and similarly well-tolerated in reducing acne and dark spots.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
This 16-week study evaluated once-daily tazarotene 0.1% cream and adapalene 0.3% gel in patients with moderate-to-severe acne. Patients treated with tazarotene 0.1% cream performed better in many acne efficacy measures (reduction in lesion counts, percentage of patients achieving a 50 percent lesion...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20480800

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Comparing Tazarotene 0.1% Cream and Adapalene 0.3% Gel for Acne Treatment

This research dives into the realm of dermatology, specifically investigating the efficacy and safety of two common treatments for acne: tazarotene 0.1% cream and adapalene 0.3% gel. The authors conducted a randomized, controlled study comparing the effectiveness of these treatments in patients with moderate-to-severe acne. The study provides valuable insights into the relative benefits and tolerability of these topical medications.

Tazarotene 0.1% Cream Emerges as a More Effective Option for Acne Treatment

The study found that tazarotene 0.1% cream outperformed adapalene 0.3% gel in reducing acne lesions and improving overall disease severity. Patients treated with tazarotene experienced a greater reduction in post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), suggesting potential benefits for patients concerned about acne scarring. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with minimal irritation reported. The findings suggest that tazarotene 0.1% cream may be a more effective option for treating acne, particularly for patients seeking to minimize PIH.

Navigating Acne Treatment: A Desert of Choices

This research provides valuable information for patients seeking effective acne treatment. Just as a desert traveler must navigate a landscape of choices, patients with acne face a variety of treatment options. This study offers a comparison of two popular treatments, providing evidence-based guidance for patients and dermatologists.

Dr. Camel's Conclusion

This research is like a guidebook through the desert of acne treatments, offering insights into the effectiveness and tolerability of different options. The study provides valuable information for patients seeking to find the best treatment for their unique needs.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 2010-06-08
  2. Date Revised 2015-11-19
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

20480800

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

20480800

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.