MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410443520 · doi:10.1007/s13555-025-01440-z

Efficacy and Safety of Clindamycin Phosphate 1.2%/Adapalene 0.15%/Benzoyl Peroxide 3.1% Gel: Post Hoc Analysis by Baseline Disease Severity

2025· article· en· W4410443520 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael H. Gold, Edward Lain, Julie Harper, Hilary Baldwin, Eric Guenin, Linda Stein Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBausch HealthOrtho Dermatologics
KeywordsAdapaleneBenzoyl peroxidePost-hoc analysisPost hocClindamycinMedicinePhosphateDermatologyBaseline (sea)AcneInternal medicineChemistryOrganic chemistryAntibioticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Clindamycin phosphate (CLIN) 1.2%/adapalene (ADAP) 0.15%/benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 3.1% gel (CAB) is the only triple-combination topical approved for acne. These post hoc analyses assessed efficacy and safety of CAB gel compared with component dyads and branded ADAP 0.3%/BPO 2.5% gel in participants stratified by baseline acne severity. METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase 2 and two phase 3 12-week studies. Participants were randomized to once-daily CAB or vehicle; one phase 2 study included dyad combinations of CAB active ingredients (ADAP/BPO, CLIN/BPO, and CLIN/ADAP) and the other included a head-to-head comparison with branded ADAP 0.3%/BPO 2.5%. Assessments included percent changes from baseline in inflammatory/noninflammatory lesions (IL/NIL) and treatment success (≥ 2-grade reduction from baseline in Evaluator's Global Severity Score [EGSS] and clear/almost clear skin). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and cutaneous safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: At week 12, IL reductions in moderate participants (EGSS = 3; n = 1557) were significantly greater with CAB vs vehicle, dyads, and branded ADAP/BPO (77.1% vs 54.1%, 64.4-69.4%, and 72.8%, respectively; P < 0.05, all). IL reductions in severe participants (EGSS = 4; n = 230) were significantly greater with CAB vs vehicle, ADAP/BPO, and CLIN/BPO (74.5% vs 44.4%, 63.9%, and 61.3%; P < 0.05, all), and similar to CLIN/ADAP and branded ADAP/BPO (73.7%/75.4%). IL reductions were greater than NIL. Moderate participants achieved greater treatment success rates with CAB vs vehicle, dyads, or branded ADAP/BPO (53.9% vs 19.5%, 31.5-35.3%, and 38.1%; P ≤ 0.001, all); only CAB- and CLIN/ADAP-treated severe participants had significantly greater rates vs vehicle (30.9% and 34.0% vs 9.0%; P < 0.05). Most TEAEs were of mild to moderate severity. All mean cutaneous safety/tolerability scores were ≤ 1 (1 = mild). CONCLUSIONS: CAB demonstrated superior efficacy to three dyads and branded ADAP 0.3%/BPO 2.5% in moderate acne participants, and generally numerically greater efficacy in severe acne participants. To our knowledge, these analyses include data from the only double-blind, vehicle-controlled, head-to-head study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03170388, NCT04892706, NCT04214639, and NCT04214652.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatology and TherapySame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207