Prioritizing treatment outcomes: How people with acne vulgaris decide if their treatment is working

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT

Background

Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking.

Objective

To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women.

Design

Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial.

Setting

Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising).

Participants

Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment.

Interventions

Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator's Global Assessment; Participant's Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness.

Results

Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator's Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator's Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics.

Conclusions

Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne.

METHODS

A work group conducted a systematic review and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations.

RESULTS

This guideline presents 18 evidence-based recommendations and 5 good practice statements. Strong recommendations are made for benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline. Oral isotretinoin is strongly recommended for acne that is severe, causing psychosocial burden or scarring, or failing standard oral or topical therapy. Conditional recommendations are made for topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, and azelaic acid, as well as for oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptive pills, and spironolactone. Combining topical therapies with multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining systemic antibiotics with topical therapies, and adding intralesional corticosteroid injections for larger acne lesions are recommended as good practice statements.

LIMITATIONS

Analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time of the systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne vulgaris.

Patient Perspectives on the Lived Experience of Acne and Its Treatment Among Adult Women With Acne: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

Acne often persists into adulthood in women. However, few studies have specifically explored the lived experience of acne in adult populations.

Objective

To examine the lived experience of acne and its treatment among a cohort of adult women.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A qualitative analysis was conducted from free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews of patients at a large academic health care system (University of Pennsylvania Health System) and a private practice (Dermatologists of Southwest Ohio). Fifty women 18 to 40 years of age with moderate to severe acne participated in interviews conducted between August 30, 2019, and December 31, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Free-listing data from interviews were used to calculate the Smith S, a measure of saliency for each list item. Semistructured interviews were examined to detect themes about patient perspectives regarding their acne and its treatment.

Results

Fifty participants (mean [SD] age, 28 [5.38] years; 24 [48%] White) described acne-related concerns about their appearance that affected their social, professional, and personal lives, with many altering their behavior because of their acne. Depression, anxiety, and social isolation were commonly reported. Participants described successful treatment as having completely clear skin over time or a manageable number of blemishes. Many participants described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this qualitative study suggest that women with acne have strong concerns about appearance and experience mental and emotional health consequences and disruption of their personal and professional lives. In addition, many patients describe challenges finding effective treatments and accessing care. Future trials to understand the optimal treatment approaches for women with acne are needed to improve outcomes in this population.

Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs)

OBJECTIVES

To examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods validation study.

SETTING

Participants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.

PARTICIPANTS

221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18-50 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Quantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.74-0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88-0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman's correlation coefficients 0.54-0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.

CONCLUSIONS

All PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial.