A Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Study of Topical Silymarin vs 2% Hydroquinone Cream in Melasmas

December 2022 | Volume 21 | Issue 12 | 1304 | Copyright © December 2022


Published online December 5, 2022

Penpun Wattanakrai MD, Kulsupa Nimmannitya MD

Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Background: Hydroquinone is effective in melasma treatment, but side effects may limit its use. Silymarin cream may be a safer alternative. Objective: To compare the efficacy of 1.4% silymarin with 2% hydroquinone for melasma treatment in Asians.
Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, split-face study of 25 patients with epidermal or mixed-type melasma, the facial sides were randomized for the application of silymarin cream on one side and hydroquinone on the contralateral side for 3 months. Results were evaluated using a colorimeter, modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI) score, and patient self-assessment.
Results: Twenty-three patients completed the study. Colorimetric measurements calculated as relative lightness index (RL*I) showed no statistical difference between the 2 treatments (P=0.715). Compared with baseline, both treatments showed statistically significant improvements of RL*I, with 14.56% and 12.82% improvement in silymarin and hydroquinone, respectively. Modified MASI scores decreased after both treatments but were only statistically significant on the hydroquinone side, achieving 17.97% reduction (P=0.02) vs 7.11% (P=0.32) on the silymarin side. There was no statistically significant difference of the RL*I and modified MASI between the 2 treatments (P>0.05). Patients' assessment of hydroquinone treatment showed a 69.6% good-excellent improvement with a visual analog scale (VAS) satisfaction score of 7.82, compared with silymarin showing a 73.9 % good-excellent improvement and VAS score of 7.65 (P=0.50). More adverse effects occurred with the hydroquinone.
Conclusion: Although hydroquinone showed a better response, topical silymarin was effective in the treatment of epidermal and mixed-type melasma with fewer side effects.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(12):1304-1310. doi:10.36849/JDD.6491

INTRODUCTION

Melasma is a common cause of acquired facial hyperpigmentation. Although the etiology is not entirely established, multiple factors such as genetic susceptibility, ultraviolet (UV) exposure, pregnancy, sex hormones, contraceptive pills, cosmetics, and medications have been identified as contributing factors. Adequate UV protection and topical lightening agents are considered as first-line treatments for melasma, with the best therapeutic results achieved in epidermal melasma. Chemical peels and laser/light-based therapies are most often reserved as second- and third-line approaches.1-4

Hydroquinone used as monotherapy or in triple combination creams is the most popular and effective topical treatment for melasma. However, adverse effects from hydroquinone such as contact dermatitis, irritation, leukoderma, and ochronosis highlight the need for safer alternatives for melasma treatment.1-3

Topical silymarin has been reported to be safe and effective in melasma.5-8 Silymarin is a natural polyphenolic flavonoid derived from milk thistle seeds (Silybum marianum). It is a mixture of 3 structural components: silibinin, silydianin, and silychristin. Silibinin is the main component and the most biologically active, with potent antioxidant properties.9 Previous literature has demonstrated cutaneous protection effects of silymarin such as anti-inflammation and the reduction of UV-induced oxidative stress, apoptosis, and DNA damage.9-11 Moreover, silymarin demonstrates inhibition of melanogenesis without toxic effects and inhibits L-DOPA oxidation activity of tyrosinase.12 These properties of silymarin could be beneficial as a topical treatment in melasma. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of 1.4% silymarin with 2% hydroquinone for the treatment of epidermal and mixed-type melasma.

STUDY DESIGN

This split-face, double-blind randomized study was approved by the Ramathibodi Institutional Ethical Committee Review Board on May 22, 2017, Certificate No. MURA 2017/267; and conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and all its revisions. Written informed consent was obtained from patients before enrollment.