Comparison of Three Different Regimens of Oral Azithromycin in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Skin Diseases and Leishmaniasis Research Center And Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Skin and Stem Cell Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran And Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Acne vulgaris is a common skin disease that involves pilosebaceous units. Orally administered antibiotics are the most widely systemic therapeutics prescribed for the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Azithromycin is among the antibiotics that have been recently used in acne treatment. There are several protocols for oral administration of azithromycin. Our aim was to compare three different oral regimens of azithromycin in the treatment of acne vulgaris.Methods: Sixty-four patients with moderate to severe acne were divided into three groups randomly. First group (21 patients) received azithromycin as follows: five consecutive days per month, 500 mg on the first day and 250 mg daily for the next four days. Second group (22 patients) received 500 mg daily for four consecutive days per month and the last group (21 patients) was administered 250 mg daily thrice weekly. After the baseline visit, patients were scheduled to return at four-weekly intervals for 12 weeks.Findings: Oral azithromycin in all groups resulted in a significant decrease in acne grading score in consecutive visits (P < 0.001). There was no difference between the three groups in the decreasing trend of acne grading score (P > 0.05). The efficacy of the minimum dose was equal to the maximum dose of azithromycin in our experiment. Conclusion: Because of the high cost of azithromycin, we recommend administering lower doses (1500 mg/month), which is as effective as higher doses (3000 mg/month) and has better compliance and fewer side-effects.

Keywords


  1. Stern RS. Acne therapy. Medication use and sources of care in office-based practice. Arch Dermatol 1996; 132(7): 776-80.
  2. Fernandez-Obregon AC. Azithromycin for the treatment of acne. Int J Dermatol 1997; 36(3): 239-40.
  3. Fernandez-Obregon AC. Azithromycin for the treatment of acne. Int J Dermatol 2000; 39(1): 45-50.
  4. Kus S, Yucelten D, Aytug A. Comparison of efficacy of azithromycin vs. doxycycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Clin Exp Dermatol 2005; 30(3): 215-20.
  5. Gruber F, Grubisic-Greblo H, Kastelan M, Brajac I, Lenkovic M, Zamolo G. Azithromycin compared with minocycline in the treatment of acne comedonica and papulo-pustulosa. J Chemother 1998; 10(6): 469-73.
  6. Peters DH, Friedel HA, McTavish D. Azithromycin. A review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and clinical efficacy. Drugs 1992; 44(5): 750-99.
  7. Alvarez-Elcoro S, Enzler MJ. The macrolides: erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74(6): 613-34.
  8. Lalak NJ, Morris DL. Azithromycin clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 25(5): 370-4.
  9. Doshi A, Zaheer A, Stiller MJ. A comparison of current acne grading systems and proposal of a novel system. Int J Dermatol 1997; 36(6): 416-8.
  10. Hamilton-Miller JM. In-vitro activities of 14-, 15- and 16-membered macrolides against gram-positive cocci. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29(2): 141-7.
  11. Gordillo ME, Singh KV, Murray BE. In vitro activity of azithromycin against bacterial enteric pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37(5): 1203-5.
  12. Agacfidan A, Moncada J, Schachter J. In vitro activity of azithromycin (CP-62,993) against Chlamydia trachomatis and Chlamydia pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37(9): 1746-8.
  13. Kapadia N, Talib A. Acne treated successfully with azithromycin. Int J Dermatol 2004; 43(10): 766-7.
  14. Parsad D, Pandhi R, Nagpal R, Negi KS. Azithromycin monthly pulse vs daily doxycycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Dermatol 2001; 28(1): 1-4.