MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409001964 · doi:10.2147/ccid.s506254

Criticality of Benzoyl Peroxide and Antibiotic Fixed Combinations in Combating Rising Resistance in Cutibacterium acnes

2025· article· en· W4409001964 on OpenAlex
Mahmoud A. Ghannoum, Ahmed Gamal, Ahmed Kadry, J.Q. Del Rosso, Linda Stein Gold, Leon Kircik, Julie Harper

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBausch HealthOrtho Dermatologics
KeywordsBenzoyl peroxideMedicineAntibioticsMicrobiologyAntibiotic resistanceBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Antibiotic resistance is growing globally, with multiple countries reporting resistance in > 50% of Cutibacterium acnes ( C. acnes ) strains. Combination formulations of an antibiotic and the antimicrobial benzoyl peroxide (BPO) may reduce this resistance risk, especially with prolonged use. This 4-part study tested susceptibility of 31 C. acnes clinical strains and development of resistance to antibiotics alone or combined with BPO. Methods: C. acnes susceptibility to single-drug antibiotics was assessed via minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained from epsilometer tests, with lower MIC indicating higher susceptibility. Susceptibility to fixed-dose antibiotic/BPO combination products was determined by measuring the zone of inhibition using the agar diffusion method, with larger diameter indicating increased bacterial inhibition. The effect (synergistic, additive, antagonistic, or indifferent [no interaction]) of combining clindamycin with BPO on C. acnes inhibition was evaluated using a checkerboard assay, wherein 2 test compounds are combined in varying concentrations. Resistance development was assessed using serial passage of bacterial cultures in increasing concentrations of clindamycin alone or in combination with BPO. Results: All tested antibiotics (clindamycin, doxycycline, erythromycin, and minocycline) exhibited similar activity. C. acnes susceptibility was variable, with some strains having elevated MIC values—an indication of resistance—against different antibiotics. For 6 strains resistant to clindamycin alone (inhibitory zone=0 cm), formulations with BPO enhanced activity against the same isolates (range: 0.8– 2.2 cm). Of 7 acne-associated strains, combining clindamycin and BPO had an additive effect against 4, and no interaction against 3. Bacterial cultures repeatedly exposed to the combination of clindamycin and BPO did not develop antibiotic resistance, which occurred with exposure to clindamycin alone. Conclusion: Overall, antibiotic susceptibility was highly dependent on the C. acnes strain, and antibiotic formulations with BPO exhibited enhanced activity against less susceptible strains. Fixed combinations of BPO with an antibiotic may improve antimicrobial activity and protect against resistance development. Keywords: acne, antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin, combination treatment, C. acnes , resistance, susceptibility

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it