Comparative Efficacy of 5% Dapsone Gel Vs 1% Clindamycin Gel in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris

Rabia  Abid; Summaya  Saleem; Asfa  Falak; Laila  Irshad; Momna  Arooj; Saadia  Jabeen

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.2107

Authors

Rabia Abid Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, Pakistan
Summaya Saleem Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, Pakistan
Asfa Falak Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, Pakistan
Laila Irshad Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, Pakistan
Momna Arooj Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, Pakistan
Saadia Jabeen Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.2107

Keywords:

Acne Vulgaris, Clindamycin, Dapsone, Dermatological Agents

Abstract

Acne vulgaris is a highly prevalent inflammatory dermatosis affecting adolescents and young adults, often requiring effective topical therapy for mild to moderate disease. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 5% dapsone gel versus 1% clindamycin gel in patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Dermatology, CMH, Gujranwala, from August 2024 to January 2025, on 100 patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris, equally divided into two groups of 50 each. Group A received 5% dapsone gel, and Group B received 1% clindamycin gel for 12 weeks. The study was carried out in a dermatology outpatient setting over three months. Acne severity was assessed at baseline and follow-up visits using standard acne grading and the Global Acne Grading System (GAGS). Data were analyzed using SPSS, applying appropriate comparative statistical tests, with a p-value <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Baseline acne severity was comparable between the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.841). At week 12, complete acne clearance was achieved in 46% of patients in the dapsone group, compared with 18% in the clindamycin group, indicating a significant difference in favor of dapsone (p = 0.004). Mean GAGS scores at week 12 were significantly lower in Group A (6.5 ± 7.11) than in Group B (9.8 ± 8.44) (p = 0.024). Both treatments were well tolerated. Mild adverse effects included erythema (8% in both groups), irritation (8% in Group A vs 4% in Group B), and burning sensation (6% in Group A vs 4% in Group B). Conclusion: Topical 5% dapsone gel is more effective than 1% clindamycin gel in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris, providing faster and greater lesion clearance with minimal and comparable side effects. Larger multicenter studies are recommended to validate these findings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cultid L. Comprehensive management of acne vulgaris: an update on therapeutic approaches. Glob J Res Anal. 2024 Jun;13(6):14-16. https://doi.org/10.36106/gjra/3406328

Vasam M, Korutla S, Bohara RA. Acne vulgaris: a review of the pathophysiology, treatment, and recent nanotechnology-based advances. Biochem Biophys Rep. 2023;36:101578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2023.101578

Shakir W, Muhammad Khalid FK, Sahar. Self-esteem, social appearance anxiety, and quality of life among adolescents with acne. J Health Rehabil Res. 2024;4(2):577-584. https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.896

Yang J, Yang H, Xu A, He L. A review of advances in influencing factors of acne: an emphasis on environmental characteristics. Front Public Health. 2020;8:450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00450

Armillei MK, Lomakin IB, Del Rosso JQ, Grada A, Bunick CG. Scientific rationale and clinical basis for clindamycin use in the treatment of dermatologic disease. Antibiotics (Basel). 2024;13(3):270. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030270

Dessinioti C, Katsambas A. Antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in acne: epidemiological trends and clinical practice considerations. Yale J Biol Med. 2022;95(4):429-443.

Treetanuchai J, Khuancharee K, Lertphanichkul C, Rojhirunsakool S. Efficacy and safety of topical dapsone for acne vulgaris: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Dermatol Ther. 2024;2024:3092910. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3092910

Wang X, Wang Z, Sun L, Liu H, Zhang F. Efficacy and safety of dapsone gel for acne: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med. 2022;11(2):611-620. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-3935

Searle T, Al-Niaimi F, Ali FR. Dapsone for acne: still in use after half a century. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20(7):2036-2039. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14206

Chaudhry S, Zafar N, Hayat R, Noreen A, Ali G, Nadeem M. Efficacy and safety of oral dapsone in acne vulgaris: experience of a tertiary care teaching hospital in central Lahore. J Fatima Jinnah Med Univ. 2020;14(2):87-90. https://doi.org/10.37018/xqbw1463

Seetan K, Kiwan B, Kasasbeh D, Ayesh M, Al-Zoubi O, Al-Sarhan B, Al-Majali H. Impact of lifestyle factors on the development and severity of acne vulgaris: a cross-sectional study. Research Square [Preprint]. 2023 Nov 27. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3546605/v1

Mohamed GN, Gharib KM, Samir MA. Emerging role of dapsone in the management of acne vulgaris: review article. Egypt J Hosp Med. 2022;87:1204-1207. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2022.236858

Rao MR, Deshpande S, Deshpande P. Dapsone-loaded mixed micellar gel for treatment of acne vulgaris. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2023;24:109. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-023-02518-6

Temiz SA, Daye M. Dapsone for the treatment of acne vulgaris: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2022;41(1):60-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569527.2021.2024565

Sanawar P, Ghafoor R, Jabeen N, Asadullah K, Qadir M, Siddiqui F. Comparison of the efficacy of clindamycin phosphate gel 1% versus once-daily dapsone gel 5% in the treatment of moderate acne vulgaris at the tertiary care hospital, Karachi. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2024;31(1):157-162. https://doi.org/10.53555/jptcp.v31i1.3947

El-Nabarawi MA, Shamma RN, Farouk F, Nasralla SM. Dapsone-loaded invasomes as a potential treatment of acne: preparation, characterization, and in vivo skin deposition assay. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2018;19(5):2174-2184. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-018-1078-3

Al-Salama ZT, Deeks ED. Dapsone 7.5% gel: a review in acne vulgaris. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2017;18(1):139-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-016-0226-2

Sarojini DVL, Nageswaramma DS, Sirisha DG, Sagar DNK, Mokshnanand K. Comparative study of efficacy of topical dapsone 5% gel, topical benzoyl peroxide 2.5% alone and in combination in acne vulgaris patients. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2016;15(8):78-82. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1508077882

Kamoji SG, Huggi G, Pise GA, Nayak JJ, Dastikop SV, Patil MN. A double-masked randomized study to compare the efficacy of 5% dapsone gel vs a combination of adapalene-clindamycin gel in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. J Dermat Cosmetol. 2018;2(4):202-205. https://doi.org/10.15406/jdc.2018.02.00078

Jones MA, Winkelmann RR, Del Rosso JQ. Status report on the safety of topical dapsone therapy for dermatologic disease. SKIN J Cutaneous Med. 2018;2(1):30-43. https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.2.1.3

Kumar D. Evaluation of acne vulgaris in females of all age groups: a clinical study. Int J Dermatol Venereol Leprosy Sci. 2019;2(1):07-09. https://doi.org/10.33545/26649411.2019.v2.i1a.17

Skroza N, Tolino E, Proietti I, Bernardini N, La Viola G, Nicolucci F, et al. Women and acne: any difference from males? A review of the literature. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2016 Feb;151(1):87-92.

Barbieri JS. A new class of topical acne treatment addressing the hormonal pathogenesis of acne. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 1;156(6):619-620. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0464