A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol
Abstract Background Retinoids, such as retinol, are widely investigated and utilized in skin care products as a treatment for photoaging but their use is limited by tolerability. Adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate, OA) is a novel third generation retinoid that is a pro‐drug of adapalene, but there is litt...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Skin Health and Disease |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ski2.469 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846146246693093376 |
|---|---|
| author | Nhi Nguyen Nasima Afzal Mildred Min Nabeel Ahmad Laila Afzal Waqas Burney Cindy J. Chambers Raja K. Sivamani |
| author_facet | Nhi Nguyen Nasima Afzal Mildred Min Nabeel Ahmad Laila Afzal Waqas Burney Cindy J. Chambers Raja K. Sivamani |
| author_sort | Nhi Nguyen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Retinoids, such as retinol, are widely investigated and utilized in skin care products as a treatment for photoaging but their use is limited by tolerability. Adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate, OA) is a novel third generation retinoid that is a pro‐drug of adapalene, but there is little research on its effects on photoaging or its tolerability. Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare the effects and tolerability of OA 0.5% to retinol 0.5% cream regarding visible signs of facial photoaging including facial wrinkles, fine lines and pigmentation. Methods In this 12‐week, double‐blind, randomized clinical trial, 48 eligible participants were recruited and enroled from the Greater Sacramento region. The study consisted of a baseline and follow‐up visits at weeks 4, 8 and 12. Participants were randomized to receive either topical OA 0.5% or retinol 0.5% for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was changes in the appearance of wrinkle severity at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include changes in erythema, skin pigmentation, skin hydration and transepidermal water loss (TEWL). Results OA improved wrinkle severity by 9.45% (p < 0.0001) at week 12, whereas retinol improved wrinkle severity by 4.11% (p < 0.001) compared to baseline. When comparing the two treatment groups at week 12, the OA group improved significantly more than the retinol group (p = 0.001). OA decreased pigment intensity at week 12 by 3.88% (p < 0.0001), whereas retinol decreased pigment intensity by 3.15% (p < 0.03) compared to baseline. OA‐based improvement in pigment intensity at week 12 was not significantly different from retinol (p = 0.62). OA reduced facial erythema by 13.39% (p < 0.05) at week 12, whereas the retinol group did not have a significant change. OA use led to a 14.92% decrease in TEWL by week 12 (p = 0.07), whereas the retinol group had no significant change. OA was better tolerated than retinol when assessed at all follow‐up visits. Conclusions OA 0.5% is superior to retinol 0.5% in improving wrinkle severity and similar in improvement of pigment intensity. OA is better tolerated than retinol. Overall, the use of OA as a precursor to adapalene may be an effective method to improving the tolerability of retinoids while maintaining efficacy. Trial Registration This study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05778760). |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-afe2c93649944a588f6a6629bc1a9794 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2690-442X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Skin Health and Disease |
| spelling | doaj-art-afe2c93649944a588f6a6629bc1a97942024-12-02T04:03:51ZengWileySkin Health and Disease2690-442X2024-12-0146n/an/a10.1002/ski2.469A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinolNhi Nguyen0Nasima Afzal1Mildred Min2Nabeel Ahmad3Laila Afzal4Waqas Burney5Cindy J. Chambers6Raja K. Sivamani7Integrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAIntegrative Skin Science and Research Sacramento California USAAbstract Background Retinoids, such as retinol, are widely investigated and utilized in skin care products as a treatment for photoaging but their use is limited by tolerability. Adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate, OA) is a novel third generation retinoid that is a pro‐drug of adapalene, but there is little research on its effects on photoaging or its tolerability. Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare the effects and tolerability of OA 0.5% to retinol 0.5% cream regarding visible signs of facial photoaging including facial wrinkles, fine lines and pigmentation. Methods In this 12‐week, double‐blind, randomized clinical trial, 48 eligible participants were recruited and enroled from the Greater Sacramento region. The study consisted of a baseline and follow‐up visits at weeks 4, 8 and 12. Participants were randomized to receive either topical OA 0.5% or retinol 0.5% for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was changes in the appearance of wrinkle severity at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include changes in erythema, skin pigmentation, skin hydration and transepidermal water loss (TEWL). Results OA improved wrinkle severity by 9.45% (p < 0.0001) at week 12, whereas retinol improved wrinkle severity by 4.11% (p < 0.001) compared to baseline. When comparing the two treatment groups at week 12, the OA group improved significantly more than the retinol group (p = 0.001). OA decreased pigment intensity at week 12 by 3.88% (p < 0.0001), whereas retinol decreased pigment intensity by 3.15% (p < 0.03) compared to baseline. OA‐based improvement in pigment intensity at week 12 was not significantly different from retinol (p = 0.62). OA reduced facial erythema by 13.39% (p < 0.05) at week 12, whereas the retinol group did not have a significant change. OA use led to a 14.92% decrease in TEWL by week 12 (p = 0.07), whereas the retinol group had no significant change. OA was better tolerated than retinol when assessed at all follow‐up visits. Conclusions OA 0.5% is superior to retinol 0.5% in improving wrinkle severity and similar in improvement of pigment intensity. OA is better tolerated than retinol. Overall, the use of OA as a precursor to adapalene may be an effective method to improving the tolerability of retinoids while maintaining efficacy. Trial Registration This study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05778760).https://doi.org/10.1002/ski2.469 |
| spellingShingle | Nhi Nguyen Nasima Afzal Mildred Min Nabeel Ahmad Laila Afzal Waqas Burney Cindy J. Chambers Raja K. Sivamani A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol Skin Health and Disease |
| title | A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol |
| title_full | A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol |
| title_fullStr | A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol |
| title_full_unstemmed | A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol |
| title_short | A prospective, double‐blinded, randomized head‐to‐head clinical trial of topical adapinoid (oleyl adapalenate) versus retinol |
| title_sort | prospective double blinded randomized head to head clinical trial of topical adapinoid oleyl adapalenate versus retinol |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ski2.469 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nhinguyen aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT nasimaafzal aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT mildredmin aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT nabeelahmad aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT lailaafzal aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT waqasburney aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT cindyjchambers aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT rajaksivamani aprospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT nhinguyen prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT nasimaafzal prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT mildredmin prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT nabeelahmad prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT lailaafzal prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT waqasburney prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT cindyjchambers prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol AT rajaksivamani prospectivedoubleblindedrandomizedheadtoheadclinicaltrialoftopicaladapinoidoleyladapalenateversusretinol |