title: Comparison of topical 5% nicotinamid gel versus 2% clindamycin gel in the treatment of the mild-moderate acne vulgaris: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Acne vulgaris is considered one of the most common disorders for which patients seek dermatologic care. In the current study, we evaluated efficacy of the 5% nicotinamide gel versus 2% clindamycin gel in the treatment of the mild-moderate acne vulgaris.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial that was performed in 2009-2010. Sixty female patients with mild or moderate acne vulgaris were recurited to be treated either with 5% nicotinamide or 2% clindamycin gel for 8 weeks. Acne severity index (ASI) was used to evaluate response to treatment and SPSS software was used to analyze the data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean of ASI at the baseline was 16.85 ± 8.5 and 18.2 ± 12.27 in nicotinamide gel and clindamycin gel, respectively (P > 0.05). The mean of ASI was significantly decreased compared with baseline ASI during the time in both groups (P < 0.0001). However, there was not a significant difference regarding reduction of ASI between the nicotinamide and clindamycin gel (P = 0.583).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Five percent nicotinamide gel is as effective as 2% clindamycin gel for treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. No side effect was observed during the treatment.
authors.affiliation: Skin Disease and Leishmaniasis Research Center, Department of Dermatology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
authors.forename: Zabiolah
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Shahmoradi
authors.forename: Farib
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Iraji
authors.forename: Amir Hossein
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Siadat
authors.forename: Azamosadat
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ghorbaini
keywords: Acne; clindamycin; nicotinamide; treatment
references.citation: Int J Dermatol. 1995 Jun;34(6):434-7
references.pmid: 7657446
references.citation: Mil Med. 1955 Jul;117(1):60-2
references.pmid: 14393611
references.citation: Dermatol Online J. 2006 Mar 30;12(3):26
references.pmid: 16638440
references.citation: Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2007 Mar-Apr;73(2):94-6
references.pmid: 17456913
references.citation: Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2009 May-Jun;75(3):279-82
references.pmid: 19439881
references.citation: J Dermatolog Treat. 2014 Apr;25(2):123-9
references.pmid: 23336746
references.citation: Am Fam Physician. 2012 Oct 15;86(8):734-40
references.pmid: 23062156
references.citation: Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2003 Mar-Apr;69(2):138-9
references.pmid: 17642859
references.citation: G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2012 Oct;147(5):491-7
references.pmid: 23007255
references.citation: J Cosmet Dermatol. 2004 Apr;3(2):88-93
references.pmid: 17147561
references.citation: AMA Arch Derm. 1955 Apr;71(4):528-9
references.pmid: 14360777
references.citation: Cutis. 2006 Jan;77(1 Suppl):11-6
references.pmid: 16871774
references.citation: Dermatol Online J. 2011 Mar 15;17(3):2
references.pmid: 21426868
references.citation: Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2007 Jan-Feb;73(1):22-5
references.pmid: 17314442
references.citation: J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2006 Jun;8(2):96-101
references.pmid: 16766489