Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Sign in to follow this  
rss

PubMed RSS Feed - -Rosacea Treatment Satisfaction: Matching Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison Analysis of Metronidazole Gel or Cream vs Azelaic Acid Foam.

Recommended Posts

Related Articles

Rosacea Treatment Satisfaction: Matching Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison Analysis of Metronidazole Gel or Cream vs Azelaic Acid Foam.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2020 Mar 01;19(3):295-304

Authors: Williamson T, LaRose A, Cameron J, Lott J, Eaddy M, Hopson S, Shih HC, Tennant LT

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in patient-reported treatment side effects and concerns associated with azelaic acid 15% foam (AAF) vs metronidazole cream (MC) and metronidazole gel (MG).
METHODS: This study used matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare patient-reported outcomes from survey data evaluating rosacea treatments. Outcomes of interest included percentages of patients reporting concerns and side effects and measures of importance of the concerns and tolerability of the side effects. Patients in each analysis (MG vs AAF and MC vs AAF) were matched using stabilized inverse propensity scores.
RESULTS: When compared to AAF, MG-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy (54% vs 4%), application (7% vs 3%), and treatment side effects. MC-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy (61% vs 5%) and dryness (8% vs 5%). AAF-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with cost of treatment compared with MG (7% vs 1%) and MC (9% vs 4%). Among patients reporting concerns, level of importance associated with these concerns was similar for AAF-treated patients compared with MG- and MC-treated patients. When compared to AAF-treated patients, MG-treated patients more frequently reported side effects of dryness (26% vs 15%) and uneven skin tone (3% vs 0%), and MC-treated patients more frequently reported side effects of burning (7% vs 3%), itching (7% vs 5%), and redness (7% vs 5%). MG- and MC-treated patients indicated greater intolerance for reported side effects than AAF-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: MG- and MC-treated patients more frequently reported treatment concerns and side effects than AAF-treated patients, and tolerability of those side effects was higher for patients treated with AAF. While treatment cost is a more frequent concern in patients treated with AAF, these patients less frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy and reported similar or greater tolerance to side effects than patients treated with either MC or MG. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(3): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.3679.

PMID: 32550696 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

{url} = URL to article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...