View clinical trials related to Acne Vulgaris.
Filter by:A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle Controlled, Parallel-Group, Clinical Study in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
This is a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 12-week study designed to assess the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of IDP-123 Lotion in comparison with IDP-123 Vehicle Lotion.
This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 12-week study designed to assess the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of IDP-123 Lotion in comparison with IDP-123 Vehicle Lotion.
To evaluate the therapeutic effect of DPSG and Placebo gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris.
The study will look to evaluate the tolerance of a light therapy-based acne mask device in participants who report having sensitive skin. All participants will receive a cleanser, a light therapy mask, and an extra activator for the light therapy mask.
The objective of this study is to assess the long-term safety of Olumacostat Glasaretil gel, 5.0% in patients with acne vulgaris
This study will compare two different acne treatment regimens for the treatment of acne. Half of participants will receive a cleanser and a light therapy mask, while half of the participants will receive a cleanser, a light therapy topical gel-cream, and a light therapy mask.
Acne vulgaris is a complex skin disorder involving multiple abnormalities of the pilosebaceous unit. Acne is the most common skin disease during puberty and worsens throughout adolescence. However, epidemiological studies suggest that acne can arise at any age, most frequently affecting individuals between puberty and 30 years of age, with 79%-95% of subjects aged between 16 years and 18 years and 80% of subjects between puberty and 30 years of age. Acne is considered the main reason for consultation with the dermatologist in institutional and private clinical practice. Clinical features include seborrhoea, non-inflammatory lesions, inflammatory lesions and various degrees of scarring. There are many classifications of acne and scarring severity. Moderate to severe acne is about 15-20%. Facial acne scarring affects both sexes equally and occurs to some degree in up to 95% of cases. There is a significant correlation between the initial acne grade and the overall severity of scarring at all sites and in both sexes. This would suggest that treatment aimed at reducing the severity of acne might reduce the incidence of scarring. Both superficial inflammatory acne lesions as well as deep nodular lesions seem capable of producing scars. Conventional therapies recommended for the treatment of acne vulgaris include retinoids, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), antibiotics, and hormonal therapy. Combination therapy using agents with complementary mechanisms provides the opportunity to target multiple pathogenetic causes of acne vulgaris. The combination in gel with 0.1% adapalene and 2.5% BPO is a once-daily treatment of acne vulgaris. In several double- blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Adapalene-BPO (A-BPO) combination therapy applied once daily for 12 weeks significantly reduced the number of both inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions in subjects with moderate acne vulgaris. In Mexico there is an available commercial product of this combination (Effezel®; Galderma). The limitation of this topical therapy is the low tolerability by patients as they can experiment several levels of irritation, erythema, dryness, desquamation, burning, and itching), and patients are advised to expect these side effects, which contribute to discontinue therapy if it becomes severe. On the other hand, 5-methyl-1-phenyl-2-(1h)-pyridone or pirfenidone (PFD) is a wide-spectrum antifibrotic drug that modulates diverse cytokines action, involving TGF-β, TNF-α, epidermal growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, VEGF, IGF-1, fibroblast growth factor, interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and IL-8 and it has shown promising effects in vitro and in vivo settings. Also, PFD has proven effective in the prevention and regression of pulmonary fibrosis, peritoneal sclerosis, hepatic cirrhosis, uterine fibromyoma, left ventricular fibrosis, renal interstitial fibrosis, and breast capsular contracture in experimental models. A recently open phase II clinical trial evaluated the therapeutic use of PFD gel in localized scleroderma. Results showed it acts on both the inflammatory and the fibrotic phases. The other component of Zaxcell is modified-diallyl disulfide oxide (M-DDO) an antimicrobial and antiseptic agent, which has been proved in patients with chronic diabetic ulcer as a potent germicide and has show to increase the beneficial effect of PFD preventing infections, accelerating and improving ulcer resolution. (Observations not published). According to this, the investigators believe that Zaxcell (PFD + M-DDO) could play an important role in the modulation of inflammatory and scarring process in acne. The investigators hypothesis is that PFD in patients with moderate to severe acne modulates amplification of the inflammatory response, regulating the inflammasome activation, macrophage polarization and its activity in regulating the wound healing process of the skin in an early fashion. Zaxcell is an innovative gel with a synergetic mode of action that could modulate the inflammatory response. Furthermore, has antiseptic properties and regulates the process of wound healing, fibrogenic and scarring process. In vitro and in vivo studies provide an initial body of evidence on the safety and clinical benefits of PFD, the main component of Zaxcell as a promising candidate for the treatment of moderate to severe acne.
The objectives of this study are to assess the safety and efficacy of Olumacostat Glasaretil Gel compared to vehicle in patients with acne vulgaris
Acne patients were included in this randomized controlled trial. Each patient received four treatment sessions two weeks apart. 20% azelaic acid combined with 20% salicylic acid were applied to the one side of the face while 25% trichloroacetic acid was applied to the other side. Evaluation was done by counting number of non-inflammatory and inflammatory lesions before, after two and after four treatment sessions. The dermoscope was used in evaluating the degree of improvement of erythema.