Submitted:
17 November 2025
Posted:
18 November 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design and Ethical Considerations
2.2. Tested Product and Concomitant Treatment
2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Outcome Measures
- the number of lesions localized in the affected area. Il should be the primary outcome in the main double-blind randomized study which is planned in the future.
- Total Severity Score (TSS). It was obtained by adding up the intensity of each specific clinical sign; the intensity was graded on a 4-point scale from "absent" to "severe".
- Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires. It was assessed in accordance with a 4-point scale with responses ranging from "very satisfied" to "not satisfied."
- Global Assessment of Performance (GAP). To assess this outcome, an Investigator who was not involved in the patient visits, evaluated in a blind manner the photos taken by the investigator who visited the patient. The GAP was evaluated using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (very good) to 4 (poor performance).
- Quality of life (QoL). It was evaluated using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), which uses a total score ranging from 0 to 30. Scores of 0–1 indicate no effect; 2–5, a small effect; 6–10, a moderate effect; 11–20, a very large effect; and 21–30, an extremely large effect.
- Safety has been evaluated by collecting all Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), comparing and evaluating them with the number of affected patients. The evaluation included related AEs, possibly related to or not evaluable. The incidence, type, and severity of AEs or SAEs were summarized in frequency tables using MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) terms.
- Additional safety data were collected using the Investigator Global Assessment of Safety (IGAS) and the Patient Global Assessment of Safety (PGAS) assessments, which employed a 4-point scale, ranging from "very good safety" to "poor safety."
2.5. Sample Size and Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Recruitment Rate and Duration of Enrolment
3.2. Patients’ Characteristics
3.3. Choice of Outcomes
3.4. Patients Disposition and Characteristics
3.5. Total Number of Lesions
3.6. Total Severity Score
3.7. Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire
3.8. Investigator Global Assessment of Performance
3.9. Dermatology Life Quality Index
3.10. Safety
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Ethical Statement
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Financial support
Disclosures
Trial Registration Number
References
- Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):e10-e52.
- Zha M, Usatine R. Common skin conditions in children and adolescents: bacterial infections. FP Essent. 2024;541:14-19.
- Veraldi S, Micali G, Berardesca E, et al. Results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of a hydrogen peroxide–based kit versus a benzoyl peroxide–based kit in mild-to-moderate acne. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016;9:50-54.
- Stefancu ME, Barattini DF, Botnaru I, et al. Performance and safety of the medical device Ialuxid Gel in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: an open-label, noncomparative multicenter clinical trial. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24:e70084.
- Lin HS, Lin PT, Tsai YS, Wang SH, Chi CC. Interventions for bacterial folliculitis and boils (furuncles and carbuncles). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2:CD013099.
- Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:64.
- Pereira H, Sousa DA, Cunha A, et al. Hyaluronic acid. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1059:137-153.
- Salwowska NM, Bebenek KA, Żądło DA, Wcisło-Dziadecka DL. Physiochemical properties and application of hyaluronic acid: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2016;15:520-526.
- Keen, MA. Hyaluronic acid in dermatology. Skinmed. 2017;15:441-448.
- Kapoor P, Kumar S. Hydrogen peroxide in dermatology. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2023;89:310-312.
- Milani M, Bigardi A, Zavattarelli M. Efficacy and safety of stabilized hydrogen peroxide cream (Crystacide) in mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: a randomized, controlled trial versus benzoyl peroxide gel. Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19:135-138.
- Inoue K, Takei K, Denda M. Functional glycine receptor in cultured human keratinocytes. Exp Dermatol. 2015;24:307-309.
- Billingham SA, Whitehead AL, Julious SA. An audit of sample sizes for pilot and feasibility trials registered in the UK Clinical Research Network. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:104.




| Characteristics at baseline | Overall | Female | Male | p | |
|
Age (years) |
N | 13 | 9 | 4 | 0.429* |
| Mean (SD) | 30.1 (7.72) | 28.9 (7.36) | 32.8 (8.96) | ||
| Median | 29 | 24 | 32 | ||
| Range | [22 - 44] | [22 - 41] | [23 - 44] | ||
|
Weight (kg) |
N | 13 | 9 | 4 | NR |
| Mean (SD) | 74.5 (18.6) | 68.4 (16.0) | 88.3 (18.2) | ||
| Median | 75 | 73 | 81.5 | ||
| Range | [50 - 115] | [50 - 95] | [75 - 115] | ||
|
Height (cm) |
N | 13 | 9 | 4 | NR |
| Mean (SD) | 170.3 (7.47) | 166.7 (4.53) | 178.5 (6.24) | ||
| Median | 170 | 167 | 179.5 | ||
| Range | [158 - 185] | [158 - 173] | [170 - 185] | ||
|
Body Mass Index (kg/m2) |
N | 13 | 9 | 4 | 0.334* |
| Mean (SD) | 25.44 (4.97) | 24.51 (5.26) | 27.54 (4.09) | ||
| Median | 25.26 | 24.39 | 25.94 | ||
| Range | [19.05 - 34.06] | [19.05 - 34.06] | [24.66 - 33.6] | ||
|
Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) |
N | 13 | 9 | 4 | 0.209* |
| Mean (SD) | 118.5 (14.5) | 115.0 (14.1) | 126.3 (13.8) | ||
| Median | 115 | 110 | 127.5 | ||
| Range | [90 - 140] | [90 - 140] | [110 - 140] | ||
|
Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) |
N | 13 | 9 | 4 | 0.800* |
| Mean (SD) | 77.5 (8.53) | 77.9 (10.01) | 76.5 (4.73) | ||
| Median | 80 | 80 | 78 | ||
| Range | [60 - 90] | [60 - 90] | [70 - 80] | ||
| Heart rate (bpm) | N | 13 | 9 | 4 | 0.118** |
| Mean (SD) | 76.9 (10.51) | 72.4 (4.88) | 87.0 (13.52) | ||
| Median | 72 | 70 | 90 | ||
| Range | [68 - 100] | [68 - 80] | [68 - 100] |
| Day 0 Visit | Day 56 ±4 Visit | p | |
| N Mean (SD) Median Range |
13 | 13 | 0.005* |
| 57.8 (60.3) | 17.7 (29.5) | ||
| 20 | 5 | ||
| [2 - 179] | [0 - 108] |
|
Day 0 Visit |
Day 28 ±2 Visit |
Day 56 ±4 Visit |
p | |
| N | 13 | 13 | 13 | < 0.001* |
| Mean (SD) | 2.31 (0.95) | 1.54 (1.69) | 0.77 (0.60) | |
| Median | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| Range | [1 - 5] | [0 - 3] | [0 - 2] |
| Does folliculitis affect the patient's life? | Day 0 Visit | Day 56 ±4 Visit |
| No effect | 1 (7.7%) | 7 (53.8%) |
| Small effect | 3 (23.1%) | 5 (38.5%) |
| Moderate eff. | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Large effect | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Very large eff. | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Extremely large effect | 1 7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).