Quasi-experimental study compares efficacy of continuous and intermittent low-dose isotretinoin in moderate acne vulgaris, suggesting both are effective.
Background: Acne vulgaris is a common dermatological condition that significantly affects quality of life. Isotretinoin is the most effective treatment for moderate-to-severe cases. Still, concerns regarding dosing strategies and adverse effects have led to investigations into alternative regimens such as low-dose continuous and intermittent therapies. Objective: To compare the efficacy of low-dose continuous and low-dose intermittent oral isotretinoin therapy in patients with moderate acne vulgaris. Study Design: Quasi-experimental design. Setting: Department of Dermatology, Combined Military Hospital, Nowshera, Pakistan. Duration of Study: 08-February-2025 to 08-June-2025. Methods: A total of 112 participants aged 18–60 years with clinically diagnosed moderate acne vulgaris were enrolled and equally allocated into two groups (n=56 each). Group A received continuous oral isotretinoin (20 mg once daily for 2 months), while Group B received intermittent oral isotretinoin (20 mg once daily for 1 week per 4-week cycle over 2 months). Efficacy was defined as at least a 10-point reduction in Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score from baseline to 2 months. An independent t-test was applied to compare pre- and post-treatment GAGS scores, with a significance threshold set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: The mean age of participants was 30.71 ± 10.13 years in Group A and 29.43 ± 8.55 years in Group B. Following treatment, mean GAGS scores were 10.43 ± 5.53 in Group A and 8.75 ± 5.99 in Group B. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups (p = 0.12). Both regimens demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement. Conclusion: Low-dose continuous and low-dose intermittent oral isotretinoin therapies are similarly effective for the management of moderate acne vulgaris. Both regimens can be considered safe and effective alternatives in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noor et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: