throbber
.
`
`A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
`of the combined effect of doxycycline hyclate ZO-mg
`tablets and metronidazole 0.75% topical lotion V
`. in the treatment of rosacea
`‘
`
`Jorge Sanchez, MD,“ Aida Lugo Somolinos, MD,“ Pablo I. Almodévar, MD,fl Guy Webster, MD,b
`Mark Bradshaw, Pth and Christopher Powala, BSd
`Rio Pieavas, Puerto Rico; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Princeton, New jersey;
`and Newton, Pennsylvania
`
`Background: Subantimicrobial doses of doxycycline may improve outcomes in rosacea when combined,
`with topical metronidazole and used as maintenance monotherapy.
`
`Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of doxycycline hyclate 20 mg
`(subantimicrobial dose doxycycline) administered twice daily as an adjunct to metronidazole 075% topical
`lotion in the treatment of rosacea.
`
`Methods: Patients received. subantimicrobial doses of doxycycline twice daily plus metronidazole (n = 20)
`or placebo plus metronidazole (n = 20) for 12 weeks. Subantimicrobial—dose doxycycline or placebo
`monotherapy continued for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in total
`inflammatory lesions at weeks 2 and 16.
`
`Results: Total inflammatOIy lesions were reduced significantly (P =.O48) by week 4 and by all subsequent
`visits
`in the
`subantimicrobial—dose doxycycline/metronidaZole group compared with placebo/
`metronidazole. Changes from baseline increased over time and were maintained during subantimicrobial~
`dose doxycycline monotherapy.
`
`Conclusion: Adjunctive use of subantimicrobial dose doxycycline significantly reduced the clinical signs
`of rosacea compared with metronidazole alone and may be useful maintenance monotherapy. (I Am Acad
`Dermatol 2005;55:791-7.)
`
`osacea is a common, Chronic skin disease.
`The National Rosacea Society estimates that
`approximately 14 million persons in the
`United States are afflicted with some form of the
`disorder, although many may not be aware of it.1
`
`
`
`From the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedrasa; Jefferson Medical
`College, Philadelphiab; Covance,
`Inc, Princeton“; and Colla—
`Genex Pharmaceuticals, inc, Newton.d
`Supported by CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, inc.
`Conflicts of interest: None identified.
`Accepted for publication April 6,2005.
`Reprint requests: Jorge Sanchez, MD, Department of Dermatology,
`Puerto Rico Medical Center, Medical Sciences Campus, Pharmacy
`Building, 5th Floor, Rio Piedras, PR 00935. E—mail: rcmdermatol@
`rcm.upr.edu.
`Published online September 7, 2005.
`0190—9622/$30.00
`© 2005 by the American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.
`doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.04.069
`
`in fair—skinned adults
`Rosacea is most prevalent
`between 30 and 50 years of age and is diagnosed
`nearly 2 to 5 times more frequently in women tha
`in menz’3
`‘
`
`Variously termed a condition, typology, or syn—
`drome, rosacea is typified by a range of signs and
`symptoms that can include one or more primary
`features (facial flushing, erythema,
`telangiectasia,
`papules, and pustules), usually in the central area of
`the face/1'6 Rosacea presents a therapeutic challenge
`because of its chronic nature, progression, potential
`for disfigurement, and. psychosocial impact.
`Traditionally, doxycycline at usual and reduced
`antimicrobial doses has been used. to treat rosa—
`
`cea.2’7’8 Such a strategy, though effective, can in—
`crease the risk of the development of various
`adverse events, such as photosensitivity and vagini—
`tis. These antimicrobial doses alsocan lead to the
`development of antibiotic~resistant organisms.9 The
`
`Amneal 1063
`Amneal v. Supernus
`IPR2013-00371
`
`791
`
`

`

`792 Some/.762 et all
`
`I AM ACAD DERMATOL
`NOVEMBER 2005
`
`anti—inflammatory effects of doxycycline at subanti—
`microbial levels suggest that lowered doses would
`be of value in inflammatory skin conditions such as
`rosacea. Indeed, a recent study of subantimicrobial~
`dose doxycycline hyclate 20 mg, administered twice
`daily for moderate acne, showed the lower dosage
`to be effective in reducing inflammatory and non—
`inflammatory lesions without
`increasing resistant
`flora of the skin.10 Extensive studies of the oral, gastro~
`intestinal, genitourinaiy,
`and skin microflora of
`patients treated with subantimicrobial—dose doxycy—
`Cline administered. twice daily for 6 to 18 months
`showed no red.uctions in the microflora, no develop—
`ment of resistant organisms, and no cross—resis—
`tance to 6 commercially available antimicrobial agents,
`including vancomy'cin. “’12
`Therapy for rosacea usually consists of a com—
`bination of
`topical
`and oral
`antimicrobials.6
`Metronidazole in various formulations is approved.
`by the Food and Drug Administration as topical
`therapy for the inflammatory papules and pustules of
`rosacea.15 There is some evidence that remissions
`
`may be maintained longer after concurrent therapy
`with an oral tetracycline than when metronidazole is
`used. as monotherapy.14 It was thus hypothesized
`that a combination of topical metronidazole and oral
`doxycycline at a subantimicrobial dose would. im—
`prove clinical outcomes in patients with rosacea, and
`the improvement would then be maintained. by use
`of subantimicrobial~dose doxycycline as monother-
`apy. Therefore a controlled trial was conducted to
`evaluate the safety and efficacy of doxycycline
`hyclate 20 mg administered twice daily as an adjunct
`to metronidazole 0.75% topical lotion for the treat—
`ment of rosacea.
`
`A total of 180 subjects were evaluated, of which
`40 met the inclusion criteria. For those who did. not
`
`meet the inclusion criteria, the diagnosis was not
`rosacea (seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris
`mostly),
`the number of inflammatory lesions was
`less than 8 or the subject had two or more nodules, or
`the subject was receiving laser therapy.
`
`METHODS
`Patients
`
`Healthyfmale and female adult outpatients (>18
`years of age) with rosacea, presenting with 8 to 50
`papules plus pustules and no more than 2 nodules,
`were eligible for the trial. Other inclusion criteria
`were a score of 2 to 4 on the Clinician’s Global
`
`Severity Score, presence of moderate to severe
`erythema (score of 2 to 4) in a least one of the facial
`areas, a total score of 5 to 20 on the Clinician’s
`
`Global Erythema Assessment, and the presence of
`telangiectasia. Women of childbearing potential
`
`had to be using a reliable method of contraception.
`Women who were pregnant or
`lactating were ,
`excluded as were those who initiate l, changed,
`or discontinued. hormonal contraception within
`4'months of baseline. Systemic antibiotics or topical
`acne/rosacea treatments within 4 weeks of baseline
`
`were prohibited. Concomitant medications pro~
`hibited. during the study included long—term use
`(>14 days) of sulfa drugs, erythromycin, cephalo—
`sporins, quinolones, nonsteroidal anti—inflammatory
`drugs, acne treatments,
`tetracycline and penicillin
`antibiotics, and. antacids containing aluminum, cal—
`cium, or magnesium.
`
`Study design
`This study was a 16—week, outpatient, random—
`ized, double—blind, placebo~controlled trial. Patients
`meeting entry criteria were assigned randomly to
`one of two treatment arms (Fig 1):
`
`1. Subantimicrobial dose doxycycline/metronida—
`zole: Metronidazole 0.75% topical lotion (Metro—
`Lotion, Galderma Laboratories, Ft Worth, TeX) for
`twice—daily application plus doxycycline hyclate
`20—mg tablets (Periostat, CollaGeneX Pharmaceu—
`ticals, Newtown, Pa) administered. twice daily for
`12 weeks followed. by 4 weeks of monotherapy
`with doxycycline hyclate 20—mg tablets.
`2. Placebo/metronidazole: Metronidazole 0.75% top—
`ical lotion plus placebo tablets administered twice
`daily for 12 weeks followed. by 4 weeks of placebo
`monotherapy. All study tablets were identical
`in size, shape, and. color (white).
`
`Randomization was accomplished. by assigning
`numbers to the subantimicrobial dose doxycycline
`and placebo bottles based. on the SAS statistical
`software randomization procedures. Each patient
`entering the study received the next sequentially
`numbered bottle.
`
`Patients were informed verbally and. in writing
`of the details of the study and its potential risks
`and benefits. Intent—to—treat informed. consent was
`
`obtained. from each patient before the prestudy
`screening and. baseline evaluations, which were
`undertaken within 1 month before randomization
`
`into the study. Evaluations comprised a complete
`medical history, Vital signs,
`total inflammatory le—
`sions (total number of facial lesions and number
`of papules, pustules, and nodules, the Clinician’s
`Global Severity Score (Table I), and the Clinician’s
`Global Eiythema Assessment (Table II). Full—face
`photographs were taken at baseline and at
`the
`week 12 and 16 visits. Follow—up clinical and safety
`assessments took place at weeks 4, 8, 12, and. 16.
`Number and types of
`lesions we're evaluated.
`
`

`

`Some/062 81' all 793
`
`FLOW DIAGRAM
`
`Registered or Elegible Patients
`(n=40)
`
`R
`
`Received
`Intervention as Allocated (n=20)
`
`
`
`
`Followed-up (n=20)
`Weeks 4,8, 12 and 16
`Evaluate: total inflammatory
`lesions; erythema, adverse
`effects, photographs, drug count
`
`
`
`
`Withdrawal (n=5)
`Personal reasons (n=2)
`Protocol violation (n=1)
`Illness no related to protocol
`.
`(n=1)
`Elythema at application site
`(n=1)
`
`'
`
`m C
`
`ompleted trial (n- 15)
`
`
`
`
`
`Received Standard
`Intervention as Allocated (n=20)
`
`
`
`Followed-up (n=20)
`
`Weeks 4,8, 12 and 16
`Evaluate: total inflammatory
`lesions; erythema, adverse
`effects, photographs, drug count
`
`
`
`
`
`withdrawal (n=0)
`
`Completed trial (n=20)
`
`
`
`Fig 1. Flow diagram.
`
`RESULTS
`
`Demographics
`Forty patients met eligibility criteria and 20 were
`assigned randomly to each treatment arm. Demo—
`graphic and. baseline characteristics are shown in
`Table 111. There were no significant differences bet—
`ween treatment groups in any of these characteristics,
`including disease severity based. on total inflamma—
`tory lesions or either of the global assessments.
`
`Efficacy
`In the primary
`Total inflammatory lesions.
`end—point analysis, patients who received. metroni—
`dazole 0.75% topical lotion plus doxycycline hyclate
`20 mg experienced a significant reduction from
`baseline in total inflammatory lesions at week 12
`(P < .01). This difference was maintained at week 16
`
`when doxycycline had been given as monotherapy
`for 4 weeks (P < .01). Additional analyses revealed
`that total inflammatory lesions were reduced. signif—
`icantly (P = .048) by week 4 in patients receiving
`doxycycline/metronidazole and at week 8 (P < .01).
`The magnitude of change from baseline increased
`over time and was maintained during monotherapy
`with doxycycline. Mean changes from baseline for
`each of the two groups are depicted. in Fig 2.
`clinician’s Global Severity Score. Clinical
`differences
`in clinician’s Global Severity Score
`values relative to baseline began to emerge between
`
`J AM ACAD DERMATOL
`VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5
`l)
`
`clinician’s Global Severity Score and Clinician’s
`Global Erythema Assessment values were obtained
`at each visit. The evaluations also included study
`drug accountability, use of concomitant medications,
`adverse events, vital signs, and a full—face photo—
`graph. Urine pregnancy tests for women of child.—
`bearing potential were undertaken at baseline and. at
`the 16—week exit visit.
`
`Efficacy evaluations
`The primary measure of efficacy was the change
`from baseline in the total inflammatory lesion count
`(papules plus pustules plus nodules) at the 12 and
`16—week visits. Secondary measures of efficacy were
`the changes from baseline at weeks 12 and 16 in the
`Clinician’s Global Severity Score and clinician’s
`Global Erythema Assessment.
`
`Safety evaluations
`At each study visit, adverse events were recorded,
`vitafsigns were monitored, and concomitant medi—
`cations were reviewed. Adverse events were evalu—
`
`ated for duration, intensity, and relationship to study
`medication and were characterized as mild, moder—
`ate, or severe. Serious (fatal, life—threatening, or per-
`manently disabling) or unexpected adverse events
`(those not included in current prescribing informa—
`tion for either metronidazole 0.75% topical lotion or
`doxycycline hyclate 20—mg tablets) were to be re—
`ported immediately to the Institutional Review Board.
`
`Statistical analyses
`In addition to descriptive statistics for compari—
`sons between groups,
`inferential
`tests were per—
`formed. using one—way analysis of variance models.
`Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical
`variables between groups. All statistical tests were
`two—tailed, and P < .05 was considered statistically
`significant. Results in the range .05 < P s .10 were
`considered indicative of trends toward statistical
`
`significance and deemed eligible for evaluation.
`Efficacy analysis was based on the intent to treat.
`Patients in the intent—to—treat population received
`doxycycline or placebo and attended at least one
`postbaseline visit. The analysis was based on the last
`observation carried forward, by using values from
`the most recent visit with nonmissing data to replace
`missing data for a particular visit. Analyses for effi—
`cacy. were based. on individual patient changes from
`baseline values and were performed at each post—
`baseline Visit, although the primary efficacy analysis
`was at weeks 12 and 16. Additional analyses of
`subgroups according to baseline disease severity
`were undertaken to provide additional information
`on treatment effectiveness (see “Results”).
`
`

`

`794 Some/062 et all
`
`I AM ACAD DERMATOL
`NOVEMBER 2005
`
`Table I. Clinician’s Global Severity Score*
`
`
`
`DefinitionScore/Grade Guideline
`
`(0) None to very mild
`
`No signs or symptoms present; at most,
`mild erythema
`
`(1) Mild
`
`(2) Moderate
`
`(3) Severe
`
`Mild erythema present; none to few
`papules/pustules
`
`Moderate erythema; moderate number
`of pa pules/pustules
`
`Severe erythema; papules/pustules common
`
`0-3 papules/pustules
`Erythema Assessment Score
`Total score <1; Area—specific score: Ger 1
`4—9 papules/pustules
`Erythema Assessment Score
`Total score <5; Area-specific score: 0 or 1
`10—14 papules/pustules'
`Erythema Assessment Score
`Total score 6—10; Area-specific score: 2 or 3
`15—19 papules/pustules
`Erythema Assessment Score
`Total score 16—20; Area—specific score: 3 or 4
`>20 papules/pustules
`Erythema Assessment Score
`Total score 16—20; Area—specific score: 3 or 4
`
`(4) Very severe
`
`Fiery red erythema; numerous papules/pustules
`
`*One score to be selected for each patient at each evaluation.
`
`Table II. Clinician’s Erythema Assessment Scale*
`Definition
`Score/Grade ‘
`
`(0) None
`(1) Mild
`(2) Moderate
`
`No redness present
`Slight pinkness
`Definite redness
`
`Marked erythema
`(3) Significant
`
`(4) Severe
`Fiery redness
`
`*Total score based on all areas of face evaluated (forehead, chin,
`nose, right cheek, left cheek). Each of the 5 areas could be scored
`from 0 to 4. Maximum total score was 20.
`
`trended
`treatment groups by week 4 (P = .108),
`toward statistical significance at week 8 (P = .075),
`and were statistically significant (P = .046) at week
`12. At each Visit,- patients receiving subantimicrobial—
`dose doxycycline had a greater mean change from
`baseline in their Clinician’s Global Severity Score
`results than did patients receiving placebo/metroni—
`dazole (Fig 5).
`clinician’s Erythema Assessment Scale. A
`review of patients’ erythema locations at baseline
`revealed that most patients presented with erythema
`at certain facial
`locations but not at others. This
`
`mirrors thecharacteristics of typical rosacea patients,
`but it makes the clinician’s Global Erythema Assess—
`ment, which assigns equal weights to facial areas
`regardless of the presence or absence of erythema at
`baseline, relatively insensitive. Because of the dispar—
`ity in location and number of affected facial sites, the
`standard analysis failed to demonstrate a change in
`clinician’s Global Erythema Assessment from baseline
`in the treated. groups, although the absolute changes
`in the scores favored the subantimicrobial—close
`
`doxycycline/metronidazole regimen through week 12.
`
`'\
`
`Additional efficacy analyses targeting loca-
`tions with erythema at baseline.
`In this study,
`inclusion criteria for moderate to severe erythema
`were defined relatively broadly as a score of 2 to 4 in
`at least one of the 5 facial areas and a total score of 5
`
`to 20 on the clinician’s Global Erythema Assessment.
`Additional analyses indicated that the effect of sub—
`antimicrobial~dose doxycycline/metronidazole was
`most evident when sites evaluated. for erythema
`were excluded if the baseline score for that area
`
`was less than 2, For example, patients receiving
`subantimicrobial—dose doxycycline had clinically
`lower scores on the Clinician’s Global Erythema
`Assessment at week 4 (P = .06). The differences
`
`between the two treatment arms were statistically
`significant at week 12 (P = .04). When sites with
`scores less than 3 on the clinician’s Global Erythema
`Assessment were excluded from the analysis, pa—
`tients receiving subantimicrobial—dose doxycycline
`had a statistically significant reduction from baseline
`in their clinician’s Global Erythema Assessment
`scores at week 4 (P = .027). Overall, the greater the
`degree of severity at baseline,
`the greater
`the
`changes that were observed with subantimicrobial—
`dose doxycycline/metronidazole treatment (Fig 4).
`
`Discontinuations
`
`Five patients discontinued the study, all from
`the placebo/metronidazole arm. Of these, two pa~
`tients discontinued for personal reasons, one was
`eliminated because of a protocol Violation, one had
`illness not related. to treatment, and one experienced
`pruritus and erythema at the application site after
`the first
`treatment with placebo/metronidazole.
`There were no statistically significaht differences
`
`

`

`1 AM ACAD DERMATOL
`VOLUME 53, NUMBER 5
`)
`
`1
`
`SaflCbGZ at [/71 795
`
`Table III. Demographic characteristics of patients
`
`Placebo plus
`Subantimicrobial
`inetronidazole
`(lose doxycycline plus
`Characteristic
`(11 = 20)
`metronidazole (11 = 20)
`P value
`
`
`Mean age (+ subantimicrobial dose)*
`Gender (no.)
`Male
`Female
`Race (no.)
`Hispanic
`White
`Black
`
`41.6 (11.7)
`
`38.8 (7.2)
`
`3
`17
`
`15
`5
`0
`
`NS
`
`NS
`NS
`
`NS
`
`i
`
`NS
`27.3 (3.6)
`25.9 (3.7)
`Total inflammatory lesions (mean + SEM)
`NS
`2.7 (0.17)
`2.6 (0.17)
`Clinician’s Global Severity Score (mean + SEM)
`NS
`9.5 (0.69)
`9.8 (0.71)
`Clinician’s Global Erythema Assessment
`(mean total score + SEM)
`
`V
`
`NS, no statistical significance; SE/Vl, standard error of the mean.
`*Age not available for 1 placebo— and 3 subantimicroblal-dose doXycycline—treated patients.
`
`between treatment groups for the mean number of
`days on medication (placebo/metronidazole: 108
`days;
`subantimicrobial—dOse doxycycline/metroni—
`dazole: 118 days).
`
`Adverse events
`
`tolerated, with no
`Both treatments were well
`between—group differences observed in adverse
`events. A total of 33 adverse events occurred, 19 in
`the placebo/metronidazole group and 14 in subanti—
`microbial—dose doxycycline/metronidazole—treated
`patients. Facial dryness, burning, irritation, and ery—
`thema accounted. for 6 of the 19 events in the
`
`placebo/metronidazole group and for 3 events in
`the subantimicrobial—dose doxycycline/metronida—
`zole group. Gastrointestinal events were more com—
`mon in patients receiving subantimicrobial—dose
`doxycycline/metronidazole (5 vs 2). No instances
`of vaginitis or photosensitivity were reported. No
`treatment—related severe adverse events occurred. in
`
`either treatment group.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`This study is the first controlled trial of a sub—
`antimicrobial regimen of doxycycline, in combina—
`tion with topical metronidazole, to treat rosacea. The
`results demonstrated that adjunctive use of doxycy—
`cline hyclate 20 mg twice daily significantly reduced
`the clinical signs of rosacea in comparison with
`monotherapy with topical metronidazole. The com—
`bination treatment resulted in a statistically signifi—
`cant reduction in the total inflammatory lesion count
`(papules plus pustules plus nodules) from baseline
`at the 12— and 16—week visits, which was the primary
`efficacy end point. In addition, total inflammatory
`lesions were reduced significantly at all other Visits,
`
`including as early as 4 weeks after the start of
`therapy. Moreover, the reduction in total inflamma—
`tory lesions was maintained during monotherapy
`with subantimicrobial—dose doxycycline.
`_
`Over the course of the trial, the secondary end
`points of global severity and erythema also were
`reduced. significantly by the combination treatment.
`Differences between groups on the clinician’s
`Global Erythema Assessment showed statistically
`significant differences favoring subantimicrobial—
`dose doxycycline during the monotherapy phase of
`the trial when the analysis focused on those facial
`locations presenting with erythema at baseline, an
`observation aligned. with typical therapeutic goals
`for the treatment of most patients. The degree of
`change from baseline appeared to be maintained by
`low—dose doxycycline monotherapy for facial sites
`with the highest degree of baseline severity. These
`findings may be complicated by observations that 9
`patients overall experienced facial adverse events
`such as dryness and irritation. Five of these patients
`were switched to topical metronidazole cream at
`week 4 or 8. Additionally, the analyses of erythema
`according to baseline severity underscore the diffi—
`culty of assessing an effect when the baseline
`erythema score is weighted toward. the low end by
`facial areas having mild or no erythema. It is likely
`that a study comprising a larger number of patients
`at various baseline levels of erythema severity would
`provide additional data to clarify these findings.
`Overall, both treatment regimens were well tol—
`erated, and there were no between—group differ—
`ences in adverse events. lmportantly, no instances of
`vaginitis or photosensitivity occurred, confirming the
`safety and advantages of oral subantimicrobial—dose
`doxycycline in the treatment of rosacea.
`
`

`

`796 Sanchez et all
`
`J AM ACAD DERMATOL
`NOVEMBER 2005
`
`Weeks
`Week 16
`Week 8
`Week 12
`Week 4
`I | l |
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`
`Totalinflammatorylesrons lll3‘F33
`
`—16
`
`—o—- P/TM
`«aw so DOXY/TM
`
`2'
`
`WW“
`
`Fig 2. Change from baseline in mean total inflammatory
`lesions.
`
`Weeks
`Week 4
`Week 8
`Week 12
`Week 16
`
`.L.
`I
`I
`I
`
`0
`:3
`‘2 0
`Q m
`E E ~02
`
`.53 35‘ —0.4 M3 5no 01>) —0.6
`,D0
`—o— P/TM
`g g _0,8
`man- s0 DOXY/TM
`“EMMA!
`g 77”
`~1
`—1.2
`Fig 3. Meangchanges from baseline in Clinical Global
`Severity Score.
`
`is
`The origin of rosacea is not known, but it
`speculated that some individuals are genetically
`, predisposed for development of the condition be—
`cause of a wide variety of circumstances and. trig—
`gers.15’16 The pathologic process itself appears to be
`initiated by dermal vascular changes (small—vessel
`dilation) associated with flushing and. telangiectasia.
`As the pathophysiologic processes underlying pro—
`gression of rosacea have becomebetter understood,
`treatment strategies also are evolving. These include
`the recognition that the tetracyclines can exert anti—
`inflammatory effects that are distinct from their
`antimicrobial effects. 17
`
`For example, telangiectasia may result from the
`reduction of mechanical integrity of the upper der—
`mal connective tissue as a result of perivascular
`inflammatory cell infiltration as well as neovascular—
`ization.6’18’19 These processes may be mediated by
`type IV collagenases, which are shown to be in—
`hibited by doxycyclinezo’21
`edema may
`Vasodilatation and subsequent
`contribute to progressive inflammatory processes
`that may underlie the inflammatory manifestations
`of rosacea/1”16 Neutrophils recruited. to the sites of
`inflammation produce several proteases, including
`elastase and collagenases, that can contribute to the
`degradation of elastin and. type IV collagen. This
`can lead to the separation of the elastin from the
`lymphatic vessels, thereby impairing the removal of
`the extravascular fluid, which results in flushing/
`
`u
`a) 8
`v)
`g g
`g g 0
`E E E
`g) Q ”’
`A. ii0 ‘1)El
`
`Weeks
`Week 8
`Week 12
`
`Week 16
`
`Week A
`
`
`
`+ TM: Baseline z 2
`“mu-w SD DOXY: Baseline 2 2
`"vi-n TM: Baselineaa
`u-x— so DOXY/TM: Baseline 2 a
`
`Fig 4. Changes from baseline in Clinical Erythema As—
`sessment Scale scores according to baseline severity.
`
`blushing. This lymphatic failure ultimately results
`in a sustained. inflammatory response that exacer—
`bates the condition.6 Doxycycline has been shown
`to inhibit elastase as well as type IV collagenases,
`thereby maintaining the integrity of the capillary
`wall.‘20’21
`
`Finally, neutrophil—generated reactive oxygen
`species and the release of proinflammatory media—
`tors (including interleukins 1 and 8 and tumor
`necrosis factor—oz) have been shown to contribute
`to the inflammatory process.9’22‘25 Research has
`shown that members of the tetracycline family,
`including doxycycline, inhibit the mediators contrib—
`uting to the formation of inflammatory lesions ob
`served in patients with rosacea.“’24’25 Moreover,
`doxycycline penetrates more readily into normal
`and inflammatory tissue than does tetracycline,
`supporting its use for the treatment of rosacea.26'28
`The results of this study are consistent with those
`previously observed with subantimicrobial~dose
`doxycycline, showing effectiveness in reducing the
`inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions of acne
`without reducing Propz’om'bacterlum genes or in—
`creasing resistant flora of the skin10 as well as the
`studies of long—term administration of subantimicro—
`bial—dose doxycycline that did not result in reduc—
`tions of oral, intestinal, vaginal, or skin microflora,
`or the development of organisms resistant to doxy—
`cycline or cross—resistant
`to other antimicrobial
`agents.”12 Together with the results of the current
`study, these findings demonstrate that a combination
`of topical metronidazole and oral doxycycline at
`a subantimicrobial dose can improve clinical out—
`comes in patients with rosacea. This regimen may
`offer patients a superior alternative to either topical
`therapy alone or in combination with more tradi—
`tional antimicrobial doses of doxycycline.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. National Rosacea Society. Available at: http://www.rosacea.
`org. Accessed 2/9/03.
`
`2. Blount BW, Pelletier AL. Rosacea: a common, yet commonly
`overlooked. condition. Am Fam Physician 2002;66:435—40.
`3. Katz AM. Rosacea: epidemiology and pathogenesis. J Cutan
`Med Surg 1998;2(Suppl 4):S4—10.
`‘
`
`

`

`I AM ACAD DERMATOL
`VOLUME 53. NUMBER 5
`II
`
`E“
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Dahl MV. Pathogenesis of rosacea. Adv Dermatol 2001;17:29~45.
`WiIkin J, Dahl M, Detmar M, Drake L, FeinsteIn A, Odom R, et aI.
`Standard classification of
`rosacea:
`report of the National
`Rosacea Society Expert Committee on the Classification and
`Staging of Rosacea. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;46:584—7.
`WiIkin JK. Rosacea. Pathophysiology and treatment. Arch
`Dermatol 1994;130:359—62.
`. Cohen AF, Tiemstra JD. Diagnosis and treatment of rosacea.
`J Am Board Fam Pract 2002;15:214—7.
`Bikowski JB. Treatment of rosacea with doxycycline mono—
`hydrate. Cutis 2000;66:149-52.
`MeynadierJ, Alirezal M. Systemic antibiotics for acne. Derma—
`tology 1998;196:1359.
`Skidmore R, Kovach R, WalkerC, ThomasJ, BradshawM, Leyden
`J, et al. Effects of subantimicrobialdose doxycycline in the
`treatment of moderate acne. Arch Dermatol 2003;139:459—64.
`Periostat
`[package
`insert]. Newtown
`(PA): CollaGenex
`Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2003.
`Walker C, Nango S, Lennon J, Yu C, Preshaw P, Hefti A, et al.
`Effect of sub—antimicrobial dose doxycycline on intestinal and
`vaginal flora [abstract]. J Dent Res 2000;79:608.
`MetroLotion [package insert]. Fort Worth (TX):
`Laboratories, Inc; 2003.
`
`Galderma
`
`McClellan KJ, Noble S. Topical metronidazole. A review of its
`use in rosacea. Am J Clin Dermatol 2000;1z191~9,
`Rebora A. The management of rosacea. Am J Clin Dermatol
`2002;3z489—96.
`Bamford JT. Rosacea: current thoughts on origin. Semin Cutan
`Med Surg 2001;20:199—206.
`Golub LM, Lee HM, Ryan ME, Giannoblle WV, Payne J, Sorsa T.
`Tetracyclines inhibit connective tissue breakdown by multiple
`non—antimicrobial mechanisms. Adv Dent Res 1998;12:12—26.
`
`forces
`Ryan TJ. Biochemical consequences of mechanical
`generated by distention and distortion. J Am Acad Dermatol
`1989;21:115—30.
`
`Sanchez et at 797
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Motley RJ, Barton S, Marks R. The significance of telangiectasia
`in rosacea.
`In: Acne and related disorders: an international
`symposium. London (UK): Martin Dunitz; 1989. pp. 339—44.
`Sorsa T, Ding Y, Salo T, Lauhio A, Teronen O, Ingman T, et al.
`Effects of tetracyclines on neutrophil,.gingival, and salivary
`collagenases. A functional and western—blot assessment with
`special
`reference to their cellular sources in periodontal
`diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1994;732:112w31.
`Simon SR, Roemer EJ, Gqub LM, Ramamurthy NS. Serine
`proteinase inhibitory activity by hydrophobic tetracycline. US
`patent 5 773 430. June 30, 1998.
`T
`Akamatsu H, Asada M, Komura J, Asada Y, Niwa Y. Effect of
`doxycycline on the generation of reactive oxygen species:
`a possible mechanism of action of acne therapy with doxy—
`cycline. Acta Derm Venereol 1992;72. 178—9.
`Vowels BR, Yang S, Leyden JJ. Induction of proinflammatory
`cytokines by a soluble factor of Propionibacterium acnes:
`implications for chronic inflammatory acne.
`Infect
`Immun
`1995;63:3158—65.
`Kirkwood KL, Golub LM, Bradford PG. Non—antimicrobial and
`antimicrobial tetracyclines inhibitIL—6 expression in murine
`osteoblasts. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999;878:667—70.
`Eklund KK, Sorsa T. Tetracycline derivative CMT-3 inhibits
`cytokine _ production, degranuiation, and proliferation in
`cultured mouse and human mast cells. Ann N Y Acad Sci
`1999;878:689-91.
`Ayres S Jr. Tetracycline treatment of teIangiectasia. JAMA
`1971;217:1392.
`Webster GF. Treatment of rosacea. Semin Cutan Med Surg
`2001,‘20:207—8.
`[The kinetics of
`Fabre J, Milek E, Kalfopoulos P, Mérier G.
`in normal and
`tetracyclines in man. excretion, penetration,
`inflammatory tissues, behavior
`in renal
`insufficiency and
`hemodialysis]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1971;101:625—33.
`French.
`'
`
`N THE MOVE?
`
`Send us your. new address at least six weeks ahead
`Don’t miss a single issue of the journal! To ensure prompt service when you change your address,
`please photocopy and complete the form below.
`
`Please send your change of address notification at least six weeks before your move to ensure continued service.
`We regret we cannot guarantee replacement of issues missed due to late notification.
`
`
`
`
`JOURNAL TITLE:
`Fill in the title of the journal here.
`
`OLD ADDRESS:
`
`Affix the address label from a recent issue of the journal here.
`
`NEW ADDRESS:
`
`Clearly print your new address here.
`
`Name
`
`Address
`
`
`
`
`
`City / State / ZIP
`
`COPY AND MAIL THIS FORM TO:
`Subscription Customer Services
`_
`Elsevier Inc.
`OR EMAIL
`6277 Sea Harbor Dr
`elspcs@elsevier.c0m
`Orlando, FL 32887
`
`
`
`OR PHONE:
`800-654-2452
`Outside the U.S., call
`407—345-4000
`
`OR FAX TO:
`407—363—9661
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket