Randomized controlled double-blind study of a cleanser composed of 5-aminolevulinic acid and peptides on mild and moderate acne vulgaris

International expert consensus recommendations for the use of dermocosmetics in acne

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of dermocosmetics (products with both active skincare and cosmetic activity) are available for the management of acne vulgaris. These products are important because they may be the first line of approach for patients desiring to self-treat and they can also have beneficial effects-reducing lesion counts and improving global acne severity. When used in conjunction with medical therapy, dermocosmetics can improve tolerability and enhance results. We reviewed available evidence and combined it with our clinical experience to help guide clinicians in selecting skincare products with acne-targeting ingredients.

METHODS

An international panel of dermatologists with an interest and expertise in managing acne performed a literature review, formulated clinical questions related to the role of dermocosmetics in the acne setting, used a modified GRADE approach to evaluate available evidence and then utilized an online iterative Delphi process to create consensus recommendations. It should be noted that due to the limited number of available studies, the category of dermocosmetics was evaluated rather than specific ingredients.

RESULTS

The quality of evidence was found to be low to moderate. Key recommendations were made based on available evidence for the use of dermocosmetics in acne to improve acne global assessment, reduce acne lesion counts, reduce superficial skin oiliness and serve as maintenance therapy after medical treatment, while providing a good tolerability. Recommendations were also made for using dermocosmetics as adjuncts to medical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is a need for better quality evidence, dermocosmetics have demonstrated some benefit for acne both when used alone in its milder clinical presentations or in maintenance post acne medication and as adjunct to acne treatments.

Topical, light-based, and complementary interventions for acne: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Acne is a chronic inflammatory and immune-mediated disease of the pilosebaceous unit (the skin structure consisting of a hair follicle and its associated sebaceous gland). It is characterised by non-inflammatory lesions (open and closed comedones) and inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, nodules, and cysts). Lesions may be present on the face, thorax, and back, with variable severity. Acne exhibits a global distribution and has a growing prevalence. Acne vulgaris is the most common form. Acne gives rise to complications such as scars and can seriously affect people's mental health, especially those with severe acne. Acne has a huge impact on the quality of life and self-esteem of those affected.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of non-systemic pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions (physical therapy and complementary therapies) in the treatment of acne vulgaris and related skin complications.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, and Embase to 2 December 2021, and checked the reference lists of included reviews. At least two authors were responsible for screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. We excluded reviews with high risk of bias as assessed with the ROBIS tool. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence according to GRADE (as carried out by the authors of the included reviews or ourselves). We provide comprehensive evidence from the review data, including summary of findings tables, summary of results tables, and evidence maps.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved and assessed a total of 733 records; however, only six reviews (five Cochrane reviews and one non-Cochrane review) with low risk of bias met the overview inclusion criteria. The six reviews involved 40,910 people with acne from 275 trials and 1316 people with acne scars from 37 trials. The age of the participants ranged from 10 to 59 years, with an average age range from 18 to 30 years. Four reviews included original trials involving only female participants and three reviews included original trials with only male participants. Main results for clinically important comparisons: Benzoyl peroxide versus placebo or no treatment: In two trials involving 1012 participants over 12 weeks, benzoyl peroxide may reduce the total (mean difference (MD) -16.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.51 to -5.78), inflammatory (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.02 to -1.22), and non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -9.69, 95% CI -15.08 to -4.29) when compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials including 1073 participants (time point: 10 and 12 weeks) suggested benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect in improving participants' global self-assessment compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that benzoyl peroxide may improve investigators' global assessment (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28; 6 trials, 4110 participants, long-term treatment (12 weeks)) compared to placebo. Thirteen trials including 4287 participants over 10 to 12 weeks suggested benzoyl peroxide may increase the risk of a less serious adverse event compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). Benzoyl peroxide versus topical retinoids: Benzoyl peroxide may increase the percentage change in total lesion count compared to adapalene (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 10.8, 95% CI 3.38 to 18.22; 1 trial, 205 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence). When compared to adapalene, benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect on the following outcomes (long-term treatment): percentage change in inflammatory lesion counts (MD -7.7, 95% CI -16.46 to 1.06; 1 trial, 142 participants, 11 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), percentage change in non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -3.9, 95% CI -13.31 to 5.51; 1 trial, 142 participants, 11 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), participant's global self-assessment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 4 trials, 1123 participants, 11 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence), investigators' global assessment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37; 3 trials, 1965 participants, 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence), and incidence of a less serious adverse event (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, 1573 participants, 5 trials, 11 to 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence). Benzoyl peroxide versus topical antibiotics: When compared to clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect on the following outcomes (long-term treatment): total lesion counts (MD -3.50, 95% CI -7.54 to 0.54; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), inflammatory lesion counts (MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.99 to 0.59; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -2.4, 95% CI -5.3 to 0.5; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), participant's global self-assessment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 trial, 240 participants, 10 weeks; low-certainty evidence), investigator's global assessment (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.45; 2 trials, 2277 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of a less serious adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.64; 5 trials, 2842 participants, 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). For these clinically important comparisons, no review collected data for the following outcomes: frequency of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event or quality of life. No review collected data for the following comparisons: topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, topical retinoids versus placebo or no treatment, or topical retinoids versus topical antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview summarises the evidence for topical therapy, phototherapy, and complementary therapy for acne and acne scars. We found no high-certainty evidence for the effects of any therapy included. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews related to acne and acne scars had limitations (low methodological quality). We could not summarise the evidence for topical retinoids and topical antibiotics due to insufficient high-quality systematic reviews. Future research should consider pooled analysis of data on new emerging drugs for acne treatment (e.g. clascoterone) and focus more on acne complications.

A randomized prospective study of low-dose isotretinoin alone and combination with salicylic acid and mandelic peel against acne tarda

BACKGROUND

Acne tarda (AT) is typically known as adult acne and most preferably affected 25-45 age groups. Used isotretinoid mono-therapy is not effective and also produces side effects from long treatment.

AIM

The present study assesses the effectiveness of combined treatment of oral isotretinoid with topical chemical peeling (20% salicylic and 10% mandelic acid known as SM peeling) by a comparative double-blind randomized single-center interventional open-label study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total fifty-eight participants AT outpatients (25-45 age-groups) attending for diagnosis in two groups and effectiveness of proposed combined treatments were determined at baseline and follow-up within 4weeks interval. Briefly group A (n=28) received 0.5 mg/kg of oral isotretinoin once daily for sixteen weeks and group B (n=30) received the same oral dose, addition with SM peeling every four weeks interval for sixteen weeks. After four weeks, treatment efficacy was assessed based on Michelson's acne severity index (MASI) and visual analog scale (VAS), further validated using statistical tools.

RESULTS

Based on MASI and VAS scores, combined treatment was significantly effective than the monotherapy. The pre- and post-treatment analyses of response to scarring, inflammatory components at baseline and at the end of treatment were also statistically significant with p>0.008.

CONCLUSION

The above investigation revealed that the combination of oral isotretinoin with SM peeling was highly effective and could be used as newer therapy against AT without any serious side effects.

Efficacy of a New Non-drug Acne Therapy: Aloe Vera Gel Combined With Ultrasound and Soft Mask for the Treatment of Mild to Severe Facial Acne

Background: Acne is a chronic disorder that affects almost 80% of adolescents and young adults, causing psychological and emotional distress. However, the current treatments for acne are either ineffective or have many side effects. This study was designed to confirm and objectively quantify the effect of a new non-drug combined therapy on acne. Methods: This study innovatively utilized ultrasound, which enhanced the absorption of aloe vera gel, and soft mask to make a purely physical method without any drugs. In both the treatment group and control group, the number of papules/pustules and the area of hyperpigmented lesions were counted, and a smart mirror intelligent face system was used before and after the combined therapy. Alterations in the skin functional index were recorded and analyzed statistically. Results: In the treatment group, the combined therapy significantly reduced the number of papules and the area of hyperpigmented lesions and improved skin roughness and local blood circulation. In the control group, there was no obvious improvement over 2 months. Conclusion: This study suggests that the new non-drug combined therapy significantly improved acne, which provided experimental evidence and treatment guidance for patients with mild to severe acne, especially patients with moderate acne. This new therapy may possibly be an appropriate method for patients who seek topical treatments with mild side effects and low antibiotic resistance rates.