Reviewing the global burden of acne: how could we improve care to reduce the burden? Layton A M,Thiboutot D,Tan J The British journal of dermatology Acne (also known as acne vulgaris) remains the most common inflammatory dermatosis treated worldwide, as estimated by global skin disease prevalence studies. Latest reports suggest that the prevalence may be increasing in adolescents and adults, particularly female adults. The concept of 'burden of skin disease' is multidimensional and can be difficult to quantify in light of different healthcare systems across the globe. In acne, the resulting burden may vary according to patient demographics, access to treatments and duration of the disease. The visible nature of acne, symptoms and sequelae all contribute physically and psychosocially to the overall burden of disease, as do the costs required for management. Acne typically presents in adolescence at a time of significant transition. Profound effects on functional status have been demonstrated, along with a strong impact on interpersonal relationships, social functioning and mental health. The high prevalence of acne also presents an economic burden for society. The widespread and prolonged use of antibiotics introduces a potential added burden through resulting antimicrobial resistance. A James Lind Alliance Acne Priority Setting Partnership has identified numerous areas to inform future research, which would help to improve acne management and reduce the burden. The lack of standardized assessments is a major issue in acne trials and challenges the ability to compare treatments and perform meta-analyses. This paper reviews the current literature on burden of acne, identifies areas of treatment uncertainties and summarizes the work of the Acne Core Outcome Research Network as a means of supporting a reduction in the burden of disease. 10.1111/bjd.19477
    Dairy intake and acne development: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Aghasi Mohadeseh,Golzarand Mahdieh,Shab-Bidar Sakineh,Aminianfar Azadeh,Omidian Mahsa,Taheri Fatemeh Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) BACKGROUND & AIMS:In the past, some observational studies have been carried out on the relationship between milk and dairy intake and risk of acne occurrence; however, their results were conflicting. This study is a meta-analysis and dose-response analysis designed to evaluate the relationship between milk and dairy products and acne development. MATERIALS & METHODS:Data of the study were searched and collected from Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Study design, sex, age, exposure (i.e. dairy, milk, yogurt, cheese), dietary assessment method, acne ascertainment, total sample size, number of total subjects and cases in each category of exposure intake, OR, RR and PR with 95% CI in each category of exposure intake and adjusted variables were extracted. RESULTS:Highest compared with lowest category of dairy (OR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.20 to 5.67), total milk (OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.66), low-fat milk (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.43) and skim milk (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.47) intake significantly was associated with the presence of acne. Results of dose-response analysis revealed a significant linear relationship between dairy, whole milk and skim milk and risk of acne and nonlinear association between dairy, milk, low-fat milk and skim milk intake and acne. CONCLUSION:In this meta-analysis we found a positive relationship between dairy, total milk, whole milk, low-fat and skim milk consumption and acne occurrence. In contrary, no significant association between yogurt/cheese and acne development was observed. 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.04.015
    Pregnancy outcomes following first-trimester exposure to topical retinoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaplan Y C,Ozsarfati J,Etwel F,Nickel C,Nulman I,Koren G The British journal of dermatology Evaluation of human data regarding the outcomes of topical-retinoid-exposed pregnancies is important in terms of counselling pregnant women with inadvertent exposure. The objective of this study was thus to determine whether exposure to topical retinoids leads to an increase in the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We carried out a search using the Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 4 December 2014. The selection, review and quality assessment of the studies were carried out by two independent reviewers according to predetermined inclusion criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by the random effects method. This meta-analysis, including a total of 654 pregnant women who were exposed to topical retinoids, and 1375 unexposed control pregnant women, did not detect significant increases in rates of major congenital malformations [OR 1·22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·65-2·29], spontaneous abortions (OR 1·02, 95% CI 0·64-1·63), stillbirth (OR 2·06, 95% CI 0·43-9·86), elective termination of pregnancy (OR 1·89, 95% CI 0·52-6·80), low birthweight (OR 1·01, 95% CI, 0·31-3·27) or prematurity (OR 0·69, 95% CI 0·39-1·23). No significant heterogeneity was detected among the studies for the evaluated outcomes. The present meta-analysis ruled out a major increase in the rates of major congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, low birthweight and prematurity. This result may be used primarily in reassuring women who were inadvertently exposed to topical retinoids during their pregnancy. However, the statistical power is not adequate to justify the use of topical retinoids during pregnancy. 10.1111/bjd.14053
    A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene 0.1% gel versus tretinoin 0.025% gel in patients with acne vulgaris: a meta-analysis of five randomized trials. Cunliffe W J,Poncet M,Loesche C,Verschoore M The British journal of dermatology The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine if adapalene 0.1% gel (Differin) provided superior efficacy and better tolerability than tretinoin 0.025% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris. All comparative studies, both published and unpublished, from the United States and Europe, that fulfilled rigorous protocol criteria (multicentre, randomized, investigator-blind) were used. Five comparative studies met these criteria. In total, the meta-analysis evaluated 900 patients (450 treated with adapalene 0.1% gel, 450 treated with tretinoin 0.025% gel) with mild-to-moderate acne from the combined clinical trials. To avoid study bias, the meta-analysis used an intention-to-treat analysis. Statistical methodology for the meta-analysis included analysis of covariance, analysis of variance and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. All statistical tests were two-sided, with the 0.05 probability level used to establish statistical significance, and 95% confidence intervals used to assess equivalence. Adapalene demonstrated equivalent efficacy to tretinoin in terms of reducing total lesion count. Adapalene demonstrated more rapid efficacy, as evidenced by a significant difference in the reduction of inflammatory and total lesions at week 1. Adapalene also demonstrated considerably greater local tolerability at all evaluation periods. The findings from this meta-analysis suggest that adapalene 0.1% gel constitutes a pharmacologic advance over such classic retinoids as tretinoin for the treatment of acne vulgaris. 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.1390s2048.x
    Light therapies for acne: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments. Barbaric J,Abbott R,Posadzki P,Car M,Gunn L H,Layton A M,Majeed A,Car J The British journal of dermatology We undertook a Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of light-based interventions for acne vulgaris. We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Web of Science and grey literature sources (September 2015). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group approach to assess the quality of evidence (QoE). We included 71 RCTs (4211 participants, median sample size 31). Results from a single study (n = 266, low QoE) showed little or no difference in effectiveness on participants' assessment of improvement between 20% aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) photodynamic therapy (PDT), activated by blue light, vs. vehicle plus blue light, whereas another study (n = 180) comparing ALA-PDT (red light) concentrations showed that 20% ALA-PDT was no more effective than 15% ALA-PDT but better than 10% and 5% ALA-PDT. Pooled data from three studies (n = 360, moderate QoE) showed that methyl aminolaevulinate PDT, activated by red light, had a similar effect on changes in lesion counts vs. placebo cream with red light. Several studies compared yellow light with placebo or no treatment, infrared light with no treatment, gold microparticle suspension with vehicle and clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide (C/BPO) combined with pulsed dye laser with C/BPO alone. None of these showed any clinically significant effects. Most studies reported adverse effects, but inadequately, with scarring reported as absent, and blistering only in studies on intense pulsed light, infrared light and PDT (very low QoE). Carefully planned studies, using standardized outcome measures and common acne treatments as comparators, are needed. 10.1111/bjd.15495
    Laser and other light therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: systematic review. Hamilton F L,Car J,Lyons C,Car M,Layton A,Majeed A The British journal of dermatology BACKGROUND:Acne is common and can lead to scarring of the skin, as well as to psychological distress and reduced self-esteem. Most topical or oral treatments for acne are inconvenient and have side-effects. Laser and other light therapies have been reported to be convenient, safe and effective in treating acne. OBJECTIVES:To carry out a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of light and laser therapies for acne vulgaris. METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, LILACS, ISI Science Citation Index and Dissertation Abstracts International for relevant published trials. RESULTS:We identified 25 trials (694 patients), 13 of light therapy and 12 of light therapy plus light-activated topical cream (photodynamic therapy, PDT). Overall, the results from trials of light alone were disappointing, but the trials of blue light, blue-red light and infrared radiation were more successful, particularly those using multiple treatments. Red-blue light was more effective than topical 5% benzoyl peroxide cream in the short term. Most trials of PDT showed some benefit, which was greater with multiple treatments, and better for noninflammatory acne lesions. However, the improvements in inflammatory acne lesions were not better than with topical 1% adapalene gel, and the side-effects of therapy were unacceptable to many participants. CONCLUSIONS:Some forms of light therapy were of short-term benefit. Patients may find it easier to comply with these treatments, despite the initial discomfort, because of their short duration. However, very few trials compared light therapy with conventional acne treatments, were conducted in patients with severe acne or examined long-term benefits of treatment. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09047.x
    Ovarian surgery for symptom relief in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Lepine Sam,Jo Junyoung,Metwally Mostafa,Cheong Ying C The Cochrane database of systematic reviews BACKGROUND:Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine condition, affecting approximately one in 10 women. PCOS is defined by two of three features: oligo- or anovulation, clinical or biochemical hyperandrogenism or both, or polycystic ovaries.Women with PCOS can have a wide range of health problems, including infrequent and irregular periods, unwanted hair growth and acne, and subnormal fertility. Long-term health concerns include an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and the development of precancerous disease of the womb. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness and harms of ovarian surgery as a treatment for symptomatic relief of hirsutism, acne and menstrual irregularity in PCOS. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception to 17 October 2016). We handsearched citation lists, registers of ongoing trials and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing ovarian drilling in comparison to no treatment, medical treatment, or other forms of surgical treatment for the symptoms of PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were improvement in menstrual regularity and androgenic symptoms of PCOS (hirsutism, acne); the secondary outcome measures included harms, change of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, androgen levels, metabolic measures and quality of life. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS:We included 22 RCTs (2278 women analyzed) of participants with PCOS and symptoms of acne, hirsutism or irregular menstrual cycles, all of which included laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) as an intervention.Two studies reported their funding source (Farquhar 2002 - supported in part by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation; Sarouri 2015 - the authors thank the Vice Chancellor for Research of Guilan University of Medical Sciences for funding this project).The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality. The main limitations were imprecision associated with the low number of studies, inconsistency and risk of bias associated with the inability to blind participants. There were too few studies to assess risk of publication bias. Menstrual RegularityTwo studies compared LOD versus metformin (n=226) but no conclusions could be drawn with regard to menstrual regularity, as their findings were inconsistent and they were unsuitable for pooling. There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when LOD was compared with medical treatment including metformin + clomiphene (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, 2 studies, 332 women, I = 13%, low-quality evidence), letrozole (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.84, 1 study, 260 women, low-quality evidence), or metformin + letrozole (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81, 1 study, 146 women, low-quality evidence). However, one study reported that LOD was superior to gonadotrophin (OR 19.2, 95% CI 3.17 to 116.45, 1 study, 35 women, very low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when bilateral unipolar LOD was compared to unilateral LOD (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.71, 2 studies, 104 women, I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, 1 study, 147 women, low-quality evidence), LOD using adjusted thermal dose in accordance with the ovarian volume (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.14, 1 study, 115 women, low-quality evidence) or bipolar LOD (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57, 1 study, 18 women, low-quality evidence).Four to five punctures per ovary may improve the rate of women reporting menstrual regularity compared with two or fewer (OR 16.04, 95% CI 4.19 to 61.34, 2 studies, 73 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Androgenic SymptomsThere was probably little or no difference in improvement in androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to metformin (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.37, 1 study, 126 women, moderate-quality evidence) or gonadotrophins; acne (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.94, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence), hirsutism (OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.22 to 23.89, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in improvement of androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD, with respect to hirsutism (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.91, 1 study, 39 women, low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.50, 1 study, 31 women, low-quality evidence). HarmsLOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than metformin plus clomiphene (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36, 2 studies, 332 women, I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). One study suggested little or no difference in rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between LOD and gonadotrophins (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.61, 1 study, 33 women, low-quality evidence).There were fewer adhesions with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy compared to LOD (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, 1 study, 246 women, moderate-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in adhesions when variable energy LOD was compared with standard LOD (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.88, 1 study, 64 women, low-quality evidence). Another study (44 women) reported that none of the women who returned for surgery following either traditional or unilateral LOD were found to have adhesions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There was no clear evidence that LOD improves menstrual regularity or the androgenic symptoms of PCOS, compared to most of the medical treatments used in the included studies. LOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects compared to metformin and clomiphene.There was also no clear evidence of different effectiveness between types of LOD, except that LOD with four to five punctures per ovary may be more effective than two or fewer punctures. There was little evidence comparing LOD with different types of surgery, although one study concluded that transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy had a lower risk of adhesions than LOD.There was evidence from one small study of benefit from LOD compared to gonadotrophins for menstrual regulation. However, gonadotrophins are seldom used for this indication. 10.1002/14651858.CD009526.pub2
    Minocycline for acne vulgaris: efficacy and safety. Garner Sarah E,Eady Anne,Bennett Cathy,Newton John Norman,Thomas Karen,Popescu Catalin Mihai The Cochrane database of systematic reviews BACKGROUND:Minocycline is an oral antibiotic used for acne vulgaris. Its use has lessened due to safety concerns (including potentially irreversible pigmentation), a relatively high cost, and no evidence of any greater benefit than other acne treatments. A modified-release version of minocycline is being promoted as having fewer side-effects. OBJECTIVES:To assess new evidence on the effects of minocycline for acne vulgaris. SEARCH METHODS:Searches were updated in the following databases to November 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched trials registers and checked reference lists for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).The Cochrane Skin Group's Trials Search Co-ordinator undertook searches exploring minocycline's adverse effects in EMBASE and MEDLINE in February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing minocycline, at any dose, to an active or a placebo control, in participants with inflammatory acne vulgaris. For adverse effects, we selected additional studies that reported the number of adverse effects and the number of participants treated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Outcome measures used in the trials included lesion counts, acne grades/severity scores, doctors' and participants' global assessments, adverse effects, and dropout rates. Two authors independently assessed the quality of each study. Effect sizes were calculated, and meta-analyses were undertaken where possible.Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for the review of adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS:We included 12 new RCTs for this update, giving a total of 39 RCTs (6013 participants). These additional 12 RCTs have not changed the original conclusions about the clinical efficacy of minocycline.The identified RCTs were generally small and poor quality. Meta-analysis was rarely possible because of the lack of data and different outcome measures and trial durations. Although minocycline was shown to be an effective treatment for moderate to moderately-severe acne vulgaris, there was no evidence that it is better than any of the other commonly-used acne treatments. One company-sponsored RCT found minocycline to be less effective than combination treatment with topical erythromycin and zinc. No trials have been conducted using minocycline in those participants whose acne is resistant to other therapies. Also, there is no evidence to guide what dose should be used.The adverse effects studies must be interpreted with caution. The evidence suggests that minocycline is associated with more severe adverse effects than doxycycline. Minocycline, but not other tetracyclines, is associated with lupus erythematosus, but the risk is small: 8.8 cases per 100,000 person-years. The risk of autoimmune reactions increases with duration of use. The evidence does not support the conclusion that the more expensive extended-release preparation is safer than standard minocycline preparations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Minocycline is an effective treatment for moderate to moderately-severe inflammatory acne vulgaris, but there is still no evidence that it is superior to other commonly-used therapies. This review found no reliable evidence to justify the reinstatement of its first-line use, even though the price-differential is less than it was 10 years ago. Concerns remain about its safety compared to other tetracyclines. 10.1002/14651858.CD002086.pub2
    Laboratory Monitoring During Isotretinoin Therapy for Acne: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Lee Young H,Scharnitz Thomas P,Muscat Joshua,Chen Allshine,Gupta-Elera Gaytri,Kirby Joslyn S JAMA dermatology IMPORTANCE:Oral isotretinoin has been associated with several adverse effects, but evidence-based estimates of laboratory changes during isotretinoin therapy in large patient samples are limited. OBJECTIVE:To develop estimates of the laboratory changes that occur during isotretinoin therapy for acne using extant data and meta-analytic methods. DATA SOURCES:A comprehensive search strategy using Ovid/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and gray literature was conducted (1960-August 1, 2013) to identify all relevant studies of isotretinoin use in acne vulgaris. Terms related to acne treatment, isotretinoin, and diagnostic procedures were searched with all available synonyms. STUDY SELECTION:Inclusion criteria consisted of clinical trials using oral isotretinoin, doses of 40 mg/d or more, duration of at least 4 weeks, patients aged 9 to 35 years with acne vulgaris, and 10 or more participants. Studies from all countries published in any language were included. Exclusion criteria were use of modified isotretinoin products, isotretinoin therapy for conditions other than acne vulgaris, and concomitant acne therapy. The initial search yielded 342 records; 116 of these were screened for full-text examination. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two authors independently reviewed the publications to determine eligibility, and disagreements were resolved by a third author. Generated weighted means and 99% CIs were calculated using the reported means (SDs or SEs). A random effects model was created, and statistical heterogeneity was quantified. Data were analyzed from August 25, 2014, to December 4, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Laboratory values for lipid levels, hepatic function, and complete blood cell count were evaluated. RESULTS:Data from 61 of the 116 studies were evaluated; 26 studies (1574 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The mean (99% CI) values during treatment (nonbaseline) for triglycerides was 119.98 mg/dL (98.58-141.39 mg/dL); for total cholesterol, 184.74 mg/dL (178.17-191.31 mg/dL); for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 109.23 mg/dL (103.68-114.79 mg/dL); for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 42.80 mg/dL (39.84-45.76 mg/dL); for aspartate aminotransferase, 22.67 U/L (19.94-25.41 U/L); for alanine aminotransferase, 21.77 U/L (18.96-24.59 U/L); for alkaline phosphatase, 88.35 U/L (58.94-117.76 U/L); and for white blood cell count, 6890/µL (5700/µL-8030/µL). This meta-analysis showed that (1) isotretinoin is associated with a statistically significant change in the mean value of several laboratory tests (white blood cell count and hepatic and lipid panels), yet (2) the mean changes across a patient group did not meet a priori criteria for high-risk and (3) the proportion of patients with laboratory abnormalities was low. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The evidence from this study does not support monthly laboratory testing for use of standard doses of oral isotretinoin for the standard patient with acne. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.3091
    Isotretinoin treatment for acne and risk of depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Huang Yu-Chen,Cheng Ying-Chih Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology BACKGROUND:The relationship between isotretinoin treatment for acne and depression is controversial. Quantitative analysis has not yet been conducted. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a meta-analysis, evidence-based examination of the relationship between isotretinoin and depression. METHOD:A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature published from inception to September 30, 2016, was conducted. Controlled or prospective non-controlled trials on ≥15 acne patients receiving isotretinoin treatment were included. The prevalence of depression and change in depression scores were calculated. RESULT:Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. In the controlled studies, the change in depression scores from baseline was not significantly different between patients receiving isotretinoin treatment and those receiving an alternative treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.334, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.680 to 0.011). The prevalence of depression after isotretinoin treatment significantly declined (relative risk [RR] 0.588, 95% CI 0.382-0.904). The mean depression scores significantly decreased from baseline (SMD -0.335, 95% CI -0.498 to -0.172). LIMITATIONS:No randomized controlled trials were reviewed; a large inter-study variation was observed. CONCLUSIONS:Isotretinoin treatment for acne does not appear to be associated with an increased risk for depression. Moreover, the treatment of acne appears to ameliorate depressive symptoms. 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.028
    Platelet-rich plasma and its utility in the treatment of acne scars: A systematic review. Hesseler Michael J,Shyam Nikhil Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology The field of dermatology has seen numerous therapeutic innovations in the past decade, with platelet-rich plasma recently garnering significant interest in acne scarring. This review consolidates the available evidence on platelet-rich plasma for the practicing dermatologist and evaluates the current evidence up to May 31, 2018. A search was conducted in the PubMed database for the terms platelet-rich plasma or platelet releasate or platelet gel or PRP and dermatology or skin or acne or scar or cutaneous, with 13 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of each individual study was evaluated, and levels of evidence were assigned according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom. This review reveals that activated, leukocyte- and platelet-rich plasma in combination with fractional ablative laser treatment administered in 2 or 3 sequential sessions 1 month apart improves the appearance of acne scars. The evidence for the use of platelet-rich plasma with microneedling is less supportive. Because of the heterogeneity of the studies and widely variable outcome measures, comparison between platelet-rich plasma treatments and subsequent statistical analysis could not be performed. Although these studies use various subjective and objective evaluation methods, the addition of platelet-rich plasma provides improvements in acne scarring, higher patient satisfaction, and decreased postprocedure downtime. 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.11.029
    Oral Antibacterial Therapy for Acne Vulgaris: An Evidence-Based Review. Bienenfeld Amanda,Nagler Arielle R,Orlow Seth J American journal of clinical dermatology BACKGROUND:To some degree, acne vulgaris affects nearly every individual worldwide. Oral antibiotic therapy is routinely prescribed for the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory acne; however, long-term use of oral antibiotics for acne may have unintended consequences. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to provide a systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the efficacy and appropriate use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne. METHODS:A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of oral antibiotics for acne. Overall, 41 articles that examined oral antibiotics compared with placebo, another oral therapy, topical therapy, alternate dose, or duration were included in this study. RESULTS:Tetracyclines, macrolides, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole are effective and safe in the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory acne. Superior efficacy of one type or class of antibiotic could not be determined, therefore the choice of antibiotic is generally based on the side-effect profile. Although different dosing regimens have been studied, there is a lack of standardized comparator trials to determine optimal dosing and duration of each oral antibiotic used in acne. The combination of oral antibiotics with a topical therapy is superior to oral antibiotics alone. CONCLUSION:This article provides a systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence of the efficacy of oral antibiotics for acne. Due to heterogeneity in the design of the trials, there is insufficient evidence to support one type, dose, or duration of oral antibiotic over another in terms of efficacy; however, due to increasing resistance to antibiotics, dermatologists should heed consensus guidelines for their appropriate use. 10.1007/s40257-017-0267-z
    Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Chen Xiaomei,Wang Sheng,Yang Ming,Li Li BMJ open OBJECTIVE:We evaluated current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effectiveness of chemical peeling for treating acne vulgaris. METHODS:Standard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE via OvidSP through April 2017. Reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. RESULTS:Twelve RCTs (387 participants) were included. Effectiveness was not significantly different: trichloroacetic acid versus salicylic acid (SA) (percentage of total improvement: risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), glycolic acid (GA) versus amino fruit acid (the reduction of inflammatory lesions: mean difference (MD), 0.20; 95% CI -3.03 to 3.43), SA versus pyruvic acid (excellent or good improvement: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.69), GA versus SA (good or fair improvement: RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.18), GA versus Jessner's solution (JS) (self-reported improvements: RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.44 to 2.26), and lipohydroxy acid versus SA (reduction of non-inflammatory lesions: 55.6%vs48.5%, p=0.878). Combined SA and mandelic acid peeling was superior to GA peeling (percentage of improvement in total acne score: 85.3%vs68.5%, p<0.001). GA peeling was superior to placebo (excellent or good improvement: RR 2.30; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.77). SA peeling may be superior to JS peeling for comedones (reduction of comedones: 53.4%vs26.3%, p=0.001) but less effective than phototherapy for pustules (number of pustules: MD -7.00; 95% CI -10.84 to -3.16). LIMITATIONS:The methodological quality of the included RCTs was very low to moderate. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the significant clinical heterogeneity across studies. CONCLUSION:Commonly used chemical peels appear to be similarly effective for mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and well tolerated. However, based on current limited evidence, a robust conclusion cannot be drawn regarding any definitive superiority or equality among the currently used chemical peels. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify optimal regimens. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019607
    Meta-analysis comparing efficacy of antibiotics versus oral contraceptives in acne vulgaris. Koo Eubee Baughn,Petersen Tyler Daniel,Kimball Alexandra Boer Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology BACKGROUND:Both antibiotics and oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) have been found to be effective in managing acne vulgaris. Despite widespread use, few direct comparisons of efficacy between the 2 modalities have been published. OBJECTIVE:We compared the efficacy of antibiotics and OCPs in managing acne. METHODS:A meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane collaboration guidelines. RESULTS:A review of 226 publications yielded 32 randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria. At 3 and 6 months, compared with placebo, both antibiotics and OCPs effected greater percent reduction in inflammatory, noninflammatory, and total lesions; the 2 modalities at each time point demonstrated statistical parity, except that antibiotics were superior to OCPs in percent reduction of total lesions at 3 months (weighted mean inflammatory lesion reduction: 3-month course of oral antibiotic treatment = 53.2%, 3-month course of OCPs = 35.6%, 3-month course of placebo treatment = 26.4%, 6-month course of oral antibiotic treatment = 57.9%, 6-month course of OCPs = 61.9%, 6-month course of placebo treatment = 34.2%; weighted mean noninflammatory lesion reduction: 3-month course of oral antibiotic treatment = 41.9%, 3-month course of OCPs = 32.6%, 3-month course of placebo treatment = 17.1%, 6-month course of oral antibiotic treatment = 56.4%, 6-month course of OCPs = 49.1%, 6-month course of placebo treatment = 23.4%; weighted mean total lesion reduction: 3-month course of oral antibiotic treatment = 48.0%, 3-month course of OCPs = 37.3%, 3-month course of placebo treatment = 24.5%, 6-month course of oral antibiotic treatment = 52.8%, 6-month course of OCPs = 55.0%, 6-month course of placebo treatment = 28.6%). LIMITATIONS:Investigative treatment heterogeneity and publication bias are limitations. CONCLUSIONS:Although antibiotics may be superior at 3 months, OCPs are equivalent to antibiotics at 6 months in reducing acne lesions and, thus, may be a better first-line alternative to systemic antibiotics for long-term acne management in women. 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.051
    The effects of green tea on acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Kim Sooyoung,Park Tae H,Kim Woo I,Park Suyeon,Kim Jae H,Cho Moon K Phytotherapy research : PTR Green tea extract (GTE) has been studied for the treatment of acne based on its anti-inflammatory/antioxidant properties. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of GTE on acne. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to August 2019. The effect size of acne lesion counts is presented as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five randomized-controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis (N; experimental = 125, control = 122). GTE significantly reduced the number of inflammatory lesions (-9.38; 95% CI: -14.13 to -4.63). In subgroup analysis, topical GTE application significantly reduced the inflammatory lesion counts (-11.39; 95% CI: -15.91 to -6.86) whereas oral GTE intake showed minimal effect (-1.40; 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.30). Although GTE did not significantly reduce the number of non-inflammatory lesions (-21.65; 95% CI: -47.52 to 4.22), when stratified by the route of admission, non-inflammatory acne lesions were significantly reduced by topical GTE application (-32.44; 95% CI: -39.27 to -25.62) but not with oral GTE administration (0.20; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.40). This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that topical GTE application is beneficial for the treatment of acne without causing significant adverse events while oral GTE intake has limited effects. Further high-quality clinical trials are warranted. 10.1002/ptr.6809
    Blue-Light Therapy for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Scott Anna Mae,Stehlik Paulina,Clark Justin,Zhang Dexing,Yang Zuyao,Hoffmann Tammy,Mar Chris Del,Glasziou Paul Annals of family medicine PURPOSE:Antibiotic use in acne treatment raises concerns about increased resistance, necessitating alternatives. We assessed the effectiveness of blue-light therapy for acne. METHODS:We analyzed randomized controlled trials comparing blue light with nonlight interventions. Studies included people of any age, sex, and acne severity, in any setting, and reported on investigator-assessed change in acne severity, patients' assessment of improvement, change in inflammatory or noninflammatory lesions, and adverse events. Where data were sufficient, mean differences were calculated. RESULTS:Eighteen references (14 trials) including 698 participants were included. Most of the trials were small and short (<12 weeks) and had high risk of bias. Investigator-assessed improvement was quantitatively reported in 5 trials, of which 3 reported significantly greater improvement in blue light than comparator, and 2 reported improvement. Patients' assessments of improvement were quantitatively reported by 2 trials, favoring blue light. Mean difference in the mean number of noninflammatory lesions was nonsignificant between groups at weeks 4, 8, and 10-12 and overall (mean difference [MD] = 3.47; 95% CI, -0.76 to 7.71; = 0.11). Mean difference in the mean number of inflammatory lesions was likewise nonsignificant between groups at any of the time points and overall (MD = 0.16; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.31; = 0.78). Adverse events were generally mild and favored blue light or did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSION:Methodological and reporting limitations of existing evidence limit conclusions about the effectiveness of blue light for acne. Clinicians and patients should therefore consider the balance between its benefits and adverse events, as well as costs. 10.1370/afm.2445
    Acne vulgaris and risk of depression and anxiety: A meta-analytic review. Samuels Danielle V,Rosenthal Robert,Lin Rick,Chaudhari Soham,Natsuaki Misaki N Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology BACKGROUND:Several studies have shown an association of acne vulgaris with depression and anxiety, but a quantitative review has not yet been conducted. OBJECTIVE:We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis that elucidates the association of acne vulgaris with depression and anxiety. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis of literature published before October 1, 2019 from the PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases was conducted. We used a metaanalytic approach to perform a random effects analysis comparing individuals with and without acne. Subgroup analyses between studies included age, study setting, and geographic region. RESULTS:Forty-two studies were included. We found a significant association of acne vulgaris with depression (r = 0.22 [95% confidence interval 0.17-0.26, P < .00001]) and anxiety (r = 0.25 [95% confidence interval 0.19-0.31, P < .00001]). Subgroup analyses and comparisons showed moderating influences based on factors including age, study setting, and geographic region. LIMITATIONS:Inconsistency between publications regarding acne and outcome ascertainment, data reporting, and studies with no control group posed considerable barriers to synthesizing all available published literature. CONCLUSIONS:Because of an increased risk for depression and anxiety, clinicians should pursue aggressive treatment of acne and consider psychiatric screening or referrals. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.040