A comparative study of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
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/openAccess2024-08-14T18:46:21Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/200964Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-14T18:46:21Repositório 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_ |
1808128215281041408 |