You are now leaving GSK’s website

This link will take you to a non-GSK website. GSK does not recommend, endorse or accept liability for sites controlled by third-parties.

Continue

Go back

Duac 5% is more effective than monotherapies in reducing inflammatory lesions, with comparable tolerability 1

Go to Close Top

    • Duac 5% achieved a significantly greater mean reduction in non-inflammatory lesions vs clindamycin 1% (p≤0.01) but did not reach significance against non-inflammatory lesions vs BPO 5% at week 11 1
    Duac HCP Portal Graphs_v2

    The same results were first published in Lookingbill et al. 1997. The graph has been independently created by GSK from the original data.

    • Significantly more patients treated with Duac 5% achieved good or excellent Global Improvement scores at week 11 vs monotherapies or vehicle (primary endpoint; p≤0.001 for all comparisons) 1
    • Duac 5% achieved a significantly greater mean reduction in inflammatory lesions vs clindamycin 1% and BPO 5% monotherapies by week 2 (p<0.02) 1
    Duac HCP Portal Graphs_v2

    The same results were first published in Lookingbill et al. 1997. The graph has been independently created by GSK from the original data.

     

    • Duac 5% also achieved a significantly greater mean reduction in non-inflammatory lesions vs clindamycin 1% by week 2 (p≤0.01), but this difference was not statistically signficant vs BPO 1
    • Peeling was the most common treatment-related adverse event followed by drying and erythema 1
    Duac HCP Portal Graphs_v2

    The same results were first published in Lookingbill et al. 1997. The graph has been independently created by GSK from the original data.

  • Combined data set from 2 double-blind, randomised, parallel, vehicle-controlled trials to compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of Duac 5% gel (clindamycin 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5%) with monotherapy constituents.

    Primary efficacy endpoint: 1

    • Percentage change in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion count of the entire face at all visits between baseline and week 11, and Global Improvement scores at all follow-up visits (Global Improvement scores defined by means of a scale of 0 to 4, in which 0=worsening, 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=excellent)

    Safety and tolerability assessments: 1

    • Safety assessments included reporting of adverse events and scoring of facial erythema, peeling, burning, and any dryness and pruritus at all visits (scoring conducted on a scale of 0 to 3, in which 0=absent, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe)
    • Local tolerability assessments included overall tolerance measured at the final visit (scoring conducted on a scale of 0 to 3, in which 0=poor, 1=fair, 2=good, 3=excellent)

Duac 5% vs adapalene 0.1% 2

EDF Acne Treatment Guidelines recommend against the use of topical antibiotic monotherapies to reduce the development of antibiotic resistance (ABR) 3

View EDF Guideline

Find out how Duac reduces antibiotic resistance (ABR)

References:

  1. Lookingbill DP et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997;37:590–595.
  2. Langner A et al. Br J Dermatol 2008;158:122–129.
  3. Nast A et al. JEADV 2016;30(8):1261–1268.

Duac is a registered trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies.