Cysteamine vs. Kligman’s formula
Early in 2021, Karrabi et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 50 subjects with epidermal melasma to compare cysteamine 5% with Modified Kligman’s formula. Over 4 months, participants applied once daily either cysteamine cream 5% (15 minutes exposure) or the Modified Kligman’s formula (4% hydroquinone, 0.05% retinoic acid and 0.1% betamethasone) for whole night exposure. At 2 and 4 months, a statistically significant difference in mMASI score was noted, with the percentage decline in mMASI score nearly 9% higher in the cysteamine group. The investigators concluded that cysteamine 5% demonstrated greater efficacy than the Modified Kligman’s formula and was also better tolerated.12
Cysteamine vs. tranexamic acid
Later that year, Karrabi et al. published the results of a single-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of tranexamic acid mesotherapy compared with cysteamine 5% cream in 54 melasma patients. For 4 consecutive months, the cysteamine 5% cream group applied the cream on lesions 30 minutes before going to sleep. Every 4 weeks until 2 months, a physician performed tranexamic acid mesotherapy (0.05 mL; 4 mg/mL) on individuals in the tranexamic acid group. The researchers concluded, after measurements using both a Dermacatch device and the mMASI, that neither treatment was significantly better than the other but fewer complications were observed in the cysteamine group.13
Safety
In 2022, Sepaskhah et al. assessed the effects of a cysteamine 5% cream and compared it with HQ 4%/ascorbic acid 3% cream for epidermal melasma in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Sixty-five of 80 patients completed the study. The difference in mMASI scores after 4 months was not significant between the groups nor was the improvement in quality of life, but the melanin index was significantly lower in the HQ/ascorbic acid group compared with the less substantial reduction for the cysteamine group. Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that cysteamine is a safe and suitable substitute for HQ/ascorbic acid.4
Conclusion
In the last decade, cysteamine has been established as a potent depigmenting agent. Its suitability and desirability as a top consideration for melasma treatment also appears to be compelling. More RCTs comparing cysteamine and other topline therapies are warranted, but current evidence shows that cysteamine is an effective and safe therapy for melasma.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Konar MC et al. J Trop Pediatr. 2020 Apr 1;66(2):129-35.
2. Niazi S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;21(9):3867-75.
3. González-Molina V et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 May;15(5):19-28.
4. Sepaskhah M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Jul;21(7):2871-8.
5. Desai S et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021 Dec 1;20(12):1276-9.
6. Mansouri P et al. Br J Dermatol. 2015 Jul;173(1):209-17.
7. Farshi S et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Mar;29(2):182-9.
8. Austin E et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Nov 1;18(11):S1545961619P1156X.
9. Gomes dos Santos-Neto A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2022 Dec;35(12):e15961.
10. Lima PB et al. Int J Dermatol. 2020 Dec;59(12):1531-6.
11. Nguyen J et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2021 Feb;62(1):e41-e46.
12. Karrabi M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Jan;27(1):24-31.
13. Karrabi M et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 Sep;313(7):539-47.