Classification of acne scars is difficult even for acne experts

Beyond the Surface: A Deeper Look at the Psychosocial Impacts of Acne Scarring

Post-acne scarring is a common consequence of acne vulgaris with no universal cure. Although there have been many recent advances to address acne scars physically, there is still a lack of research that investigates their psychosocial impacts. Our comprehensive PubMed search presents an overview of existing information to highlight known sources of mental distress caused by post-acne scarring, both related to and independent of the psychosocial detriments caused early on by active acne. The literature indicates that acne scarring is a distinct condition from acne vulgaris and therefore requires a comprehensive clinical approach unique from those available for active acne.

Energy-based devices for the treatment of acne scars: 2021 international consensus recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Acne scars are one of the most distressing and long-term consequences of acne vulgaris, with damaging effect on a person's physical, mental, and social well-being. Numerous treatment options are available including surgical and nonsurgical techniques, depending on the clinical presentation. Although considerable advances in the development of new treatment technologies and applications have been made in the last decade, international treatment guidelines and reimbursement schemes have not yet caught up with current knowledge and practice in many centers. The authors intend to highlight the potential utility of energy-based devices (EBDs) for acne scarring, offer recommendations for safe and efficacious treatment, and provide consensus-based EBD treatment options based on varying presentations demonstrated in a series of real-life clinical photographs.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

An international panel of 24 dermatologists and plastic surgeons from 12 different countries and a variety of practice backgrounds was self-assembled to develop updated consensus recommendations for the treatment of acne scars. A two-step modified Delphi method took place between March 2020 and February 2021 consisting of two rounds of emailed questionnaires. The panel members approved the final manuscript via email correspondence.

RESULTS

The manuscript includes a comprehensive discussion and panel recommendations regarding the following topics: 1. the role of EBD in mitigating and treating acne scars in a patient with active acne, 2. the use of various EBDs for the treatment of different acne scar types with special focus on commonly used laser platform such as vascular lasers, ablative fractional lasers (AFLs) and non-AFLs (NAFLs), 3. treatment combinations, and 4. acne scar treatments in skin of color. The last part comprised of 10 photos of real-life clinical cases with the panel recommendation treatment plan to achieve best aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSION

Panel members were unanimous in their view that EBDs have a role in the management of acne scars, with AFLs, NAFLs, vascular lasers, and RF devices preferentially selected by most of the panel experts. EBDs are considered a first-line treatment for a variety of acne scar types and patients without access to these treatments may not be receiving the best available care for optimal cosmetic results. Future high-quality research and updated international treatment guidelines and reimbursement schemes should reflect this status.

Treatment of Atrophic Facial Acne Scars With Microneedling Followed by Polymethylmethacrylate-Collagen Gel Dermal Filler

BACKGROUND

Microneedling and soft-tissue filler injections have been used independently to improve acne scarring. The effectiveness of a combined approach using microneedling followed by polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-collagen gel has not been carefully studied.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of microneedling alone versus microneedling followed by injection of PMMA-collagen gel filler for correction of atrophic facial acne scars.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized, prospective study on subjects with distensible atrophic acne scars in the face to determine whether microneedling with PMMA-collagen gel is a superior acne scar treatment over microneedling alone. Forty-four subjects received 3 microneedling treatments over a 12-week period followed by randomization to treatments with PMMA-collagen gel (treatment group) or no further treatment (control group).

RESULTS

At 24 weeks, the treatment group achieved a statistically significant improvement in acne scores over microneedling alone. The improvement continued at 36 weeks. At 24 weeks, the treatment group showed a strong trend in improvement on the Physician Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale compared with microneedling alone.

Practical management of acne for clinicians: An international consensus from the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne

Scientific advances are continually improving the knowledge of acne and contributing to the refinement of treatment options; it is important for clinicians to regularly update their practice patterns to reflect current standards. The Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne is an international group of dermatologists with an interest in acne research and education that has been meeting regularly since 2001. As a group, we have continuously evaluated the literature on acne. This supplement focuses on providing relevant clinical guidance to health care practitioners managing patients with acne, with an emphasis on areas where the evidence base may be sparse or need interpretation for daily practice.

Acne scars in 18-year-old male adolescents: a population-based study of prevalence and associated factors

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a pilosebaceous follicle disorder affecting over 85% of adolescents to some degree. It frequently causes psychological distress that may persist into adulthood due to scarring. Little information about post-acne scarring epidemiology is available.

OBJECTIVES

To describe prevalence, distribution patterns and associated factors of acne scarring in young males, drawing on a representative population sample from a southern Brazilian city.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was undertaken during presentation for military service, which is compulsory for all 18-year-old males. A questionnaire was applied, covering topics like diet, smoking habits, ethnicity, family structure, socio-economic level, as well as specific questions about active acne and resulting scars. Dermatologists conducted the clinical examination.

RESULTS

A total of 2,201 male adolescents were interviewed and examined. The overall prevalence of acne scarring was 22%. The malar region was the most frequently involved, present in 80% of affected individuals, followed by the frontal region (31.5%), back (17%), anterior chest (8.2%) and mentonian region (6.4%). Correlation between the intensity of clinical acne and the presence of scars was found, but no association was observed with educational level, smoking, ethnicity, obesity or socio-economic status.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of acne scars among this population. This is the first study to ascertain a correlation between acne scarring and factors such as socio-economic status and educational level. The direct relation between acne severity and scarring indicates that prompt and effective treatment is the best way to reduce scarring.

The efficacy and safety of subcision using CO2 gas combined with fractional laser for acne scars: Clinical and microscopic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Various modalities have been used to treat acne scars. CO₂ fractional laser is an effective and commonly used treatment. CO₂ gas injection into the dermis by needle with high pressure can cause fibrotic collagen breakage, producing the effects of subcision. CO₂ also stimulates collagen synthesis by increasing neovascularization and releasing oxygen.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the efficacy and the safety of the combined treatment with CO₂ gas subcision and CO₂ fractional laser for acne scars.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fourteen patients with acne scars were treated with three sessions of CO₂ gas subcision at 2-week intervals and two sessions of fractional laser at 4-week interval. The clinical improvement was assessed using a 4-point scale. For histologic analysis, punch biopsy was performed before and after treatment in 10 patients.

RESULTS

All patients experienced clinical improvements. Excellent, marked, moderate, and mild response was achieved in 1 (7%), 8 (57%), 4 (29%), and 1 patient (7%), respectively. Histologic evaluation of the biopsy specimens showed increased dermal collagen with dermal thickening and elastic fiber straightening in the reticular dermis after the treatment.

CONCLUSION

The combination therapy with CO₂ gas subcision and fractional laser was satisfactory and safe for treating acne scars. Abbreviation and acronym: CO₂: Carbon dioxide GAS: Global assessment scale H&E: hematoxylin and eosin; SD: standard deviation.

Interventions for acne scars

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.

New Patient-Oriented Tools for Assessing Atrophic Acne Scarring

Introduction

Scarring on visible areas such as the face is associated with negative psychological impact. Many patients with acne have clinically relevant scarring for which they seek treatment, implying that there is an impact on their lives. Currently there are no validated tools to assess the burden of atrophic acne scarring from the patient’s perspective or to assess treatment benefit.

Methods

Two patient-reported outcome measures, the self-assessment of clinical acne-related scars (SCARS) and the facial acne scar quality of life (FASQoL) tools, both specific to facial atrophic acne scarring, were developed according to Food and Drug Administration guidance methodology. Patient interviews were conducted first to elicit patient-important concepts about scarring, then to validate patients’ understanding of wording in the tools. These tools focus on symptoms (SCARS) and psychological and social well-being (FASQoL) and were designed to be suitable for self-completion and to be rapidly completed (2–5 min) within a clinical research setting.

Results

Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 30 subjects and cognitive interviews with 20 subjects. With acne scarring, important concepts for patients included size, surface area affected, counts, and depth. The SCARS and FASQoL tools were shown to address relevant concepts that were easily understood by patients.

Conclusion

Two patient-reported measures, SCARS and FASQoL, have been developed to help clinicians assess the severity and impact of acne scars. Responsivity of these instruments to treatment will require further evaluation.

Funding

Galderma R&D, Sophia Antipolis, France.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-016-0098-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial of suspended polymethylmethacrylate microspheres for the correction of atrophic facial acne scars

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring remains a stubborn clinical problem. Few treatments have been shown to be definitely effective for this problem. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) microspheres in collagen (ArteFill, Suneva Medical Inc, Santa Barbara, CA) have shown long-term benefit for nasolabial fold treatment. A pilot study has shown benefit for PMMA-collagen in atrophic acne scarring.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of PMMA-collagen for acne scarring in a controlled, blinded trial.

METHODS

Subjects with at least 4 moderate to severe rolling, atrophic scars randomly received PMMA-collagen or saline injections. Subjects underwent up to 2 injection sessions and were followed up for 6 months. Efficacy was assessed using a validated rating scale for each scar.

RESULTS

In all, 147 subjects underwent injections. Success was achieved by 64% of those treated with PMMA-collagen compared with 33% of control subjects (P = .0005). The treatment showed excellent safety with generally mild, reversible adverse events. No significant differences in efficacy or safety were noted between genders, for darker skin types, or in older age groups.

LIMITATIONS

Subjects were followed up for only 6 months.

CONCLUSION

PMMA-collagen demonstrates substantial effectiveness in the treatment of atrophic acne scars of the face while maintaining an excellent safety profile. Further follow-up should be undertaken to demonstrate longer-term benefit and safety.