New Polymeric Once-Daily Tazarotene 0.045% Lotion Formulation for Moderate-to-Severe Acne: Pooled Phase 3 Pediatric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acne vulgaris affects approximately 85% of adolescents. Topical tazarotene is efficacious and safe for acne treatment but irritation limits its use. The objective was to evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a new tazarotene 0.045% lotion formulation in patients aged 10-13 and 14-17 years with moderate-to-severe acne. Methods: In two phase 3, double-blind, vehicle-controlled 12-week studies, patients with moderate-to-severe acne (N=1,614) were randomized (1:1) to receive tazarotene 0.045% lotion or vehicle once-daily. Efficacy assessments included changes from baseline in inflammatory/noninflammatory lesions and treatment success (≥2-grade reduction in Evaluator's Global Severity Score [EGSS] and a clear/almost clear score). Quality of life (QoL) and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. Results: Patients aged 10-13 years (n=136) and 14-17 years (n=548) were pooled. At week 12, mean percent reductions in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts were significantly greater with tazarotene versus vehicle in both age groups (least-squares mean inflammatory 10-13 years: -55.6 vs -37.0%; 14-17 years: -53.3 vs -41.2%; noninflammatory 10-13 years: -47.7 vs -28.2%; 14-17 years: -52.7 vs -32.9%; P<0.01 all). More patients achieved treatment success with tazarotene versus vehicle in both age groups (P<0.05, both). There were no significant differences between tazarotene-treated age groups in lesion counts or treatment success. Acne-QoL scores at week 12 in both age groups were numerically improved in most domains with tazarotene 0.045% lotion versus vehicle. Most treatment-emergent AEs with tazarotene or vehicle were of mild or moderate severity in both age groups. Conclusions: Tazarotene 0.045% lotion was efficacious and well tolerated in pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe acne. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(6): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.4959THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ACCESS THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOGGING IN. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLISHER WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".