A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lima, Paula Basso [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Dias, Joana Alexandria Ferreira [UNESP], Cassiano, Daniel, Esposito, Ana Cláudia Cavalcante [UNESP], Bagatin, Ediléia, Miot, Luciane Donida Bartoli [UNESP], Miot, Hélio Amante [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijd.15146
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/200964
Resumo: Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women. Topical 5% cysteamine is an antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitor that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of melasma. However, to date, no study has compared the performance of topical cysteamine to hydroquinone for facial melasma. Methods: A quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded clinical trial was conducted on 40 women with facial melasma who were submitted to the nightly application of 5% cysteamine (CYS) or 4% hydroquinone (HQ) on hyperpigmented areas for 120 days. Both groups were required to use tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19). Subjects were assessed at the inclusion and after 60 and 120 days of treatment for mMASI, MELASQoL, and the difference in colorimetric luminosity between melasma and the adjacent unaffected skin. The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale was used to assess the difference in the appearance of the skin through standardized photographs. Results: The mean reduction of the mMASI scores was 24% for CYS and 41% for HQ (P = 0.015) at 60 days, and 38% for CYS and 53% for HQ (P = 0.017) at 120 days. The photographic evaluation revealed up to 74% improvement for both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P = 0.087). The MELASQoL score showed a progressive decrease for both groups over time, despite the greater reduction for HQ after 120 days (P = 0.018). Colorimetric assessment disclosed progressive depigmenting in both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.160). No severe adverse effects were identified in either group. Erythema and burning were the most important local adverse effects with cysteamine, although their frequency did not differ between groups (P > 0.170). Conclusion: Cysteamine proved to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective, despite its inferior performance to hydroquinone in decreasing mMASI and MELASQoL in the treatment of melasma.
id UNSP_2e7c41adb5c9b7e3dfce87fa59aa179b
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/200964
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in womenObjective: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women. Topical 5% cysteamine is an antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitor that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of melasma. However, to date, no study has compared the performance of topical cysteamine to hydroquinone for facial melasma. Methods: A quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded clinical trial was conducted on 40 women with facial melasma who were submitted to the nightly application of 5% cysteamine (CYS) or 4% hydroquinone (HQ) on hyperpigmented areas for 120 days. Both groups were required to use tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19). Subjects were assessed at the inclusion and after 60 and 120 days of treatment for mMASI, MELASQoL, and the difference in colorimetric luminosity between melasma and the adjacent unaffected skin. The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale was used to assess the difference in the appearance of the skin through standardized photographs. Results: The mean reduction of the mMASI scores was 24% for CYS and 41% for HQ (P = 0.015) at 60 days, and 38% for CYS and 53% for HQ (P = 0.017) at 120 days. The photographic evaluation revealed up to 74% improvement for both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P = 0.087). The MELASQoL score showed a progressive decrease for both groups over time, despite the greater reduction for HQ after 120 days (P = 0.018). Colorimetric assessment disclosed progressive depigmenting in both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.160). No severe adverse effects were identified in either group. Erythema and burning were the most important local adverse effects with cysteamine, although their frequency did not differ between groups (P > 0.170). Conclusion: Cysteamine proved to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective, despite its inferior performance to hydroquinone in decreasing mMASI and MELASQoL in the treatment of melasma.Departamento de Dermatologia e Radioterapia FMB-UnespDepartamento de Dermatologia UNIFESPDepartamento de Dermatologia e Radioterapia FMB-UnespUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Lima, Paula Basso [UNESP]Dias, Joana Alexandria Ferreira [UNESP]Cassiano, DanielEsposito, Ana Cláudia Cavalcante [UNESP]Bagatin, EdiléiaMiot, Luciane Donida Bartoli [UNESP]Miot, Hélio Amante [UNESP]2020-12-12T02:20:42Z2020-12-12T02:20:42Z2020-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijd.15146International Journal of Dermatology.1365-46320011-9059http://hdl.handle.net/11449/20096410.1111/ijd.151462-s2.0-85089964853Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengInternational Journal of Dermatologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2021-10-23T15:41:26Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/200964Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462021-10-23T15:41:26Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
title A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
spellingShingle A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
Lima, Paula Basso [UNESP]
title_short A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
title_full A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
title_fullStr A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
title_sort A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
author Lima, Paula Basso [UNESP]
author_facet Lima, Paula Basso [UNESP]
Dias, Joana Alexandria Ferreira [UNESP]
Cassiano, Daniel
Esposito, Ana Cláudia Cavalcante [UNESP]
Bagatin, Ediléia
Miot, Luciane Donida Bartoli [UNESP]
Miot, Hélio Amante [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Dias, Joana Alexandria Ferreira [UNESP]
Cassiano, Daniel
Esposito, Ana Cláudia Cavalcante [UNESP]
Bagatin, Ediléia
Miot, Luciane Donida Bartoli [UNESP]
Miot, Hélio Amante [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lima, Paula Basso [UNESP]
Dias, Joana Alexandria Ferreira [UNESP]
Cassiano, Daniel
Esposito, Ana Cláudia Cavalcante [UNESP]
Bagatin, Ediléia
Miot, Luciane Donida Bartoli [UNESP]
Miot, Hélio Amante [UNESP]
description Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women. Topical 5% cysteamine is an antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitor that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of melasma. However, to date, no study has compared the performance of topical cysteamine to hydroquinone for facial melasma. Methods: A quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded clinical trial was conducted on 40 women with facial melasma who were submitted to the nightly application of 5% cysteamine (CYS) or 4% hydroquinone (HQ) on hyperpigmented areas for 120 days. Both groups were required to use tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19). Subjects were assessed at the inclusion and after 60 and 120 days of treatment for mMASI, MELASQoL, and the difference in colorimetric luminosity between melasma and the adjacent unaffected skin. The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale was used to assess the difference in the appearance of the skin through standardized photographs. Results: The mean reduction of the mMASI scores was 24% for CYS and 41% for HQ (P = 0.015) at 60 days, and 38% for CYS and 53% for HQ (P = 0.017) at 120 days. The photographic evaluation revealed up to 74% improvement for both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P = 0.087). The MELASQoL score showed a progressive decrease for both groups over time, despite the greater reduction for HQ after 120 days (P = 0.018). Colorimetric assessment disclosed progressive depigmenting in both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.160). No severe adverse effects were identified in either group. Erythema and burning were the most important local adverse effects with cysteamine, although their frequency did not differ between groups (P > 0.170). Conclusion: Cysteamine proved to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective, despite its inferior performance to hydroquinone in decreasing mMASI and MELASQoL in the treatment of melasma.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-12T02:20:42Z
2020-12-12T02:20:42Z
2020-01-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijd.15146
International Journal of Dermatology.
1365-4632
0011-9059
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/200964
10.1111/ijd.15146
2-s2.0-85089964853
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijd.15146
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/200964
identifier_str_mv International Journal of Dermatology.
1365-4632
0011-9059
10.1111/ijd.15146
2-s2.0-85089964853
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv International Journal of Dermatology
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1803650370030796800