Original Research

Investigator-Reported Efficacy of Azelaic Acid Foam 15% in Patients With Papulopustular Rosacea: Secondary Efficacy Outcomes From a Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind, Phase 3 Trial

Author and Disclosure Information

Papulopustular rosacea (PPR) is characterized by centrofacial papules and pustules commonly associated with erythema. To compare investigator-reported efficacy outcomes for azelaic acid (AzA) foam 15% versus vehicle foam in PPR, a randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-blind phase 3 clinical trial was conducted at 48 US sites. Participants received AzA foam or vehicle foam for 12 weeks. Secondary efficacy outcomes included change in inflammatory lesion count (ILC), therapeutic response rate according to investigator global assessment (IGA), and change in erythema rating. This study was comprised of 961 participants with PPR. The results support the therapeutic superiority of AzA foam over vehicle foam.

Practice Points

  • Papulopustular rosacea (PPR) is a common chronic inflammatory dermatosis.
  • A novel hydrophilic foam formulation of azelaic acid (AzA) was approved for the treatment of PPR.
  • In addition to effectively treating papules and pustules, AzA foam also may reduce rosacea-associated erythema.
  • The unique AzA foam vehicle may improve epidermal barrier integrity and function, thereby offering patients a distinct topical approach to rosacea management.


 

References

Papulopustular rosacea (PPR) is characterized by centrofacial papules, pustules, erythema, and occasionally telangiectasia.1,2 A myriad of factors, including genetic predisposition3 and environmental triggers,4 have been associated with dysregulated inflammatory responses,5 contributing to the disease pathogenesis and symptoms. Inflammation associated with PPR may decrease skin barrier function, increase transepidermal water loss, and reduce stratum corneum hydration,6,7 resulting in heightened skin sensitivity, pain, burning, and/or stinging.5,8

Azelaic acid (AzA), which historically has only been available in gel or cream formulations, is well established for the treatment of rosacea9; however, these formulations have been associated with application-site adverse events (AEs)(eg, burning, erythema, irritation), limited cosmetic acceptability, and reduced compliance or efficacy.10

For select skin conditions, active agents delivered in foam vehicles may offer superior tolerability with improved outcomes.11 An AzA foam 15% formulation was approved for the treatment of mild to moderate PPR. Primary outcomes from a phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of AzA foam in improving inflammatory lesion counts (ILCs) and disease severity in participants with PPR. The trial also evaluated additional secondary end points, including the effect of AzA foam on erythema, inflammatory lesions, treatment response, and other manifestations of PPR.12 The current study evaluated investigator-reported efficacy outcomes for these secondary end points for AzA foam 15% versus vehicle foam.

Methods

Study Design

This phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted from September 2012 to January 2014 at 48 US study centers comparing the efficacy of AzA foam versus vehicle foam in patients with PPR. Eligible participants were 18 years and older with PPR rated as moderate or severe according to investigator global assessment (IGA), plus 12 to 50 inflammatory lesions and persistent erythema with or without telangiectasia. Exclusion criteria included known nonresponse to AzA, current or prior use (within 6 weeks of randomization) of noninvestigational products to treat rosacea, and presence of other dermatoses that could interfere with rosacea evaluation.

Participants were randomized into the AzA foam or vehicle group (1:1 ratio). The study medication was applied in 0.5-g doses twice daily until the end of treatment (EoT) at 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment, and at a follow-up visit 4 weeks after EoT (week 16).

Results for the coprimary efficacy end points—therapeutic success rate according to IGA and nominal change in ILC—were previously reported.12

Investigator-Reported Secondary Efficacy Outcomes

The secondary efficacy end points were grouped change in erythema rating, grouped change in telangiectasia rating, grouped change in IGA score, therapeutic response rate according to IGA, percentage change in ILC from baseline, and facial skin color rating at EoT.

Grouped change for all secondary end points was measured as improved, no change, or worsened relative to baseline. For grouped change in erythema and telangiectasia ratings, a participant was considered improved if the rating at the postbaseline visit was lower than the baseline rating, no change if the postbaseline and baseline ratings were identical, and worsened if the postbaseline rating was higher than at baseline. For grouped change in IGA score, a participant was considered improved if a responder showed at least a 1-step improvement postbaseline compared to baseline, no change if postbaseline and baseline ratings were identical, and worsened if the postbaseline rating was higher than at baseline.

For the therapeutic response rate, a participant was considered a treatment responder if the IGA score improved from baseline and resulted in clear, minimal, or mild disease severity at EoT.

Safety

Adverse events also were assessed.

Statistical Analyses

Secondary efficacy and safety end points were assessed for all randomized participants who were dispensed the study medication. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward.

For the percentage change in ILC from baseline, therapeutic response rate, and grouped change in erythema rating, confirmatory analyses were conducted in a hierarchical manner (in the order listed), with testing stopped as soon as a null hypothesis of superior treatment effect could not be rejected. Analyses without significance level were exploratory. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel van Elteren test stratified by study center was used for grouped change in erythema rating (1-tailed, 2.5%) and IGA score (2-tailed, 5%); Wilcoxon rank sum tests also were performed. Percentage change in ILC from baseline was evaluated using the Student t test and F test of analysis of covariance (1-tailed, 2.5%). Therapeutic response rate was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel van Elteren test stratified by study center and the Pearson χ2 test. Facial skin color and grouped change in telangiectasia rating were evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Adverse events beginning or worsening after the first dose of the study drug were considered treatment emergent and were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Version 16.1. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software version 9.2.

Recommended for You

Expert Content

Quizzes from MD-IQ

Research Summaries from ClinicalEdge