Comparison of efficacy of topical 5% dapsone versus 1% clindamycin in mild to moderate acne vulgaris
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66344/jpad.v36i1.3253Keywords:
Acne vulgaris, clindamycin, dapsoneAbstract
Background: Acne vulgaris is one of most common skin disorder, particularly among teenagers and adults. Recently, topical dapsone gel has been used as an alternative therapeutic option for mild to moderate acne vulgaris, in comparison to topical antibiotics such as clindamycin gel. Objective: This study aimed to compare therapeutic efficacy in terms of reduction in lesions with topical 5% dapsone gel versus 1% Clindamycin gel in treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Methods: This Quasi-Experimental study was conducted in the Dermatology Department of Sahiwal Teaching Hospital, Sahiwal from March 2024 to September 2024. Patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris meeting the Global Acne Grading Score (GAGS) of both genders and aged between 12 - 60 years were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided through non-probability consecutive sampling technique into two equal groups: Group A (5% dapsone gel); Group B(1% Clindamycin gel) with topical once daily application. Efficacy was assessed at baseline and at 12th week according to the GAGS. Data were analyzed using SPSS v25.0. Results: Among 340 patients female (78%) out number the male (22%) in gender distribution, with a mean age and SD of 20.82 ± 3.817 years. Patients treated with topical 5% dapsone gel achieved 76.47% “good” efficacy compared to 73.53% of patients treated with topical 1% Clindamycin gel. Efficacy in both treatments groups were statistically significant. (P-value <0.05) Conclusion: Both 5% dapsone gel and 1% clindamycin gel are considered to be effective treatment options for mild to moderate acne vulgaris.References
Layton AM, Eady EA, Zouboulis CC. Acne. Griffiths C, Barker J, Bleiker T, Chalmers R, Creamer D. Rook’s textbook of dermatology. Edition 9, UK, Wiley-Blackwell: 2016; Pg. 90.1-90.65.
Hazarika N, Archana M. The psychosocial impact of acne vulgaris. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(5):515.
Rafiq Z, Mehdi SM. Frequency of depression, anxiety and stress in patients with acne vulgaris. J Pak Assoc of Dermatol. 2020;30(4):598-603.
Cong TX, Hao D, Wen X, Li XH, He G, Jiang X. From pathogenesis of acne vulgaris to anti-acne agents. Arch Dermatol Res. 2019;311:337-49.
Layton AM, Thiboutot D, Tan J. Reviewing the global burden of acne: how could we improve care to reduce the burden? Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(2):219-25.
Chen H, Zhang T, Yin X, Man J, Yang X, Lu M. Magnitude and temporal trend of acne vulgaris burden in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019: an analysis from the global burden of disease study 2019. Br J Dermatol. 2022;186(4):673-83.
Goh C, Cheng C, Agak G, Zaenglein AL, Graber EM, Thiboutot DM et al. Acne Vulgaris. Kang S, Amagai M, Bruckner AL, Enk AH, Margolis DJ, McMichael AJ, Orringer JS et al. Fitzpatrick's Dermatology, Edition 9, New York, McGraw-Hill Education: 2019.
Kamoji S, Huggi G, Pise G, Nayak J, Dastikop S, Patil M. A double blind randomized study to compare efficacy of 5% dapsone gel vs combination of adapalene-clindamycin gel in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. J Dermatol Cosmet. 2018;2:202-5.
Eichenfield DZ, Sprague J, Eichenfield LF. Management of acne vulgaris a review. JAMA. 2021;326(20):2055-67.
Verma R, Yadav P, Chudhari M, Patel J, Umrigar D. Comparison of efficacy of two topical drug therapy of acne vulgaris–1% clindamycin versus 5% dapsone: A split face comparative study. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2022;12(6):817
Brar BK, Kumar S, Sethi N. Comparative evaluation of dapsone 5% gel vs. clindamycin 1% gel in mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Gulf J Dermatol Venereol. 2016;23(1):34-9.
Schneider-Rauber G, Argenta DF, Caon T. Emerging technologies to target drug delivery to the skin–the role of crystals and carrier-based systems in the case study of dapsone. Pharm. Res. 2020;37:1-21.
Al Sabaa H, Mady FM, Hussein AK, Abdel-Wahab HM, Ragaie MH. Dapsone in topical niosomes for treatment of acne vulgaris. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol. 2018;12(18):221- 30.
Iftikhar A, Luqman N, Mubeen S, Tariq M, Khalid H, Naseer K. Comparison of the Efficacy of 5% Dapsone Gel and 1% Clindamycin Phosphate Gel in the treatment of Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris. J Pak Assoc Dermatol. 2025;35(1):20-6.
Anjum R, Majeed R, Dawood N, Shahzadi S, Sheikh F, Sheikh M. Efficacy and side effects estimation of 5% dapsone gel in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. J Pak Assoc Dermatol. 2023;33(4):1524-8.
Mohammadi S, Badakhsh H, Pardakhti A, Khalili M, Farajzadeh S, Amiri R et al. Evaluation of efficacy of niosomal clindamycin phosphate 1% solution in comparison to conventional clindamycin phosphate 1% solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial. J Pak Assoc Dermatol. 2020;30(1):64-71.
Sabaa HAI, Mady FM, Hussein AK, Abdel-Wahab HM Ragaie MH. Dapsone in topical niosomes for treatment of acne vulgaris. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol. 2018;12(18):221-30.
Sanawar P, Ghafoor R, Jabeen N, Asadullah K, Qadir M & Siddiqui FI. Comparison of the efficacy of Clindamycin phosphate gel 1% versus once-daily dapsone gel 5% in the treatment of moderate acne vulgaris at the tertiary care hospital, Karachi. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2024;31(1):157-62.
Iqra S, Ghafoor R, Ali A, Qadir MZ Khurram M. Comparison of Efficacy of Dapsone 5% Gel Vs Clindamycin 1% Gel in Mild to Moderate Acne Vulgaris. Indus J Biosci Res. 2025;3(1):120-4.
Haq AB, Shaikh ZI, Malik S, Ashraf A, Shah SS & Anwar A. Comparison of the efficacy of tazarotene 0.1% cream versus clindamycin 1% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2022;72(5):1682-5.
Hapsari RP, Widayati RI, Afriliana L & Hadi P. The efficacy of topical clindamycin gel on severity degree of acne vulgaris among female college students. Jurnal Kedokteran Diponegoro (Diponegoro Medical Journal). 2020;9(4):380-4.
Al-Ani M, El Helou IM. Assessment of efficacy and safety of dapsone gel 5% in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Al-Kindy Coll Med J. 2019;15(1):136-62.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission declaration
Authors retain the copyright to their work and grant the 'Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists (JPAD)' the right of first publication under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This license allows others to share, adapt, and reuse the work for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as appropriate credit is given to the original authors and the journal.
By submitting a manuscript, authors confirm that the work has not been published previously (except as an abstract, lecture, or academic thesis), is not under review elsewhere, and has been approved by all authors and relevant authorities. Once accepted, the article will be openly accessible under the CC BY 4.0 license, ensuring wide dissemination and reuse with proper attribution.
