Acne Vulgaris: Establishing Effectiveness of Drugs Intended for Treatment

Administrative guidance, not enacted legislation. This captured publisher edition preserves the listed document and attachments; later developments are not independently consolidated.

Acne Vulgaris:
Establishing Effectiveness
of Drugs Intended for
Treatment
Guidance for Industry
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
May 2018
Clinical/Medical

Acne Vulgaris:
Establishing Effectiveness
of Drugs Intended for
Treatment
Guidance for Industry
Additional copies are available from:
Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Bldg., 4th Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
Phone: 855-543-3784 or 301-796-3400; Fax: 301-431-6353; Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
May 2018
Clinical/Medical

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. 	INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
II. 	BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1
III. 	CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGN FEATURES — KEY CONSIDERATIONS ................ 2
A. 	Enrollment Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 2
B. 	Study Design and Efficacy Endpoints .......................................................................................... 2
C. 	General Analysis Considerations.................................................................................................. 3

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
1
Acne Vulgaris: Establishing Effectiveness of
Drugs Intended for Treatment
Guidance for Industry1
This guidance represents the current thinking of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) on
this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You
can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
To discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA office responsible for this guidance as listed on the
title page.
I. 	INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this guidance is to provide recommendations to industry for establishing clinical
effectiveness of drugs for the treatment of acne vulgaris (acne).2 The recommendations in this
guidance are based on the FDA’s assessment of issues raised in the review of clinical trials for
acne.
This guidance does not address systemic retinoid therapies because they may not have
appropriate risk-benefit profiles for non-nodular acne therapy. Sponsors should discuss
development programs for systemic retinoids with the review division before trial initiation.
This guidance also does not address clinical safety, clinical pharmacokinetics, nonclinical issues,
or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls issues.
In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.
Instead, guidances describe the Agency’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only
as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of
the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but
not required.
II. 	BACKGROUND
Acne is a chronic disease of sebaceous follicles that is multifactorial in etiology. It can wax and
wane in severity according to lesion types, numbers, and extent of involvement and can result in
1 This guidance has been prepared by the Division of Dermatology and Dental Products in the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.
2 For the purposes of this guidance, all references to drugs include human drugs and not therapeutic biological
products unless otherwise specified.

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
2
scarring. Acne occurs more frequently on the face, but can also occur on nonfacial skin (e.g.,
trunk).
There are two major types of acne lesions:
1. 	Noninflammatory: Noninflammatory lesions are the open (blackheads) or closed
(whiteheads) comedones.
2. 	Inflammatory: Inflammatory lesions include papules, pustules, and nodules.
Although most drug products for acne are intended for the broad indication of acne vulgaris,
some drug products have been developed that only target one of these two lesion subsets.
Acne is primarily a disease of adolescence and young adulthood, but can persist past the third
decade of life.
III. 	CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGN FEATURES — KEY CONSIDERATIONS
A. 	Enrollment Criteria
The study population should be defined by the following criteria:
 	A minimum number of each type of lesion: inflammatory and noninflammatory.
 	A baseline score on an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) severity scale that is
consistent with the baseline lesion counts.
 	An age of enrollment reflective of the onset of acne relative to adrenarche.
B. 	Study Design and Efficacy Endpoints
In the assessment of efficacy, sponsors should consider the following:
 	To demonstrate efficacy, we recommend conducting randomized, double-blind, well-
controlled trials that include a placebo arm.
 	Although acne occurs on the face and trunk, efficacy assessment should be limited to the
face because it is the most frequent site of involvement. However, topical drug products
can be applied to all affected areas during clinical trials.
 	We recommend that the IGA be a static evaluation of overall acne severity.
‒ 	The IGA should be an ordinal scale with approximately five severity grades (reported
only in whole numbers (e.g., 0 to 4)). Each grade should be defined by a distinct and
clinically relevant morphologic description to minimize interobserver variability. The

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
3
definitions of the severity grades should not include numerical ranges of lesions
because the IGA scale is intended to be a qualitative assessment of the subject’s
condition.
‒ 	The IGA scale should be dichotomized to success or failure, with success defined as
clear or almost clear (grade 0 or 1) and at least a two-grade improvement from
baseline; this represents a clinically meaningful outcome.
‒ 	There is no single, standardized grading system for severity of acne. We encourage
sponsors to discuss their IGA scales and study designs with the FDA before trial
implementation.
 	Inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions should be counted and reported separately.
All lesions on the face should be counted, including those on the nose.
 	The assessment of treatment effect should be based on both changes in lesion counts and
success on the IGA. Endpoints based on changes in lesion counts and IGA success
provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of acne, and thus provide useful
complementary information.
‒ 	A reduction in lesion counts may indicate improvement of acne severity; however, it
does not account for the variable expression of acne (e.g., size of lesions, intensity of
inflammation, and location of lesions). The IGA considers the quality and quantity of
the acne lesions.
‒ 	Although subjects are considered as success or failure based on the IGA with
improvement of two grades, this endpoint is not a precise measure of the magnitude
of improvement. The changes from baseline in lesion counts provide a quantitative
assessment of the improvement.
C. 	General Analysis Considerations
The statistical analysis should address the following:
 	The analysis of lesion counts can be influenced by a few extreme outliers, which may
cause difficulty in interpretation of the clinical trial findings. The statistical analysis plan
should consider alternative approaches for analysis of lesion counts if extreme outliers
are anticipated (such as analyses based on ranks).
 	For assessment of the treatment effect on inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion
counts, analysis of absolute change and percentage change from baseline are both
relevant and complementary. Absolute change in lesion counts can be affected by
subjects with large numbers of lesions at baseline, while percent change in lesion counts
can be affected by subjects with relatively small numbers of lesions at baseline. The
absolute change in lesion counts is expected to have better analysis properties, such as a
less skewed distribution. Therefore, we recommend absolute change in lesion counts for

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
4
the primary endpoint analysis, and percentage change in lesion counts for the secondary
endpoint analysis.