Efficacy and safety of metformin for melasma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Metformin has recently been demonstrated to have an anti-melanogenic activity. Nevertheless, clinical evidence of the effectiveness of metformin in melasma is lacking. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of metformin in the treatment of melasma. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature databases were searched to 4 October 2022 and updated on 26 February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, observational studies, case series, and case reports investigating the efficacy and safety of metformin for melasma were included. The Melasma Area Severity Index (MASI) scores that changed from baseline were pooled using fixed-effects model and expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Three RCTs including 140 patients with melasma were included. The results demonstrated that after 8 weeks, 15% topical metformin significantly reduced the Melasma Area Severity Index (MASI) score compared to placebo (1 trial; n = 60; MD, −0.56; 95% CI, −1.07 to −0.04; p = 0.034). Furthermore, when compared to triple combination cream (TCC), 30% topical metformin demonstrated similar efficacy in reducing the MASI score after 8 weeks (2 trials; n = 80; MD, 0.19, 95% CI, −0.25 to 0.63; p = 0.390). Patients using 30% topical metformin had fewer adverse events compared to TCC users, although no statistical difference was found. Conclusion: Topical metformin was as effective as triple combination cream (TCC) in decreasing changes in the MASI score in patients with melasma, with minimum adverse events. Further studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up times, and well-designed trials are required. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022351966).
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".