Efficacy and safety of ivermectin 1% cream in treatment of papulopustular rosacea: results of two randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled pivotal studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatments for papulopustular rosacea (PPR) are limited. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of once-daily ivermectin 1% cream in subjects with moderate to severe PPR. METHODS: Two identically designed, randomized, double-blind, controlled studies of ivermectin 1% cream (IVM 1%) or vehicle once daily for 12 weeks were conducted in subjects with moderate to severe PPR. Efficacy assessments were Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) of disease severity and inflammatory lesion counts. Safety assessments included incidence of adverse events (AEs) and local tolerance parameters. Subjects evaluated their rosacea and completed satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. RESULTS: In both studies, a greater proportion of subjects in the IVM 1% group achieved treatment success (IGA "clear" or "almost clear"): 38.4% and 40.1% vs 11.6% and 18.8% for vehicle (both P<.001), respectively. Ivermectin was superior to vehicle in terms of reduction from baseline in inflammatory lesion counts (76.0% and 75.0% vs 50.0% for both vehicle groups, respectively). For all endpoints, starting at week 4 and continuing through week 12, IVM 1% was statistically significantly superior (P<.001). Fewer subjects treated by IVM 1% reported dermatologic AEs, and a higher proportion of subjects were observed to have no skin dryness or itching compared to vehicle. Significantly more subjects receiving IVM 1% reported having an "excellent" or "good" improvement, along with an improved QoL. CONCLUSION: Ivermectin 1% cream was effective and safe in treating inflammatory lesions of papulopustular rosacea.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".